Well it had to happen some day. Our business has received a Parking Charge Notice in the usual format from Parking Eye. The circumstances are sufficiently complex that unless I'm reasonably circumspect about certain details, that the parking event will be blindingly obvious to PE. If anybody feels they need more details them PM me.

I'll start by saying from the outset that since the event occurred whilst on legitimate NHS business, the principal, being a charitable unit of the appropriate trust, has been requested to instruct PE to desist. I expect that this will be successful. However the world can be a surprising place, so here is a chronology which might allow various other strategies to be played out should this prove necessary.

I am an owner/shareholder/director along with other family members of a small limited company. Amongst my various hats I'm also the fleet manager, since the cars our directors and employees use are all pool cars in the fleet and they are all on contract hire from various finance houses closely associated with the relevant vehicle manufacturer. Since we are a small company, all employees including the directors are named to be able to drive any of the vehicles at any time; it's first come-first served who takes which vehicle and we don't keep any logs of who drove what car where for which occasion. We could probably remember amongst ourselves if we had to for statutory purposes like responding to a NIP.

As part of who we are and what we do as a business, we give freely of our time for certain charitable purposes; some of which are in various voluntary support advisers and trustees of charitable functions within the NHS. As such various of our staff are regular visitors to NHS facilities for meetings of boards of trustees and the like. These NHS units are very good at arranging free car parking for us at the various NHS facilities, since we could claim legitimate expenses but we choose to waive them. So no money changes hands and no contract is in place when we park our vehicles at NHS facilities to attend meetings on NHS property.

So on this particular occasion, a staff member makes arrangements in the usual way to park free of charge whilst attending a trustees meeting. At this particular NHS facility there is a gated car-park within the public car-park that is private. A buzzer must be pressed and the user must announce himself/herself in order to gain access. A numbered bay is pre-arranged in advance and a registration number registered in advance; the theory is that these are confirmed at the buzzer/intercom. In practise the gatekeeper allows any legitimate looking/sounding user to pass freely into this special part of the car-park. "I'm attending the ****** meeting" is usually enough.

Now quite frequently the allocated bay already has an NHS user in place. The reasons are pretty obvious - when a doctor (for instance) is dealing with a life or death situation, vacating a parking bay on schedule is less important than saving a life. When enquiring at reception what to do, an occasional user is told by the parking controllers "To just park in any available space", followed up with a statement of "you'll be lucky to find one". This can be quite trying on the patience of NHS staff; if the trustee can't make it to the charity meeting, then the meeting falls inquorate, no decisions can be made and the NHS staff have wasted precious time they could have been using to promote life.

So its understandable that this particular car-park within a car-park has come under greater scrutiny, and it seems that recently PE have been instructed to manage the parking here to improve the service to the NHS users.

Now to some specifics:

* On a recent occasion an arrangement was made for one of our staff to attend an important meeting and to enjoy free parking in this special car park. No particular registration was given and a numbered bay allocated. We assume that the NHS clerk used the registration number from all of the previous times that we have visited.

* On the day in question, I understand that the barrier was opened with no verbal response given to the request on the intercom. To me that seems to be an approval for that car and driver to use the car park. The car park supervisor had ample opportunity to mitigate any potential loss be refusing entrance to this car park at that time.

* The allocated bay was occupied. The meeting was due to start and a trip to reception to be told the usual "Just use any bay, and you'll be lucky" was not made.

* Surprisingly, (but I subsequently recognise as suspiciously) I understand that there were lots of empty bays. So the car was parked in an empty bay

* At this point I should state that I have yet to visit this car park to understand what signage may be in place. I have visited this car park before, some time ago, and there was not much prominent signage, but of course this may have changed

* Quite some time later a PCN has been received from PE

* There is a paragraph that claims that signage is clear, this is private land, that this is a permit/authorised vehicle only car park and those parking without the appropriate authorisation will incur the charge displayed. That charge is now due to the creditor (PE).

* The PCN goes on to state that they recognise that the vehicle in question was a hire/lease vehicle and that they have obtained a copy of the signed hire agreement in order that POFA Sch. 4 9 (2) (f) might be activated. [More on this later]

* One last fact on which this might turn. Our staff member appears to have chosen a different car from that assumed by the NHS team. The NHS clerk assumed that our staff member's "usual" car would be used, but in fact a car with a different registration was used instead.

At this point it all gets more complicated still:

* Our business registered address has changed within the last 18 months. A postal redirection has been in place for 18 months and all organisations were informed of the address change. For reasons unbeknown to us the PE PCN has been sent to our company but at the old address. It is only because we operate from a small village that the PCN has been received by us, but now very, very late in the usual timescale

* The PCN is addressed to the company as a body corporate, not a person at the company, not the company secretary or the fleet manage. Does POFA apply to natural persons or bodies corporate?

* The PCN was not accompanied by the documents claimed to have been disclosed by the hire company under Sch. 4 Para 9 (2) (f). Does this imply that the conditions of 13 (2) are yet to be met? In time, would this be fatal?

* Without a copy of the signage and the implied contract it is difficult to know if the permit/authorisation is for the person to use the car parking services or for a particular vehicle, from its registration number, regardless of the driver to be parked. If this goes further, I will investigate this.

