NHS Permit Parking, Fine issued for non-display on permit Options

[NB123]

Hi,

My O/H Works in Oxford hospitals. She has to pay in the region of £250 a year for a parking permit. The permit has to be displayed on the dasboard of the car when she parks in staff car parks. It normally stays there, but the recent sunny weather meant it was causing a glare, so she took it down on the way toe work. While parking, her mind was pre-occupied with the patients she had to see, and forgot to display the permit. It's a £50 ticket reduced to £25 if paid in 2 weeks. The correspondance is not the parking and travel team as laid out in the link below, but a private company employed to enforce - Trethowans.

See http://www.ouh.nhs.uk/working-for-us/emplo...ingPolicyv1.pdf

Does a POPLA appeal apply here? As I see it, there has been no loss to the land owner as it was just a one-off mistake not to display a permit to park there. However, rule 66 of the attached is the catch.

Below is the response from an appeal. Should we pay up, or is there any other advice on offer?

It should also be mentioned that barriers trhat only allow permit holders in haven't been deployed yet, even though they have been promised for a long time now. So it seems this is a convenient way to rip off the staff.

Dear Madam

Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust v YOURSELF

I refer to the above matter. I confirm that my client has now considered your appeal, however, I regret to advise you that you have been unsuccessful.

You have failed to display a valid permit in your windscreen in breach of the Trust’s terms and conditions of parking. Paragraph 66 of the Trust’s parking policy (below) clearly sets out that continuing to pay monthly is not permission in itself to park and must be backed up by a valid permit:

[Picture of rule 66]


In the circumstances, please let me have your remittance in the sum of £25.00 made payable to Trethowans. In the event that your remittance is not received within 14 days of the date of this letter, the full amount will become payable in the sum of £50.00.

Cheques or postal orders must be made payable to "TRETHOWANS" with the above reference quoted on the reverse. I can also accept payment by debit or credit card by telephoning the above number, however, for credit card payments a charge of 2.25% will be applied.

Regards,



Many thanks.

Neill

[Advertisement]

[freddy1]

if they are "pretending" to be a parking Co (as opposed to tresspass) they need to be in a recognised ATA and offer a indipendent appeal system , was this offered?

[NB123]

It would appear that the car park signs would indicate they are a PPC, but the matter is under the travel & transport team internally who refer it straightway to a debt collection solicitor. As you can read from the Ts & Cs, it's very bully-boy.

[Jlc]

Hospital parking quite relevant this week following the news from Wales.

Trethowans are solicitors. There's some debate about whether they should have AOS status but they can and do access the DVLA if necessary.

They are quite happy to burn public money to pursue these cases it might be worth considering paying the reduced amount.

There's a case on here a few months ago which was pushed to court (not an employee mind) and even with atrocious signage was lost by the OP. I note from the policy that the permit can be rescinded and is not a right. It says the final decision is with the Travel and Transport Committee but that doesn't seem to have happened here?

[freddy1]

wasnt aintree (previous case) a member of an ATA tho?

[Porcupine]

Hospital parking quite relevant this week following the news from Wales.

Trethowans are solicitors. There's some debate about whether they should have AOS status but they can and do access the DVLA if necessary.

They are quite happy to burn public money to pursue these cases it might be worth considering paying the reduced amount.

There's a case on here a few months ago which was pushed to court (not an employee mind) and even with atrocious signage was lost by the OP. I note from the policy that the permit can be rescinded and is not a right. It says the final decision is with the Travel and Transport Committee but that doesn't seem to have happened here?

It appears that neither Trethowans Solicitors or Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust are members of the BPA or IPC. Do they have the right to obtain personal from the DVLA? I don't have the KADOE contract requirements at hand but will check. I know they can also make a paper requisition to the DVLA but in either case as this is a civil matter don't they need to belong to an ATA to be able to do that.

In Trethowans reply to the OP's appeal they say "I confirm that my client has now considered your appeal, however, I regret to advise you that you have been unsuccessful.". I read that as meaning their client the Hospital has had the final decision as it says they do in their Policy Document but who knows if the Hospital really saw the appeal.

All in all it's a very strange situation that the Hospital Trust are utilising Trethowans Solicitors who appear to be acting as a debt collector in this instance (they do offer themselves as a debt collection service on their website) as their agent/contractor for enforcing parking.

I also find it weird that it is the Hospital's Travel and Transport Team that issue BCN's (Break of Contract Notice) for parking regulation infringements. What are the legal implications with BCN's or are they just another invoice like PCN's. Obviously BCN's don't have specific requirements re timescales, wording etc. as a PCN would with an ATA's guidelines and when POFA comes into play.


The world of NHS staff parking seems particularly murky and especially so after recent events.

This post has been edited by Porcupine: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 - 17:14

[Lynnzer]

There is no actual requirement to display a permit.

So where's the contravention?

[Jlc]

There is no actual requirement to display a permit.

So where's the contravention?

I would suspect the signage states a requirement and:

37. Clear signage showing parking terms and conditions is displayed in all parking locations.
Anyone in breach of the terms and conditions will be issued with a BCN.

wasnt aintree (previous case) a member of an ATA tho?

The thread is here.

Aintree/Trethowans - but no ATA membership either...

[Lynnzer]

so wee need to see the sign. In fact, if it's possible a Google Street View location might be useful too.

[Albert Ross]

rule 70 in the Policy states that
... "Spot checks on number plates in car parks will be carried out daily by the Trust’s retained car park / security contractor."

with that ability they are capable of ascertaing that the vehicle is permitted!
Who are the contractors and are they registered with the ICO in light of the view that number plates are personal data.

[Lynnzer]

Who are the contractors and are they registered with the ICO in light of the view that number plates are personal data.

You have to be joking.
In any case they probably don't even need to read a number plate initially if they are looking for a permit.
However I do agree that a system of identification could be used since each user has only one vehicle registered to use a permit at any single time.

[anon45]

There is no actual requirement to display a permit.

So where's the contravention?

I would suspect the signage states a requirement and:

37. Clear signage showing parking terms and conditions is displayed in all parking locations.
Anyone in breach of the terms and conditions will be issued with a BCN.

wasnt aintree (previous case) a member of an ATA tho?

The thread is here.

Aintree/Trethowans - but no ATA membership either...

Wow, that really was an absolutely atrocious decision by the judge in that thread, and I think that the OP in that thread would have had strong grounds to win at appeal, had he appealed, particularly given the appalling signage. I don't think that it shows that this OP would necessarily lose, though. It would probably be 'DJ lottery' once again, and, for what it's worth, I seem to recall that there was at least one case on this forum where Trethowans were soundly defeated in court by a Pepipoo member.

This post has been edited by anon45: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 - 21:56

[Porcupine]

It would appear that the car park signs would indicate they are a PPC, but the matter is under the travel & transport team internally who refer it straightway to a debt collection solicitor. As you can read from the Ts & Cs, it's very bully-boy.

Who did you appeal to , the Trust, Trethowans or a 3rd party?

[The Rookie]

As this is slightly different from the norm we really need to get to the bottom of it so the OP can play to the rules available not the ones they try to use for their benefit.

If they know the reg numbers then where is the commercial (or morale) justification for penalising someone for not displaying a permit when they know that person has one.

The signage needs to be checked properly, for example at my workplace they introduced permits for the P&D car parks, but there is no requirement on the 12 year old signs to display the permit so the operator drops cases at first appeal for permit holders as they know they will lose at POPLA or (relevant to this one) if it went to court. In this case the policy doesn't require a permit to be displayed as such an industrial tribunal (if it went that way) should find in the member of staffs favour.

If I were the OP I'd be using the employment route, complaining to the hospital and referring to the policy they must abide by.

[emanresu]

"I confirm that my client has now considered your appeal, however, I regret to advise you that you have been unsuccessful.".

They should make a Subject Access Request to the Trust to find out when it was considered and what was said. Since the OP will be the subject of the appeal the Trust should cough it up - if they can. The appeal system goes to the root of the case as does whatever paperwork was signed when the permit was purchased.

Lastly when the permit was applied for, was a signature asked for/given? Or was it a tick the box if you agree type?

This post has been edited by emanresu: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 - 05:19

[NB123]

Who are the contractors and are they registered with the ICO in light of the view that number plates are personal data.

You have to be joking.
In any case they probably don't even need to read a number plate initially if they are looking for a permit.
However I do agree that a system of identification could be used since each user has only one vehicle registered to use a permit at any single time.

Exactly. The wording in the Ts & Cs says specifically a permit must be show, but as you say, they have access to the cars/owners that do have a pass irrespective of whether or not displayed.

There is no actual requirement to display a permit.

So where's the contravention?

I would suspect the signage states a requirement and:

37. Clear signage showing parking terms and conditions is displayed in all parking locations.
Anyone in breach of the terms and conditions will be issued with a BCN.

wasnt aintree (previous case) a member of an ATA tho?

The thread is here.

Aintree/Trethowans - but no ATA membership either...

Wow, that really was an absolutely atrocious decision by the judge in that thread, and I think that the OP in that thread would have had strong grounds to win at appeal, had he appealed, particularly given the appalling signage. I don't think that it shows that this OP would necessarily lose, though. It would probably be 'DJ lottery' once again, and, for what it's worth, I seem to recall that there was at least one case on this forum where Trethowans were soundly defeated in court by a Pepipoo member.

I guess the knock-on issue would be a denial of a pas renewal if we rock the boat.

It would appear that the car park signs would indicate they are a PPC, but the matter is under the travel & transport team internally who refer it straightway to a debt collection solicitor. As you can read from the Ts & Cs, it's very bully-boy.

Who did you appeal to , the Trust, Trethowans or a 3rd party?

The process is to Trethowans, who then liase with the trust.

This post has been edited by NB123: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 - 06:01

[Lynnzer]

Coming back to the answer about display of permit. Where does it say it has to be displayed?

The parking terms within the actual staff parking scheme in the link I gave say nothing about it, even though other parking conditions are shown so under the normal presumption that if any anomaly is found it should fall to the favour of the consumer.

Still need a picture of a sign.

[NB123]

Here's a photo of the signage.



As a side issue, the adhesive used to stick the ticket to the windscreen is the stickiest I've ever seen. Maybe we should just counter-claim the cost of cleaning

This post has been edited by NB123: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 - 06:00

[The Rookie]

What a hotch potch, and rather outdated.

It states permits must be displayed of course, which is why I'd still suggest taking it up as an employment issue using the Policy.

Its states its a fine (it's not) which they would probably rather not have discussed in a court.

It can also be argued there it creates an element of confusion by first stating permit holders only and then later stating they must be displayed.

It also says displayed within the vehicle, NOT within the windscreen, so if it was visible then it was compliant with the conditions, it will be almost impossible for them to now prove it wasn't displayed I would suggest.

[NB123]

Oooh. Nicely spotted. I'll have a chat to the o/h.

Cheers.