DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 69629--------------------------------------------------
Hospital car park PCN - child's outpatient appointment
DIR By: pharmchick
Date: May 1, 2025, 5:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
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?
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 69730--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hospital car park PCN - child's outpatient appointment
DIR By: b789
Date: May 2, 2025, 8:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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
HTML https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles#:~:text=Parents%20of%20sick%20children%20staying,am%20while%20visiting%20the%20child.
Having established that, has the driver been identified?
#Post#: 69737--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hospital car park PCN - child's outpatient appointment
DIR By: pharmchick
Date: May 2, 2025, 8:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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"
#Post#: 69749--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hospital car park PCN - child's outpatient appointment
DIR By: Dave65
Date: May 2, 2025, 9:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What a case of sloping shoulders by PALS.
#Post#: 69751--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hospital car park PCN - child's outpatient appointment
DIR By: b789
Date: May 2, 2025, 9:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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)?
#Post#: 69787--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hospital car park PCN - child's outpatient appointment
DIR By: pharmchick
Date: May 2, 2025, 3:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 69788--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hospital car park PCN - child's outpatient appointment
DIR By: pharmchick
Date: May 2, 2025, 3:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
#Post#: 69827--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hospital car park PCN - child's outpatient appointment
DIR By: b789
Date: May 3, 2025, 4:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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:
>
> [indent]• The contravention occurred on 28/03/2025;
> • There was no Notice to Driver issued on the vehicle;
> • Therefore, a DVLA keeper request was necessary;[/indent]
>
> 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:
>
> [indent]• 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.[/indent]
>
> Given that DVLA’s KADOE system does not provide data in real
time, it appears ParkingEye may have either:
>
> [indent]• 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).[/indent]
>
> 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]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 69846--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hospital car park PCN - child's outpatient appointment
DIR By: pharmchick
Date: May 3, 2025, 6:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
#Post#: 69852--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hospital car park PCN - child's outpatient appointment
DIR By: b789
Date: May 3, 2025, 7:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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):
[indent]"the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that
on which the specified period of parking ended."[/indent]
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:
[indent]• The operator has commenced the relevant period
prematurely, in breach of the timing requirements under
PoFA.[/indent]
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:
[indent]• 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.[/indent]
Therefore, if the NtK was dated and issued on 28/03/2025, the
same date as the alleged breach:
[indent]• 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.[/indent]
So, this isn't about whether the NtK was delivered within 14
days — it was.
It's about the fact that:
[indent]• 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.[/indent]
This is both a technical breach of statute and a likely breach
of DVLA contractual and data protection rules.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page