A couple of other PoFA points that would come in useful should this ever escalate to court.
From the NtK, the key wording appears to be as follows: "If, after 28 days beginning with the date of this Notice, the Parking Charge Notice remains unpaid and we have not been informed of the name and a serviceable address for the driver/hirer, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, we have the right to recover the charge from the keeper/hirer."
This is close to the requirement but differs from the required elements in the following ways:
The NtK uses the phrase "beginning with the date of this Notice," which is incorrect. PoFA mandates that the 28-day period starts the day after the notice is given (i.e., received by the keeper, not the issue date).
The phrase "beginning with the date of this Notice" is incorrect under PoFA. The 28-day period should begin the day after the notice is given.
Also, to expand on the lack of an invitation for the Keeper to pay, PoFA 9(2)(e)(i), requires the Notice to Keeper to include an invitation to the keeper to either:
Pay the parking charge, or
If they were not the driver, to provide the name and address of the driver and pass the notice to the driver.
PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) requires that the notice must invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges, or if they were not the driver, to inform the creditor of the driver’s name and current address and to pass the notice on to the driver.
The intent is to make the keeper aware that they are responsible for either paying the charge or providing the driver's details. From the NtK, the relevant section reads:
"If you were the driver, you are required to pay the Parking Charge Notice."
This only addresses the keeper if they were the driver, implying that liability only applies if the keeper was the driver. There is no direct invitation for the keeper to pay the charge if they were not the driver. It is critical that the wording invites the keeper to pay regardless of whether they were the driver or not, while still giving them the option to name the driver if they were not the one driving.
So, the NtK does not invite the keeper to pay the charge if they were not the driver, which is required under PoFA 9(2)(e)(i). The wording suggests that only the driver is liable, which is not compliant with the keeper liability provisions under PoFA.
The phrase "if you were the driver" does not fulfil the requirement that the notice must invite the keeper to pay, regardless of whether they were driving.
Conclusion:
The NtK fails to comply with PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) because it does not include a proper invitation to the keeper to pay the charge if they were not the driver. This is a significant non-compliance, as it is one of the key elements required to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper.
The NtK also fails in that the 28 day period mandated by PoFA must start the day after the notice is given, not the date of the NtK.
Not that any of this is going to help with an initial appeal or the IAS. However, should the ever escalate to a claim, it is useful ammunition for a defence as long as the drivers identity has not been given.
As for the outrageous offer from PALS to get the PCN cancelled only if you pay their contractual fee because they failed to negotiate a decent contract with Wise, you should write a complaint to the CEO of the NHS Trust, Ben Travis. Email the complaint to ben.travis@nhs.net.
Subject: Breach of NHS Parking Guidelines and Discriminatory Parking Practices at Queen Elizabeth Hospital
Dear Mr Travis,
I am writing to raise a formal and urgent complaint regarding the management of parking for patients with disabilities at Queen Elizabeth Hospital (QEH), specifically the actions of your parking contractor, Wise Parking and the unacceptable handling of my case by the hospital’s Patient Advice and Liaison Service (PALS).
The recent issuing of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN), in the form of a Notice to Keeper (NtK), upon a vehicle displaying a valid Blue Badge demonstrates both a failure to comply with the Department of Health & Social Care NHS guidelines, and a discriminatory parking system introduced by Wise Parking.
Despite the vehicle displaying a Blue Badge, as the Registered Keeper (RK), I was issued an NtK because the driver did not realise they were required to enter the vehicle registration number (VRM) into a terminal inside the hospital. This requirement for Blue Badge holders is discriminatory, as able-bodied motorists are not subject to the same restrictions. The 'NHS car parking guidance 2022 for NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts' guidelines clearly state:
• "Disabled patients and visitors receive free parking for the duration of their attendance at, or visit to, the hospital."
Nowhere in these guidelines is it suggested that Blue Badge holders must input their VRM into a terminal to access the free parking. This additional burden, imposed solely on individuals with a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010, is not only discriminatory but also appears to be an intentional revenue-generating strategy by Wise Parking.
Moreover, PALS has outrageously demanded that I pay their £20 cancellation fee with Wise Parking in order to have the PCN cancelled. This is an unacceptable penalty being foisted on me, the registered keeper, as a result of the Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust’s (the Trust) poorly negotiated contract with Wise Parking. The responsibility for this financial burden should not fall on disabled patients or visitors who are already entitled to free parking. It is clear that Wise Parking, rather than the Trust, should bear the cost of managing compliance with Blue Badge holders. It is entirely inappropriate for the Trust, through PALS, to attempt to shift this responsibility and cost onto those who should be protected.
It is the responsibility of Wise Parking to introduce operatives to monitor and ensure compliance with the parking terms if their reliance on an ANPR entry/exit system that cannot differentiate between vehicles parked with a Blue Badge and those without, is a clear failure on their part, and it is their obligation to manage this system properly. Introducing a discriminatory requirement for Blue Badge holders to input their VRM into a terminal simply to enforce a flawed parking system only highlights Wise Parking’s attempts to maximise income, particularly from vulnerable patients.
I would also like to bring to your attention the incompetence of the Trust in negotiating a contract with Wise Parking—an ex-clamper firm, notorious for rogue practices (as highlighted in Hansard). This breaches the Department of Health & Social Care's guidance to NHS Trusts in their "NHS car parking guidance 2022 for NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts" guidelines, which clearly state:
• "NHS organisations are responsible for the actions of private contractors who run car parks on their behalf."
• "NHS organisations should act against rogue contractors in line with the relevant codes of practice where applicable."
•"Contracts should not be let on any basis that incentivises additional charges, for example, ‘income from parking charge notices only’."
It is clear from the situation I and other Blue Badge holders are experiencing that the contract between the Trust and Wise Parking has, embarrassingly, been poorly structured, likely incentivising Smart Parking to issue as many parking charge notices as possible. In light of this, I formally request evidence of the contract between the NHS Trust and Wise Parking to show that the operator is not incentivised by parking charge notices in any way, shape, or form. At present, it appears that Wise Parking is likely generating a substantial portion of its income from Blue Badge holders, which is unacceptable and in direct breach of the Department of Health & Social Care NHS guidelines.
I demand the following actions be taken immediately:
1. The cancellation of the PCN without any fee or penalty, in line with NHS guidelines on free parking for disabled patients.
2. A review of the parking contract with Wise Parking, including the removal of any clauses that incentivise parking charge notices, especially in relation to Blue Badge holders.
3. An end to the discriminatory requirement for Blue Badge holders to input their VRM into a terminal, as it is both unfair and unlawful under the Equality Act.
4. Wise Parking to introduce a system of wardens or operatives to check for Blue Badge compliance, rather than relying on a flawed ANPR system that penalises disabled patients.
Should the Trust fail to act on these matters, I will personally hold the Trust accountable for any further emotional or financial harm caused by its discriminatory parking practices and will take legal action if necessary.
I await your urgent response and the evidence of the parking contract with Wise Parking.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Contact Information]
Registered Keeper of [Vehicle Registration Number]
PCN number [pcn number]