* Since the car park is without charge in normal operation and the facility offered free of charge when being "booked" by our staff member (thus forming an agreement with the NHS charitable unit) form a contract - where is the value exchange as one of the four corners of a contract where a volunteer (no charge for services) is offered free parking and the car park is not full. Can PE's attempts to impose additional contract terms by signage on top of the agreement between our staff member and the NHS without a further three way meeting of minds occur to vary? Does that raise the issue that for a permit to be issued that the permit should include a more detailed version of the terms and conditions that are on the signs? This whole car park booking system is handled by informal e-mails - no sign (pardon pun) of any PE terms and conditions at the point of booking.

* And with the barrier not being opened unless the parking controller was satisfied that the car park user had legitimate business, doesn't the car park controller (who may or may not be PE) have a duty of care to ensure that the vehicle was that which was authorised. Since the barrier was opened by the person stating their business, does this constitute a further amendment/variation to the agreement to allow the person to use the car park regardless of the vehicle being used?

* Since the matter is between a PLC, a limited company (registered for VAT) and a charity operating inside an NHS trust, the VAT situation is going to be horrendous should a charge be made for the car parking service rendered. I will, of course, be seeking the help of HMRC in order to understand how to correctly account for the VAT should such a charge be paid by us, or if the charity makes the payment to PE as part of an expenses claim by a company director, then we will have to seek advice on any personal taxation issues this raises for the company director, again through those very helpful people at HMRC.

* And finally, one of our directors is an ex regional journalist. This abuse of the NHS and a charity could make an interesting front page story.

I rather hope given all of the above that PE will cancel. Otherwise I rather hope that PE will see this for being a complex can of worms and kick it into the long grass never to be seen again. If not, would anyone like to comment if one or more of the points above might be fatal to their claim?

Thank you for persisting through this missive. I bet you can tell I'm irritated.

I sympathise with your frustration but you could have saved time.
If they have been instructed to cancel they will do.

It might take a couple of weeks or so before you get it in writing but when they've told to cancel they have to.

Thanks for the reassurance from you that this will all work out in the end. Writing down the events helped soothed the raw nerve aggravated by the private parking company.

I really don't understand why an intercom/barrier controlled car-park needs the PE style of parking charge "service" other than for PE to make a profit out of the NHS. That's got to be against some form of moral "rules".

The charge levied by PE is 'damages for breach of contract' and are not subject to VAT at that point. (There's some internal VAT shenanigans but these won't be relevant here)

Not keeping logs is a bad idea. Indeed, you would be expected to do so for criminal offences such as speeding.

At some point they will have accessed the DVLA and used the registered keeper details to start the letters. (After that point details would be manually supplied so are subject to 'error')

And companies can be pursued, especially when the vehicles were used for business purposes. (Under vicarious liability)

If the vehicle was 'authorised' then the matter should be dealt with - but we do see some strange things happen!


Well, there's some guidelines - here.

And here's some useful stuff you might like to keep in mind for anything else happening like this in a hospital premise.

For the purposes of POFA, a body corporate is a "legal person" and may be held liable for a private parking charge - so long as the PPC has fully complied with all of POFA's requirements, of course.


Yes, that's fatal to ParkingEye's claim - they have not fully complied with POFA and have therefore forfeited their right to use POFA as a means of holding the vehicle's hirer liable for the charge.

Hi JLC,

More sage words of wisdom there. I expect this topic becomes fodder for the Flame Pit since it will surely turn hypothetical in moments. It's an interesting learning experience for me.

* On the Logs keeping point; we do keep absolutely sufficient personal recollections and logs to deal with any statutory events like a case of speeding. And also to do with issues of personal taxation (before you ask!) I am, however, not going to make life easy for someone who might send a speculative invoice that depends on identifying a particular driver at a particular moment in time. At the very least they will have to pay us for the time taken to research facts necessary for them to validate their claim.

* The wrong address would seem to have come from the hire company. When I checked with the hire company they had the correct details for the users of the vehicle and had for some time but for bizarre reasons they chose to send the old details to PE. I was told that the hire company outsources the parking charge administration process which might explain this.

* I've learned some new words - vicarious liability - but I wonder if a company director/owner (and an employee to be sure) who is authorised to use a company car on personal business whenever they please, and outside of "company time" freely choses to break some rule, that seems to me to be pushing vicarious liability to extremes. The company in no way compelled the director to park in that way. The company was in no way a party to the agreement between the charity, the NHS and PE. The director chose to do so on a purely personal basis. Our corporate governance requires a level of agreement between a voting majority of shareholders to enter into a contract that binds the company.

This. More words.

More new words for you. Opening the barrier to allow the car to park may even amount to promissory estoppel whatever the signs may say about permits being required & penalties for not displaying a permit.

Once again I'm in awe of the knowledge of people on PePiPoo! I should have stuck in at school and studied law (which seems rather fascinating) rather than wimped out and became an Engineer.

So the NHS clerk made a form of promise of free parking, the barrier operator concurred through their actions, there was no intention of any financial aspect to the agreement originally made and PE essentially as "parking agent" find themselves in a position where they cannot go back on the agreement made by their client.

By the way there is no paper permit or disc or other token displayed on the vehicle for this car park. In the past the barrier operators word has been enough, most likely backed up by a list of registration numbers of regular users and visitors held somewhere. In hindsight this car park would be better managed with a print-out of the e-mail to place on the dash, especially when the allocated bay is full, but none of that helps when PEs means of enforcement is that blunt tool ANPR with no human seemingly involved to exercise common sense.