NHS Trust allowing harassment of staff via parking charges

[200Plus Club]

our local trust make over £1m per year from parking charges which does go into the budget towards services etc. this is made up of staff permits and public parking, and is after the cut taken by the private parking company (amount unknown) is taken for management.

[Devil2575]

Gavia said:

A disciplinary process can result in dismissal without people being abusive. It normally involves 4 strikes and you're out. Verbal, written, final written, dismissal are the normal stages.

It can but it doesn't have to. You can use a formal process to remove someones parking privillages, which if unions are involved is probabaly a good idea.

To be honest I'm not suggesting that anyone lose their job on the basis of poor parking alone, and I'm not sure why you think that is what I'm saying either.

The reason I brought up the abuse angle was because that was cited by another poster (not sure if it was you or not) as a reason why people may not wish to confront their collegues over parking issues. I was responding to that point, that abuse no matter what the reason is unacceptable and a disciplinary matter.

The system we have isn't flawed or inferior to using a PPC because it works. By and large people don't take the piss and those that do come into line quickly without getting abusive or having their parking rights removed. It also doesn't take up much management time either because the majority of problems are dealt with via an email from the office secretary. I don't know of anyone who has abused her to date despite being at a lower level within the organisation than the majority of the office occupants.

Edited by Devil2575 on Thursday 6th October 17:01

[Cainey]

I got a ticket for parking in a disabled parking bay at Aintree Hospital once. I had an appointment which I had turned up for 20 mins early and drove around their car park looking for a space for ages. To get out of the car park you had to validate the ticket inside and pay whatever the charge was so I was a bit stuck. I couldn't park and I couldn't leave and I was no late for my appointment. So I had little choice but to park in the disabled bay. There were dozens of these available so chose the furthest one I could.
I went for my appointment and obviously I had a ticket waiting for me. I ignored it and all of the other crap they send and eventually they actually took me to court. I defended myself on the grounds that the charge was not equal to any of their losses (to which I asked them to provide a full list of but they wouldn't provide). The judge agreed with me and I didn't pay a penny. They tried to appeal saying that it would be chaos in the car park. The judge laughed at them and said no.

[Devil2575]

Cainey said:

I got a ticket for parking in a disabled parking bay at Aintree Hospital once. I had an appointment which I had turned up for 20 mins early and drove around their car park looking for a space for ages. To get out of the car park you had to validate the ticket inside and pay whatever the charge was so I was a bit stuck. I couldn't park and I couldn't leave and I was no late for my appointment. So I had little choice but to park in the disabled bay. There were dozens of these available so chose the furthest one I could.
I went for my appointment and obviously I had a ticket waiting for me. I ignored it and all of the other crap they send and eventually they actually took me to court. I defended myself on the grounds that the charge was not equal to any of their losses (to which I asked them to provide a full list of but they wouldn't provide). The judge agreed with me and I didn't pay a penny. They tried to appeal saying that it would be chaos in the car park. The judge laughed at them and said no.

And this is exactly the type of situation that should never have been allowed to get this far. At least at my local hospital they use a card system that counts cars in and out so it knows if there are spaces or not. You don't get in if there are no free spaces.

[Pete317]

Gavia said:

Pete317 said:

Gavia said:

Pete317 said:

Taking ownership of one's mistakes, in this context, used to mean parking up somewhere and having a word with the site manager.
It shouldn't mean having to shell out a sizeable chunk of your day's pay to some intransigent leech!

And my employer, indeed most reasonable employers, do provide adequate staff parking facilities when and where needed.
If you can't look after your employees' basic workplace requirements then don't hire them.

Too much hyperbole in that first sentence.

As for the rest, I have never worked for a company that provided a parking space for everyone. You've attempted to dodge the question with your choice of words. So let's have another attempt.

Do you believe that an employer should provide a parking space for every member of staff? If not, how to you define "adequate staff parking facilities"?

You're trying to put words in my mouth - I only ever mentioned adequate parking and never suggested, or even alluded to, parking for everyone.

What's to say the OP's friend's employer doesn't provide adequate parking? That's a hugely subjective word, so would need some defining. However, plenty of employers don't provide any staff parking at all, what's your view on that? Is the employer being unreasonable?

