Parking appeal refused after baby taken to hospital
Discussion
Oh yes, I'm so smugly glad after the Beavis verdict. Now these parasites can keep doing this and that's good, apparently.
Northampton Echo said:
Northampton mum has parking appeals turned down after leaving car to rush baby with meningitis to hospital
A mum from Northamptonshire got a £90 parking fine after leaving her car at a GP surgery so she could rush her son to hospital.
The woman, who has asked not to be named, went to the out-of-hours GP centre in Cliftonville, Northampton at about 11pm fearing her 19-week-old baby, called Daniel was seriously ill.
A doctor examined Daniel and advised the mum to take him immediately to Northampton General Hospital, which shares the same site, and leave her car at the centre.
On collecting her car she saw a penalty notice on the windscreen, but assumed her explanation to an appeals panel would see the charge rescinded.
But she has now lost two appeals and is being asked to pay £90.
She said: “I can’t understand why I’m not a special case. Apart from the fact my son had bacterial meningitis and I couldn’t leave him, I was told by the doctor it was okay.
“I understood that driving to the doctor was helpful to the NHS because it meant not needlessly tying up a paramedic. Perhaps I should have called an ambulance.”
The mum has been trying since Daniel was taken ill on January 8 to get the charge overturned.
Successive appeals to Smart Parking, which administers the car park at the out-of-hours centre, and the independent panel POPLAR were both rejected,, she said.
Integrated Care 24, which runs the out-of-hours centre, said it had not been contacted by either panel to check the mum’s story but would now see if they could corroborate her version of events.
Smart Parking could not be reached for a comment. [No, really?]
A mum from Northamptonshire got a £90 parking fine after leaving her car at a GP surgery so she could rush her son to hospital.
The woman, who has asked not to be named, went to the out-of-hours GP centre in Cliftonville, Northampton at about 11pm fearing her 19-week-old baby, called Daniel was seriously ill.
A doctor examined Daniel and advised the mum to take him immediately to Northampton General Hospital, which shares the same site, and leave her car at the centre.
On collecting her car she saw a penalty notice on the windscreen, but assumed her explanation to an appeals panel would see the charge rescinded.
But she has now lost two appeals and is being asked to pay £90.
She said: “I can’t understand why I’m not a special case. Apart from the fact my son had bacterial meningitis and I couldn’t leave him, I was told by the doctor it was okay.
“I understood that driving to the doctor was helpful to the NHS because it meant not needlessly tying up a paramedic. Perhaps I should have called an ambulance.”
The mum has been trying since Daniel was taken ill on January 8 to get the charge overturned.
Successive appeals to Smart Parking, which administers the car park at the out-of-hours centre, and the independent panel POPLAR were both rejected,, she said.
Integrated Care 24, which runs the out-of-hours centre, said it had not been contacted by either panel to check the mum’s story but would now see if they could corroborate her version of events.
Smart Parking could not be reached for a comment. [No, really?]
POPLAR. 
Clearly can't see the wood for the trees.
The reason the appeals failed is pretty clear to anyone who knows how the system works. POPLA assessors are not permitted to consider mitigating circumstances. I will bet that is the ground on which the first appeal was founded. So any subsequent review is bound to come to the same conclusion. You have to know how to play the game.
As POPLA decisions are not binding she can still ignore and see whether the PPC decides to issue court proceedings. Hopefully though NGH can, and will, get this sorted out before it gets that far (if it ever does).
The PPC should hang its head in shame. But that's not its MO as it would impact its bottom line which is all it cares about. It is cases like this which do the industry no favours and make life difficult for those who have genuine issues needing a solution.
It is something which the BPA should be addressing but can't or won't because it is in thrall to the big players on whose subscription money it relies.
If the industry will not get its act together then the government may have to put in the statutory oversight it should have done in the first place.
Clearly can't see the wood for the trees. The reason the appeals failed is pretty clear to anyone who knows how the system works. POPLA assessors are not permitted to consider mitigating circumstances. I will bet that is the ground on which the first appeal was founded. So any subsequent review is bound to come to the same conclusion. You have to know how to play the game.
As POPLA decisions are not binding she can still ignore and see whether the PPC decides to issue court proceedings. Hopefully though NGH can, and will, get this sorted out before it gets that far (if it ever does).
The PPC should hang its head in shame. But that's not its MO as it would impact its bottom line which is all it cares about. It is cases like this which do the industry no favours and make life difficult for those who have genuine issues needing a solution.
It is something which the BPA should be addressing but can't or won't because it is in thrall to the big players on whose subscription money it relies.
If the industry will not get its act together then the government may have to put in the statutory oversight it should have done in the first place.
wc98 said:
time for some naming and shaming of the people involved with smart parking. personally i would be telling them to ram it and let it go all the way to court. f
king parasites.
.king parasites.http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/people/pe...
98elise said:
Plenty of PH's on the other thread will say that she entered into a contract by parking there, so has already agreed to pay the £90 fine....erm charge for the service.
I don't think anyone would argue this was a fair charge in the circumstances. Any system is going to throw up situations where there is a bad result. I'd like to know the justification for rejecting the appeal.
Devil2575 said:
I don't think anyone would argue this was a fair charge in the circumstances. Any system is going to throw up situations where there is a bad result.
I'd like to know the justification for rejecting the appeal.
Red Devil has already explained why POPLA rejected it - they cannot consider mitigating circumstances.I'd like to know the justification for rejecting the appeal.
As for Smart Parking - at a guess because they didn't want to affect their revenue stream...
The directors of Smart Parking (UK) Limited based in Scotland should be thoroughly ashamed, how they sleep at night is quite astonishing.
So roll play for the current directors names according to Companies House:
Mr Paul Gillespie. DOB 22/4/1974. Correspondence address: 5 South Inch Business Centre, Shore Road, Perth, PH2 8BW.
Mr Ben Richard Johnson. DOB 22/11/1970. Correspondence address: 601 Imperial Point The Quays, Salford, England, M50 3RA.
Mr Richard Ludbrook. DOB 19/8/1970. Correspondence address: 2 Oliver Street, Cambridge, New Zealand, 3434
What the hell is wrong with this country which allows lowlifes to fine innocent victims when they are at their most vulnerable - total scum in my opinion
So roll play for the current directors names according to Companies House:
Mr Paul Gillespie. DOB 22/4/1974. Correspondence address: 5 South Inch Business Centre, Shore Road, Perth, PH2 8BW.
Mr Ben Richard Johnson. DOB 22/11/1970. Correspondence address: 601 Imperial Point The Quays, Salford, England, M50 3RA.
Mr Richard Ludbrook. DOB 19/8/1970. Correspondence address: 2 Oliver Street, Cambridge, New Zealand, 3434
What the hell is wrong with this country which allows lowlifes to fine innocent victims when they are at their most vulnerable - total scum in my opinion
My girlfriend got a ticket from Smart parking when she did a long shop at a supermarket, before a holiday. It was the politest ticket I've ever read, lol. The ticket arrived while she was on the holiday. So she went to the store and complained. They put her debit card into a machine and saw how much she's spent in the store. It produced her shopping purchases. They cancelled her ticket on the spot.
Maybe it's worth complaining at source sometimes. I'd certainly be giving the GP some ear bending.
Maybe it's worth complaining at source sometimes. I'd certainly be giving the GP some ear bending.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff