info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
North Middlesex Hospital car park PCN.
644 views
Skip to first unread message
T i m
Dec 13, 2017, 10:52:48 AM12/13/17
to
Hi all,
I'm just seeing what the panel think in general re PCN's from CPM and
when issues from a CCTV managed car park at North Middlesex Hospital
please.
Long / short. If we have broken the rules and assuming 'the rules' are
legal and considered reasonable I'm willing to put my hands up etc.
So, we have just received two PCN's from CPM for the first two of the
last three visits (this month), even though we know we did pay and
enter the right vehicle registration for both.
The PCN's offer no indication of what we are being 'charged' for, just
that we are being charged (60 quid for early payment - then £100).
Now one could be justified because we paid (cash, no receipts issued)
for one hour and the PCN says we were there for 61 minutes (although
it may well have taken 30 seconds each end to get parked and drive out
etc).
However, the second PCN states we were only there half an hour and
again we know we paid (and put in the right reg etc) and paid for 1
hour as that is the minimum increment.
My Mr's diary confirms we were there on those days and at the
appointment times etc.
Now, the first time we went there and 'had issues' it must have
changed from a 'Pay and Display' (as it is still shown on their
website)
http://www.northmid.nhs.uk/contact-us/car-parking-at-the-hospital
"The hospital has three pay and display car park – see the hospital
site map." (we were in the one they refer to a "Main Visitors car
park".)
To a CCTV / automated system.
So previously we would have duly bought a ticket for the estimated
time of the stay and clearly displayed it etc. On the subsequent visit
we went there someone else was obviously having issues with the
machine as it didn't produce a ticket (is was raining and we were all
due for appointments etc). So we tried while they watched and again,
no ticket. We both went to the front desk and they weren't sure but
suggested it was all CCTV now so 1) no tickets were needed and 2) you
could pay any time before you leave.
So that's what we did on the 3 subsequent visits and one (or both) of
the two PCN's (so far) I mention may be because of that. Not that we
didn't pay, but that we only paid before exit, not on arrival? That or
their system is broken?
We are due to go back again soon so I can look closer at the signs and
machines but I just wondered if anyone had similar experience of these
CCTV managed car parks and what the deal was (and ideally someone who
knows that particular car park please)?
I wanted to ask CPM what exactly I was being 'charged' for, either
'over stay', (fair enough) or non payment (on one or both), which
wouldn't be fair or reasonable and we did pay (in full on at least one
occasion covered by the PCN).
Thanks for your time in any case. ;-)
Cheers, T i m
p.s. My only previous parking tickets is where somewhere I had parked
for many years previously had changed to a 'Get a ticket to park free
for half hour' and because I didn't know it had changed, came back to
the car after 20 minutes to find a ticket. Long - short, my local
Councilor got it cancelled (on the grounds of poor signage) and I
heard that subsequently, everyone who had been fined for such also got
their fines refunded and new clearer signs were put in place. ;-)
I'm just seeing what the panel think in general re PCN's from CPM and
when issues from a CCTV managed car park at North Middlesex Hospital
please.
Long / short. If we have broken the rules and assuming 'the rules' are
legal and considered reasonable I'm willing to put my hands up etc.
So, we have just received two PCN's from CPM for the first two of the
last three visits (this month), even though we know we did pay and
enter the right vehicle registration for both.
The PCN's offer no indication of what we are being 'charged' for, just
that we are being charged (60 quid for early payment - then £100).
Now one could be justified because we paid (cash, no receipts issued)
for one hour and the PCN says we were there for 61 minutes (although
it may well have taken 30 seconds each end to get parked and drive out
etc).
However, the second PCN states we were only there half an hour and
again we know we paid (and put in the right reg etc) and paid for 1
hour as that is the minimum increment.
My Mr's diary confirms we were there on those days and at the
appointment times etc.
Now, the first time we went there and 'had issues' it must have
changed from a 'Pay and Display' (as it is still shown on their
website)
http://www.northmid.nhs.uk/contact-us/car-parking-at-the-hospital
"The hospital has three pay and display car park – see the hospital
site map." (we were in the one they refer to a "Main Visitors car
park".)
