NHS Trust allowing harassment of staff via parking charges
Discussion
Red Devil said:
You seem fixated about the numbers. That's not what I have an issue with. For the umpteenth time it's about NHS Trusts getting into bed with a very unsavoury industry with little or no oversight of their inflexible predatory MO. They have an actual and moral responsibility to do so as it's their choice to outsource to these modern day Richard Turpins. When the industry cleans up its act (or has it done for them by the government) then I'll fold my tent.
I'm relating this back to numbers so we see the full extent of the issue, and that is that there has to be parking rules when the supply of spaces is lower than the demand and that there has to be enforcement of those rules otherwise it becomes a free for all.I'm sure each individual Trust will have gone through a careful assessment process of their preferred short list of car park managers, they all seem to have have a big enough team of procurement managers! and will be able to show that they've not breached any moral duties with their procurement.
The reality is that the private enforcement companies are just more efficient at applying the rules which doesn't make them predatory IMHO. As before, if people park properly then there won't be anything to enforce!
The Surveyor said:
The reality is that the private enforcement companies are just more efficient at applying the rules which doesn't make them predatory IMHO. As before, if people park properly then there won't be anything to enforce!
Efficient at applying rules? No, they are simply using intimidatory tactics to extort money out of people. If they followed the rules properly, I would have paid a lot more charges than I have over the last 3 years, instead it has got to the point where a certain PPC has effectively white-listed any vehicles registered to us, and the BPA have complained our industry trade association that I'm making things difficult for their members.
I don't disagree that some people do take the pi55 when parking, but given the huge number of tickets that I see and deal with, the overwhelming majority are genuine customers or permit holders/residents who have fallen victim to a business model that only exists because of predation, intimidation and subterfuge.
To update on the initial post-
We have now had a letter from a company called "Zenith". The letter is black and white with no red logos on it and no intial visual panic.
It suggests that we pay the discounted rate of £79.99 now whilst we can - (interestingly 1p cheaper than the original "fine" of £80 issued back in May). It goes onto state that that matter has been passed onto the team for "recommended court action" with more gumph at the bottom warning us that if a judge finds a decree of some sort we could face an "increased fine". It lists the "Creditor" as CP parking, who are the parking people employed to go around the staff car park by the NHS and fine their employee's for being very naughty, in their barriered access car park.
This like the others will be ignored.
We have now had a letter from a company called "Zenith". The letter is black and white with no red logos on it and no intial visual panic.
It suggests that we pay the discounted rate of £79.99 now whilst we can - (interestingly 1p cheaper than the original "fine" of £80 issued back in May). It goes onto state that that matter has been passed onto the team for "recommended court action" with more gumph at the bottom warning us that if a judge finds a decree of some sort we could face an "increased fine". It lists the "Creditor" as CP parking, who are the parking people employed to go around the staff car park by the NHS and fine their employee's for being very naughty, in their barriered access car park.
This like the others will be ignored.
Greenish said:
So this recent one has been ignored and has now escalated to a company called DRP threatening court action.
DRP is Debt Recovery Plus. Like all such companies, full of bluff and bluster. It is unlikely that they have purchased the debt: they are simply acting as an agent. See here.Greenish said:
We have now had a letter from a company called "Zenith". The letter is black and white with no red logos on it and no intial visual panic.
It suggests that we pay the discounted rate of £79.99 now whilst we can - (interestingly 1p cheaper than the original "fine" of £80 issued back in May). It goes onto state that that matter has been passed onto the team for "recommended court action" with more gumph at the bottom warning us that if a judge finds a decree of some sort we could face an "increased fine". It lists the "Creditor" as CP parking, who are the parking people employed to go around the staff car park by the NHS and fine their employee's for being very naughty, in their barriered access car park.
This like the others will be ignored.
I assume you mean CP Plus.It suggests that we pay the discounted rate of £79.99 now whilst we can - (interestingly 1p cheaper than the original "fine" of £80 issued back in May). It goes onto state that that matter has been passed onto the team for "recommended court action" with more gumph at the bottom warning us that if a judge finds a decree of some sort we could face an "increased fine". It lists the "Creditor" as CP parking, who are the parking people employed to go around the staff car park by the NHS and fine their employee's for being very naughty, in their barriered access car park.
This like the others will be ignored.
Have a look at the tiny print at the bottom of the Zenith Collections letter.
Then read this.It's more b&b. You're only at stage 2 at the moment. If and when you get a LBCCC then you know the ante has been upped. Any court action will be by the creditor (i.e. the PPC) and it will be their name on the papers. The only relevant question is whether CP Plus is fond of litigation.
Greenish said:
The current one was for exceeding a 20 min drop off limit in the nursery car park of 7 spaces, a totally distance part of the hospital well away from anything remotely relevant.
This appears to be a different issue from the staff car park, permit, barriers, etc. What were the circumstances which led to the drop off limit being exceeded? Greenish said:
We are told that the parking tickets are of the type that are not enforceable - Martin Lewis made reference to these on his money program this year and his advice was not to acknowledge team at all.
I don't know who told you that private parking tickets are not enforceable but it's simply not true. AS I mentioned above what matters is whether the PPC has any appetite for taking the matter to court The Beavis judgment established that a charge of £85 is not a penalty and also holed the GPEOL argument below the waterline (but that is all it does: there are other grounds which on which a ticket can be defeated). I also find it hard to believe that Martin Lewis said what you claim he did. The MSE website has a massive sub-forum devoted to this subject. I think CP Plus is one of those PPCs which do not rely on PoFA 2012 so their PCNs/NTOs do not contain the required keeper liability wording. Red Devil said:
Greenish said:
We are told that the parking tickets are of the type that are not enforceable - Martin Lewis made reference to these on his money program this year and his advice was not to acknowledge team at all.
I don't know who told you that private parking tickets are not enforceable but it's simply not true. AS I mentioned above what matters is whether the PPC has any appetite for taking the matter to court The Beavis judgment established that a charge of £85 is not a penalty and also holed the GPEOL argument below the waterline (but that is all it does: there are other grounds which on which a ticket can be defeated). I also find it hard to believe that Martin Lewis said what you claim he did. The MSE website has a massive sub-forum devoted to this subject. My stock answer is to never fully trust anything with Martin Lewis attached to it. One way or the other it will mainly benefit Martin Lewis.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff