3. Hospital car park PCN - child's outpatient appointment
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: Hospital car park PCN - child's outpatient appointment  (Read 903 times)

0 Members and 71 Guests are viewing this topic.

Hospital car park PCN - child's outpatient appointment
« on: »
Hi all! I took my young daughter to an out patient appointment to Lincoln County Hospital and we received a PCN saying we "did not park within a bay". The bay we parked in had faded lines on the left and a solid line to the right. My car is a 4x4 and hence bigger than a standard car, I also have 2 children who need enough space to come out of the car in order not to damage the next car when opening the door. One of my daughters has a medical condition in one of her foot meaning she can find it difficult to manoever her foot so she needs even more room to come out of the car. Moreover, I have a chronic back condition (osteoarthritis) meaning I myself need sufficient space to come out safely. I parked in good faith don't believe this is a fair parking charge. I appealed and complained to PALS and they said: "Thank you for the additional information – I have liaised with my colleagues in the facilities team who have confirmed that you would need to appeal due the car being parked outside the lines. I am sorry but we would be unable to help further." After pressurising them further, they wrote the following: "PALS are not able to support any parking fines- we are advised to ask the motorist to appeal. I would suggest waiting to hear from the appeals team first – as this may be cancelled. If you do wish to raise this further – although the information may be the same the complaints team email xxx.

One discrepancy that I also noticed on the ticket is that it stated the event time as 13:34 meanwhile I was no longer at the hospital at that time because I paid for only 1 hour of parking (pay on exit) meaning I would have left at 1pm.
Parkingeye have rejected my appeal without addressing any of my points (they just sent a generic response letter).I have gone back to the hospital and complained saying that they the fact they do not provide bigger bays for people with mobility issues or small children put this group at disadvantage by being more likely to receive fines - this is discriminatory. The hospital complaint team insist that I must now appeal with POPLA and though they admitted that they will conduct an assessment to see the impact of not having child and parent bays on patients, they are still unwilling to cancel the charge saying that by not having parked in a bay I deprived others from parking space. This is not true as from their pictures, only my right tyre was slightly out of the bay not the entire car and there was enough space for another car to park next to me.
Shall I just give up and pay or is it worth fighting?

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
Logged

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook

Re: Hospital car park PCN - child's outpatient appointment
« Reply #1 on: »
Oh dear... what a pity you hadn't come here before you appealed. I'm going to assume that you, the Keeper who received the notice, identified as the driver. If you didn't, then good.

That Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not fully compliant with PoFA paragraphs 9(2)(a) and 9(2)(e)(i). Therefore, as long as the driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability from the unknown (to ParkingEye) driver to the known Keeper as there is no legal obligation on the known Keeper to identify the unknown driver to an unregulated private parking company.

A Keeper should only ever refer to the driver in the third person. No "I did this or that". Only "the driver did this or that".

PALS are trying to fob you off. I suggest you make a formal complaint about this to the Chief Executive of the NHS Trust and get their explanation why PALS do not appear to be following the guidance in this document:

NHS car parking guidance 2022 for NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts

Having established that, has the driver been identified?
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: Hospital car park PCN - child's outpatient appointment
« Reply #2 on: »
I am so upset that I didn't know about this group earlier! I sadly have idetified myself as the driver i.e. the parent taking her children to the hospital. Is it a lost case?
Here is the response from PALS:
"As indicated I went back to our facilities team to ask about your parking charge.  They have investigated and have come back to me with the following reply:-


Thank you for your email regarding the parking charge issued when you visited Lincoln hospital and for your explanation of the circumstances.


The parking charge was issued, as you have admitted, for the vehicle being parked out of a bay, which unfortunately and in consequence, has the knock on effect of reducing the number of available spaces for other service users.


The Trust has a limited number of spaces and parking out of a bay is classed as a contravention of the Trust’s parking regulations, details of which are clearly displayed on signage throughout the car parks. Parking Eye are contracted by the Trust to ensure its parking regulations are met.

If a parking charge is issued and the motorist feels it has been issued incorrectly, the opportunity for appeal is with Parking Eye in the first instance. If the charge is upheld, but the motorist has evidence of mitigating circumstances, then a further appeal should be submitted to POPLA, where an independent decision will be made on the evidence provided. As such, the Trust is unable to intervene until your options for appeal have been exhausted.

Please be assured that all parking spaces provided by the Trust, on its private land, are compliant with the British Parking Association’s regulations. However, your comments regarding provision of specific parent and child spaces are welcomed and as such an assessment of dedicated spaces in all its car parks will be conducted.

As they have indicated you will need to appeal to POPLA if you have evidence of mitigating circumstances.

I hope that this information helps and am sorry that we are unable to intervene"

 
Logged
Re: Hospital car park PCN - child's outpatient appointment
« Reply #3 on: »
What a case of sloping shoulders by PALS.
Logged
Re: Hospital car park PCN - child's outpatient appointment
« Reply #4 on: »
You don't pay ParkingEye. First you escalate your complaint to the Trust CEO. The Trust can get ParkingEye to cancel it if they want. Parking Eye are contracted by the Trust. Who is the Monkey and who is the Organ Grinder in their contractual relationship?

There is another possible issue... the Notice to Keeper (NtK) says that the date of the alleged contravention was on 28/03/2025 and that the notice was issued the same date. Can you confirm that the PCN was issued as a postal Notice to Keeper (NtK) or as a windscreen Notice to Driver (NtD)?
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: Hospital car park PCN - child's outpatient appointment
« Reply #5 on: »
The notice was sent out by post and I received it in the mail on the 7th of April. The date of event was indeed the 28th of March. It definitely was not issued on the day. Please explain how this would help in fighting these b@stards?
I also attach the pcictures that they uploaded onto their portal as evidence.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
« Last Edit: May 02, 2025, 09:20:37 pm by pharmchick »
Logged
Re: Hospital car park PCN - child's outpatient appointment
« Reply #6 on: »
There was a massive potpole on the front right which you can see on the second picture, that was also a contributory factor in how I ended up parking.
Logged
Re: Hospital car park PCN - child's outpatient appointment
« Reply #7 on: »
What is the date of the ParkingEye appeal rejection? That letter has a POPLA code which is valid for 33 days from the date of the appeal rejection.

Go back and tell PALS that they are morons by suggesting that you should appeal to POPLA with mitigating circumstances as this just highlights their utter incompetence because POPLA does not and cannot take mitigation into account, only breaches of the law or the PPSCoP to cancel a PCN.

As you have confirmed that the PCN was only issued as a Notice to Keeper (NtK), there is a serious issue with the fact that the date of the alleged contravention and the issue date of the NtK are the same.

In the meantime, I suggest you send the following to ParkingEye and CC in PALS@ulh.nhs.uk and yourself:

Quote
Subject: Formal Complaint and Request for Explanation – NtK Issue Date Same as Contravention Date (28/03/2025)

Dear ParkingEye,

I write in relation to the Parking Charge Notice issued against my vehicle in connection with an alleged contravention at Lincoln County Hospital on 28/03/2025. The Notice to Keeper I received is dated the same day: 28/03/2025.

I am requesting a formal explanation for how your company was able to issue and post a Notice to Keeper on the same date as the alleged event, given that:

• The contravention occurred on 28/03/2025;
• There was no Notice to Driver issued on the vehicle;
• Therefore, a DVLA keeper request was necessary;

Yet DVLA KADOE responses are not returned instantly and cannot lawfully be requested or used before the date of the alleged event has even concluded.

Please confirm:

• The exact date and time that ParkingEye submitted the keeper request to the DVLA;
• The exact date and time that ParkingEye received the keeper details;
• The method, date and proof of posting of the NtK;
• Whether the issue date of 28/03/2025 printed on the NtK is in fact accurate;
• If not, why a false date was printed.

Given that DVLA’s KADOE system does not provide data in real time, it appears ParkingEye may have either:

• Falsified the issue date; or
• Accessed personal data before the date the alleged event had concluded, which would lack a lawful basis and contravene both your KADOE contract and UK GDPR Article 5(1)(a).

This matter is being considered for escalation to both the DVLA and the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) depending on your response. Please reply within 14 days.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Full Name]
[Your Address]
PCN Reference: [Insert PCN Number]
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: Hospital car park PCN - child's outpatient appointment
« Reply #8 on: »
wow, I am so impressed by your knowledge b789! So that basically means there is no way they issue date can be the same as the date of the event in cases where the notice was sent via post to the keeper - is that my correct understanding? In terms of GDPR, is the potential breach based on the fact that they are meant to only access your data on the day they issue the ticket (and not before) so in this case that cannot be the 28th of March as they claim? Sorry if I am asking silly question but I really want to understand the legal basis.
Btw, my appeal rejection was received about a week ago, so I am still in time to submit a POPLA case but I wanted to hear from this group first as to what the next best course of action would be.
I am not sure if I mentioned it before but even the timing of the event stated is false because my appointment was at 12:00 and we were done within less than an hour, therefore by 13:34 we were not on site anymore.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2025, 01:15:53 pm by pharmchick »
Logged
Re: Hospital car park PCN - child's outpatient appointment
« Reply #9 on: »
1. PoFA Technical Breach – Relevant Period Starts the Day After the Contravention

PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(5) defines the “relevant period” for delivering a Notice to Keeper as (my emphasis):

"the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended."

This is not optional or ambiguous — the Act says the 14-day countdown starts the day after the contravention date, not on it.

Therefore, if an NtK is issued on the same date as the alleged contravention, then by definition:

• The operator has commenced the relevant period prematurely, in breach of the timing requirements under PoFA.

Even though the NtK was eventually delivered within 14 days, the issue date being within the contravention date is legally incorrect, and it demonstrates non-compliance with the statutory framework the operator claims to follow.

2. Procedural Impossibility – DVLA Data Cannot Be Received the Same Day

Regardless of PoFA, it's a fact that:

• DVLA KADOE data requests cannot return keeper information in real-time,
• Parking operators are only permitted to request keeper data after the contravention has occurred,
• Data requests are processed in overnight or scheduled batches, and responses are not immediate.

Therefore, if the NtK was dated and issued on 28/03/2025, the same date as the alleged breach:

• ParkingEye could not lawfully have obtained the DVLA data on that date,
• Which makes it impossible for them to have prepared and issued a compliant NtK that same day.

So, this isn't about whether the NtK was delivered within 14 days — it was.

It's about the fact that:

• PoFA requires the notice to be issued no earlier than the day after the contravention date.
• ParkingEye could not lawfully or practically issue a same-day NtK due to DVLA access restrictions.

This is both a technical breach of statute and a likely breach of DVLA contractual and data protection rules.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: Hospital car park PCN - child's outpatient appointment
« Reply #10 on: »
Understood now, thanks! Parkingeye do not seem to have an email address but I managed to find one via an online forum: enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk
I will use this email and also send a recorded letter to Parkingeye (just in case the email isn't working) as well as copy the hospital too.
Is there a mandatory timeframe for the company (Parkingeye/hospital) to respond to accusations of data breaches? I just read on the ICO the following: "Part 3 of the DPA 2018 introduces a duty on all organisations to report certain types of personal data breach to the Information Commissioner. You must do this within 72 hours of becoming aware of the breach, where feasible." I am wondering if this can be somehow used to force them to abandon ship...
Logged
Re: Hospital car park PCN - child's outpatient appointment
« Reply #11 on: »
You don't need to send a letter "recorded" delivery. Under the Interpretation Act, a letter that is sent by first class post is deemed delivered after two working days. Just go to any post office and request a free proof of posting" certificate.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: Hospital car park PCN - child's outpatient appointment
« Reply #12 on: »
Thanks a lot! I am writing the letter now as we speak. I will update as soon as I have received a response.
Logged
Re: Hospital car park PCN - child's outpatient appointment
« Reply #13 on: »
You have acknowledged that you were the driver.

The NTK only has relevance if they intend to exercise their right to hold the keeper liable.

But they don't, they may hold you liable as driver.

The NTK has no relevance after any period to 'appeal' to POPLA has expired..

...and this was when? You have not posted their rejection.

As regards the Parking Charge Notice and dates, it's the typical nonsense we see.

There is NO such beast as a Parking Charge Notice in legislation or under any Code of Practice. It is PURELY a creation of the industry whereby the acronym - PCN - is the same as that in the regulated (local authority) sector, namely Penalty Charge Notice. In your case, the only regulatory notice is a Notice to Keeper. And its purpose is to advise you of the parking charge incurred by the driver, invite you to pay, give you the opportunity to appeal or give the creditor the driver's details and notify you that subject to conditions they may hold you liable as keeper for the charge in default.

In your case, the penalty charge was incurred on 28 March which is when the breach occurred and the NOTICE was issued on 2 April, served on 4th which is within any 14-day period.

Of course you may rattle cages with extra-procedural correspondence, but essentially you're stuck with whatever position you're in as driver.

But we don't know because we haven't seen their rejection of your 'appeal'.

Pl post.

Logged
Re: Hospital car park PCN - child's outpatient appointment
« Reply #14 on: »
See attached; the letter was dated 23 April. Are you saying d789’s points are invalid?

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
Logged
Pages: [1] 2
« previous next »
  3. Hospital car park PCN - child's outpatient appointment