The person originally being discussed is a low level employee. That's not being dismissive, it's saying that as a nurse on a ward there are a huge amount of them needed in a hospital and providing free parking for all levels is nigh on impossible.

My exact words were "adequate staff parking facilities when and where needed"
A lot of employers, particularly those in urban areas, don't need to provide parking.
But, if parking is provided and necessary, then there should be an adequate amount. If there are constant problems with staff being unable to park, then the parking provision is clearly inadequate.

And why do you keep on about free parking? Nobody said anything about free parking.

[Gavia]

Pete317 said:

My exact words were "adequate staff parking facilities when and where needed"
A lot of employers, particularly those in urban areas, don't need to provide parking.
But, if parking is provided and necessary, then there should be an adequate amount. If there are constant problems with staff being unable to park, then the parking provision is clearly inadequate.

And why do you keep on about free parking? Nobody said anything about free parking.

The whole thread is about free parking. That's what started the discussion. If you insist on going off on tangents then the discussion becomes prettynwell impossible to follow. On that note I, really struggling with what you're saying.

You want adequate parking, but not parking for all. It is unreasonable for an employer not to provide this, but you won't define what is adequate and therefore reasonable. Now you're saying they should pay for it as well.

I'm lost.

[Pete317]

Gavia said:

Pete317 said:

My exact words were "adequate staff parking facilities when and where needed"
A lot of employers, particularly those in urban areas, don't need to provide parking.
But, if parking is provided and necessary, then there should be an adequate amount. If there are constant problems with staff being unable to park, then the parking provision is clearly inadequate.

And why do you keep on about free parking? Nobody said anything about free parking.

The whole thread is about free parking. That's what started the discussion. If you insist on going off on tangents then the discussion becomes prettynwell impossible to follow. On that note I, really struggling with what you're saying.

You want adequate parking, but not parking for all. It is unreasonable for an employer not to provide this, but you won't define what is adequate and therefore reasonable. Now you're saying they should pay for it as well.

I'm lost.

As you seem to be wilfully misrepresenting what I say, I can only conclude that you're only interested in scoring points and not in discussion.
Therefore I have nothing further to say to you.

[Gavia]

Pete317 said:

Gavia said:

Pete317 said:

My exact words were "adequate staff parking facilities when and where needed"
A lot of employers, particularly those in urban areas, don't need to provide parking.
But, if parking is provided and necessary, then there should be an adequate amount. If there are constant problems with staff being unable to park, then the parking provision is clearly inadequate.

And why do you keep on about free parking? Nobody said anything about free parking.

The whole thread is about free parking. That's what started the discussion. If you insist on going off on tangents then the discussion becomes prettynwell impossible to follow. On that note I, really struggling with what you're saying.

You want adequate parking, but not parking for all. It is unreasonable for an employer not to provide this, but you won't define what is adequate and therefore reasonable. Now you're saying they should pay for it as well.

I'm lost.

As you seem to be wilfully misrepresenting what I say, I can only conclude that you're only interested in scoring points and not in discussion.
Therefore I have nothing further to say to you.

I'm trying to understand your position, but admit I am struggling. There is no points scoring. Please feel free to explain it to me as simply as you like, as I'm clearly not that bright.

[Pete317]

Gavia said:

Pete317 said:

Gavia said:

Pete317 said:

My exact words were "adequate staff parking facilities when and where needed"
A lot of employers, particularly those in urban areas, don't need to provide parking.
But, if parking is provided and necessary, then there should be an adequate amount. If there are constant problems with staff being unable to park, then the parking provision is clearly inadequate.

And why do you keep on about free parking? Nobody said anything about free parking.

The whole thread is about free parking. That's what started the discussion. If you insist on going off on tangents then the discussion becomes pretty well impossible to follow. On that note I, really struggling with what you're saying.

You want adequate parking, but not parking for all. It is unreasonable for an employer not to provide this, but you won't define what is adequate and therefore reasonable. Now you're saying they should pay for it as well.

I'm lost.

As you seem to be wilfully misrepresenting what I say, I can only conclude that you're only interested in scoring points and not in discussion.
Therefore I have nothing further to say to you.

I'm trying to understand your position, but admit I am struggling. There is no points scoring. Please feel free to explain it to me as simply as you like, as I'm clearly not that bright.

You accuse me of going off on tangents, but you're the only one who's doing so.

Try reading things properly before jumping to conclusions.

For example, despite your assertion, there's not a single instance of the word "free" in the OP

[Gavia]

Pete317 said:

Gavia said:

Pete317 said:

Gavia said:

Pete317 said:

My exact words were "adequate staff parking facilities when and where needed"
A lot of employers, particularly those in urban areas, don't need to provide parking.
But, if parking is provided and necessary, then there should be an adequate amount. If there are constant problems with staff being unable to park, then the parking provision is clearly inadequate.

And why do you keep on about free parking? Nobody said anything about free parking.

The whole thread is about free parking. That's what started the discussion. If you insist on going off on tangents then the discussion becomes pretty well impossible to follow. On that note I, really struggling with what you're saying.

You want adequate parking, but not parking for all. It is unreasonable for an employer not to provide this, but you won't define what is adequate and therefore reasonable. Now you're saying they should pay for it as well.

I'm lost.

As you seem to be wilfully misrepresenting what I say, I can only conclude that you're only interested in scoring points and not in discussion.
Therefore I have nothing further to say to you.

I'm trying to understand your position, but admit I am struggling. There is no points scoring. Please feel free to explain it to me as simply as you like, as I'm clearly not that bright.

You accuse me of going off on tangents, but you're the only one who's doing so.

Try reading things properly before jumping to conclusions.

For example, despite your assertion, there's not a single instance of the word "free" in the OP

Any chance you could define the word adequate in the sense of "it's unreasonable for an employer not to provide adequate parking"

I'll keep asking no matter how often you pick on something else and head off in your own direction. You can define it whether the parking is free or not.

Edited by Gavia on Thursday 6th October 18:52

[Countdown]

Devil2575 said:

What happens in any situation when an employee ignore their line manager and then HR?

It depends how important to the business the management request is.

Devil2575 said:

In this situation you would remove their parking rights.

The entire problem (in this situation) is that they're not parking in accordance with their rights. So removing them isn't going to solve the issue. However, getting fined by the parking management company, and related hassles, might make them learn to park properly

Devil2575 said:

But, as I've said it before, if line managers can't make their reports follow the rules then you have an issue.

Plus ca change.... however your proposed remedy in this situation is a serious sledgehammer for a relatively small nut.

[Countdown]

Pete317 said:

My exact words were "adequate staff parking facilities when and where needed"
A lot of employers, particularly those in urban areas, don't need to provide parking.
But, if parking is provided and necessary, then there should be an adequate amount. If there are constant problems with staff being unable to park, then the parking provision is clearly inadequate.

And why do you keep on about free parking? Nobody said anything about free parking.

The bit in bold is ludicrous. Just because an employer is able to provide "some" parking, doesn't mean that he has to (or is able to) provide "adequate parking". Employers can't manage extra spaces out of thin air. Leased offices quite often have X number of spaces, when there are 3X or 4X staff. [In some offices there arent even enough desks for all the staff, let alone parking spaces].

[Red Devil]

Gavia said:

Your process is far more flawed than the current approach. We're never going to agree though and no matter how much you believe it to be unfair, there are others on this topic who think it is fair.

The issue with the current approach is not that it is wrong in principle but those to whom the job is outsourced have very little concept of the word fair. Both S11Steve and I have explained why: it's all to do with the business model the majority of PPCs use.

One poster mentioned NHS Trusts making a substantial income from parking. That is primarily from charging visitors and out-patients for doing so. Most expect you to guess up-front how long you're going to be there which is anything but fair. The last time I needed to keep an appointment with a NHS consultant I was told I had to be there at 9.30 and would have been turned away if I had been late: it was 12.15 by the time I made it through the door to his room. I knew I might have to wait, but nearly 3 hours? Give me a break. However my car was off the road having some repair work done at the time so I went by train and walked the rest of the way. I'm reasonably fit so it wasn't an issue. For someone with mobility or breathing issues it would have been out of the question.

The original post was about staff parking in a car park with a barrier operated by a swipe card. A completely different kettle from the above.

[Devil2575]

Countdown said:

...however your proposed remedy in this situation is a serious sledgehammer for a relatively small nut.

Except it isn't a proposed remedy, it's how it works at my current employer and it works just fine. In fact it works so well that to the best of my knowledge no one has ever been banned from driving on site. In fact i'd go as far to say we do not have a parking problem at all.

[Pete317]

Countdown said:

Pete317 said:

My exact words were "adequate staff parking facilities when and where needed"
A lot of employers, particularly those in urban areas, don't need to provide parking.
But, if parking is provided and necessary, then there should be an adequate amount. If there are constant problems with staff being unable to park, then the parking provision is clearly inadequate.

And why do you keep on about free parking? Nobody said anything about free parking.

The bit in bold is ludicrous. Just because an employer is able to provide "some" parking, doesn't mean that he has to (or is able to) provide "adequate parking". Employers can't manage extra spaces out of thin air. Leased offices quite often have X number of spaces, when there are 3X or 4X staff. [In some offices there arent even enough desks for all the staff, let alone parking spaces].

I don't do ludicrous, so you're reading it wrong/out of context

In a nutshell, nobody has to provide parking, but if your situation is such that your employees need parking and it's not there then you have problems.
The whole point is, if you're having chronic parking problems then it's likely that you either have too many employees, or you're in the wrong premises.
Either way, it's hardly the fault of your employees.

[Gavia]

Red Devil said:

Gavia said:

Your process is far more flawed than the current approach. We're never going to agree though and no matter how much you believe it to be unfair, there are others on this topic who think it is fair.

The issue with the current approach is not that it is wrong in principle but those to whom the job is outsourced have very little concept of the word fair. Both S11Steve and I have explained why: it's all to do with the business model the majority of PPCs use.

One poster mentioned NHS Trusts making a substantial income from parking. That is primarily from charging visitors and out-patients for doing so. Most expect you to guess up-front how long you're going to be there which is anything but fair. The last time I needed to keep an appointment with a NHS consultant I was told I had to be there at 9.30 and would have been turned away if I had been late: it was 12.15 by the time I made it through the door to his room. I knew I might have to wait, but nearly 3 hours? Give me a break. However my car was off the road having some repair work done at the time so I went by train and walked the rest of the way. I'm reasonably fit so it wasn't an issue. For someone with mobility or breathing issues it would have been out of the question.

The original post was about staff parking in a car park with a barrier operated by a swipe card. A completely different kettle from the above.

They may not understand the word fair, but equally they may be instructed to apply absolutes, or have no instruction not to. This aspect is what's blocking your view and meaning you can't see the other side of the fence, which may be equally at fault. There is no need to explain how they work, I know how they work.

Paying for parking at NHS sites isn't ideal, but it's here to stay. I agree guessing the length of stay is a challenge, but in my experience the parking tends not to be extortionately priced and you can get a lot of hours parking for not a lot of money. However, I apprecIate this may not be the same for all hospitals.

Going back to the swipe card staff car park, I can't see why you're struggling wth this though. Plucking some example numbers out of thin air. There may be 500 staff wanting to park in a 150 space car park. All have swipe card access, but it's done on a first come, first parked basis. Over a 24/7 period then it's unlikely that all 500 will be there at once, but it's highly likely at certain points there will be more demand than supply and bottlenecks on shift changes.

Once 150 are parked, then it's inconsiderate of staff member 151+ to park there and these will be the ones being fined / penalised / charged, or whatever word you want to use. Equally they may be fining / penalising / charging anyone in the 150 who is parking badly and straddling white lines, thus occupying two spaces.

I don't see why it's unfair to penalise these people, as they are not following the rules laid down. It equally would be unreasonable to expect an employer to provide a full 500 spaces as most would sit empty most of the time.

[Countdown]

Pete317 said:

I don't do ludicrous, so you're reading it wrong/out of context

In a nutshell, nobody has to provide parking, but if your situation is such that your employees need parking and it's not there then you have problems.
The whole point is, if you're having chronic parking problems then it's likely that you either have too many employees, or you're in the wrong premises.
Either way, it's hardly the fault of your employees.

Why would I be employing MORE people than I needed to?

I cant move my premises for various reasons the main one being that I need to be in the town centre where my customers can get to me easily, where we have excellent transport links (bus, tram, park and ride). There's even a NCP car park nearby. But people want to use their own cars and people want to pay as little as possible. Which is fair enough. The problem is a minority think its ok to take somebody else's parking space. It's selfish behavior, plain and simple.

[For the avoidance of doubt the above describes a former employer, not my current one ]

[Countdown]

Devil2575 said:

Countdown said:

...however your proposed remedy in this situation is a serious sledgehammer for a relatively small nut.

Except it isn't a proposed remedy, it's how it works at my current employer and it works just fine. In fact it works so well that to the best of my knowledge no one has ever been banned from driving on site. In fact i'd go as far to say we do not have a parking problem at all.

Just because it works for you doesn't mean it will work for everybody. The very first place I worked at parking was free for everybody. At every subsequent employer there have been restrictions (usually you have to pay to get a permit). And the easiest way to enforce those restrictions has been using people like Briparc.

[Red Devil]

Gavia said:

Red Devil said:

Gavia said:

Your process is far more flawed than the current approach. We're never going to agree though and no matter how much you believe it to be unfair, there are others on this topic who think it is fair.

The issue with the current approach is not that it is wrong in principle but those to whom the job is outsourced have very little concept of the word fair. Both S11Steve and I have explained why: it's all to do with the business model the majority of PPCs use.

One poster mentioned NHS Trusts making a substantial income from parking. That is primarily from charging visitors and out-patients for doing so. Most expect you to guess up-front how long you're going to be there which is anything but fair. The last time I needed to keep an appointment with a NHS consultant I was told I had to be there at 9.30 and would have been turned away if I had been late: it was 12.15 by the time I made it through the door to his room. I knew I might have to wait, but nearly 3 hours? Give me a break. However my car was off the road having some repair work done at the time so I went by train and walked the rest of the way. I'm reasonably fit so it wasn't an issue. For someone with mobility or breathing issues it would have been out of the question.

The original post was about staff parking in a car park with a barrier operated by a swipe card. A completely different kettle from the above.

They may not understand the word fair, but equally they may be instructed to apply absolutes, or have no instruction not to. This aspect is what's blocking your view and meaning you can't see the other side of the fence, which may be equally at fault. There is no need to explain how they work, I know how they work.

Oh, so that makes all hunky-dory then? One of your points, if I have understood you correctly, is that NHS Trusts should not be devoting scarce resources to parking management. An excellent reason for using a third party. Unfortunately the result is total abdication of any role by the principal (not our problem mate; you'll have to take it up with the PPC) and the agent is given carte blanche to operate as it sees fit. Out of interest have you ever seen a PPC contract? I have and it was heavily redacted: to such an extent that it might have been designed to deceive a judge.

Gavia said:

Paying for parking at NHS sites isn't ideal, but it's here to stay. I agree guessing the length of stay is a challenge, but in my experience the parking tends not to be extortionately priced and you can get a lot of hours parking for not a lot of money. However, I apprecIate this may not be the same for all hospitals.

Going back to the swipe card staff car park, I can't see why you're struggling wth this though. Plucking some example numbers out of thin air. There may be 500 staff wanting to park in a 150 space car park. All have swipe card access, but it's done on a first come, first parked basis. Over a 24/7 period then it's unlikely that all 500 will be there at once, but it's highly likely at certain points there will be more demand than supply and bottlenecks on shift changes.

Once 150 are parked, then it's inconsiderate of staff member 151+ to park there and these will be the ones being fined / penalised / charged, or whatever word you want to use. Equally they may be fining / penalising / charging anyone in the 150 who is parking badly and straddling white lines, thus occupying two spaces.

I don't see why it's unfair to penalise these people, as they are not following the rules laid down. It equally would be unreasonable to expect an employer to provide a full 500 spaces as most would sit empty most of the time.

You seem to have a problem understanding what I have written. I don't have an issue with sanctions per se. My concern is NHS Trusts getting into bed with companies whose main interest, by the very nature of their business model, is maximising their revenue to the exclusion of any other considerations. Any notion of fair dealing is a foreign concept to them. A hospital is not a retail park: most people are not there to gratify their acquisitive urges. As for staff parking, a system of management in which the employer appears totally indifferent to good relations with its employees is bad for everyone. There is enough stress in their jobs already without this additional one.

The car park capacity issue doesn't just affect the Trust and its staff. It shifts the problem onto the surrounding neighbourhood with the overflow vying for what vacant spaces there may be. I know of one hospital where this issue was so bad that it created a great deal of animosity with the local community. It was a PR disaster for the Trust yet the suits seemed utterly oblivious and complacent about looking for any solution. It was only when the local press got stuck in that progress was made.

[Gavia]

Red Devil said:

Gavia said:

Red Devil said:

Gavia said:

Your process is far more flawed than the current approach. We're never going to agree though and no matter how much you believe it to be unfair, there are others on this topic who think it is fair.

The issue with the current approach is not that it is wrong in principle but those to whom the job is outsourced have very little concept of the word fair. Both S11Steve and I have explained why: it's all to do with the business model the majority of PPCs use.

One poster mentioned NHS Trusts making a substantial income from parking. That is primarily from charging visitors and out-patients for doing so. Most expect you to guess up-front how long you're going to be there which is anything but fair. The last time I needed to keep an appointment with a NHS consultant I was told I had to be there at 9.30 and would have been turned away if I had been late: it was 12.15 by the time I made it through the door to his room. I knew I might have to wait, but nearly 3 hours? Give me a break. However my car was off the road having some repair work done at the time so I went by train and walked the rest of the way. I'm reasonably fit so it wasn't an issue. For someone with mobility or breathing issues it would have been out of the question.

The original post was about staff parking in a car park with a barrier operated by a swipe card. A completely different kettle from the above.

They may not understand the word fair, but equally they may be instructed to apply absolutes, or have no instruction not to. This aspect is what's blocking your view and meaning you can't see the other side of the fence, which may be equally at fault. There is no need to explain how they work, I know how they work.

Oh, so that makes all hunky-dory then? One of your points, if I have understood you correctly, is that NHS Trusts should not be devoting scarce resources to parking management. An excellent reason for using a third party. Unfortunately the result is total abdication of any role by the principal (not our problem mate; you'll have to take it up with the PPC) and the agent is given carte blanche to operate as it sees fit. Out of interest have you ever seen a PPC contract? I have and it was heavily redacted: to such an extent that it might have been designed to deceive a judge.

Gavia said:

Paying for parking at NHS sites isn't ideal, but it's here to stay. I agree guessing the length of stay is a challenge, but in my experience the parking tends not to be extortionately priced and you can get a lot of hours parking for not a lot of money. However, I apprecIate this may not be the same for all hospitals.

Going back to the swipe card staff car park, I can't see why you're struggling wth this though. Plucking some example numbers out of thin air. There may be 500 staff wanting to park in a 150 space car park. All have swipe card access, but it's done on a first come, first parked basis. Over a 24/7 period then it's unlikely that all 500 will be there at once, but it's highly likely at certain points there will be more demand than supply and bottlenecks on shift changes.

Once 150 are parked, then it's inconsiderate of staff member 151+ to park there and these will be the ones being fined / penalised / charged, or whatever word you want to use. Equally they may be fining / penalising / charging anyone in the 150 who is parking badly and straddling white lines, thus occupying two spaces.

I don't see why it's unfair to penalise these people, as they are not following the rules laid down. It equally would be unreasonable to expect an employer to provide a full 500 spaces as most would sit empty most of the time.

You seem to have a problem understanding what I have written. I don't have an issue with sanctions per se. My concern is NHS Trusts getting into bed with companies whose main interest, by the very nature of their business model, is maximising their revenue to the exclusion of any other considerations. Any notion of fair dealing is a foreign concept to them. A hospital is not a retail park: most people are not there to gratify their acquisitive urges. As for staff parking, a system of management in which the employer appears totally indifferent to good relations with its employees is bad for everyone. There is enough stress in their jobs already without this additional one.

The car park capacity issue doesn't just affect the Trust and its staff. It shifts the problem onto the surrounding neighbourhood with the overflow vying for what vacant spaces there may be. I know of one hospital where this issue was so bad that it created a great deal of animosity with the local community. It was a PR disaster for the Trust yet the suits seemed utterly oblivious and complacent about looking for any solution. It was only when the local press got stuck in that progress was made.

And on that note I'm finished discussing it. I've tried to explain the situation and ceded a few points, but you can not see beyond the use of a private firm policing the car parks and the discussion continues to stall at that point.

You've failed to acknowledge that sometimes those parking are at fault and lay all the blame at the feet of the parking company.