To a CCTV / automated system.
So previously we would have duly bought a ticket for the estimated
time of the stay and clearly displayed it etc. On the subsequent visit
we went there someone else was obviously having issues with the
machine as it didn't produce a ticket (is was raining and we were all
due for appointments etc). So we tried while they watched and again,
no ticket. We both went to the front desk and they weren't sure but
suggested it was all CCTV now so 1) no tickets were needed and 2) you
could pay any time before you leave.
So that's what we did on the 3 subsequent visits and one (or both) of
the two PCN's (so far) I mention may be because of that. Not that we
didn't pay, but that we only paid before exit, not on arrival? That or
their system is broken?
We are due to go back again soon so I can look closer at the signs and
machines but I just wondered if anyone had similar experience of these
CCTV managed car parks and what the deal was (and ideally someone who
knows that particular car park please)?
I wanted to ask CPM what exactly I was being 'charged' for, either
'over stay', (fair enough) or non payment (on one or both), which
wouldn't be fair or reasonable and we did pay (in full on at least one
occasion covered by the PCN).
Thanks for your time in any case. ;-)
Cheers, T i m
p.s. My only previous parking tickets is where somewhere I had parked
for many years previously had changed to a 'Get a ticket to park free
for half hour' and because I didn't know it had changed, came back to
the car after 20 minutes to find a ticket. Long - short, my local
Councilor got it cancelled (on the grounds of poor signage) and I
heard that subsequently, everyone who had been fined for such also got
their fines refunded and new clearer signs were put in place. ;-)
T i m
Dec 13, 2017, 1:01:28 PM12/13/17
to
On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 13:40:21 +0000, T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
<snip>
checking them out earlier) and it does actually say:
"Failure to Pay for the Duration of Stay"
.... which could be valid if they are only charging me for the extra
minute over the 60 they accept I did pay for but not the second where
they are charging me for the 30 minutes that I would have paid an hour
for or if they are saying I didn't pay anything towards the 61 minutes
I did stay there for?
As an aside, are they charging for the time between when you enter and
exit their ANPR system (inc driving round looking for somewhere *to
park*) or the time you are *actually parked* therein? Do they
typically automatically allow say 10 minutes for you to do that before
the clock starts?
Cheers, T i m
<snip>
>
>I wanted to ask CPM what exactly I was being 'charged' for, either
>'over stay', (fair enough) or non payment (on one or both), which
>wouldn't be fair or reasonable and we did pay (in full on at least one
>occasion covered by the PCN).
Sorry, I just wanted to add that I've read the PCN myself (the Mrs was
>I wanted to ask CPM what exactly I was being 'charged' for, either
>'over stay', (fair enough) or non payment (on one or both), which
>wouldn't be fair or reasonable and we did pay (in full on at least one
>occasion covered by the PCN).
checking them out earlier) and it does actually say:
"Failure to Pay for the Duration of Stay"
.... which could be valid if they are only charging me for the extra
minute over the 60 they accept I did pay for but not the second where
they are charging me for the 30 minutes that I would have paid an hour
for or if they are saying I didn't pay anything towards the 61 minutes
I did stay there for?
As an aside, are they charging for the time between when you enter and
exit their ANPR system (inc driving round looking for somewhere *to
park*) or the time you are *actually parked* therein? Do they
typically automatically allow say 10 minutes for you to do that before
the clock starts?
Cheers, T i m
Robin
Dec 14, 2017, 7:29:03 AM12/14/17
to
On 14/12/2017 12:03, Jethro_uk wrote:
> Apart from the observation that whatever they are asking has to be
> reasonable to cover their alleged expenditure, I would be curious as to
> your last point.
I thought the Supreme Court in Parking Eye shot and buried that argument.
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
> reasonable to cover their alleged expenditure, I would be curious as to
> your last point.
I thought the Supreme Court in Parking Eye shot and buried that argument.
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
Robin
Dec 14, 2017, 11:34:34 AM12/14/17
to
On 14/12/2017 16:19, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>>
>>> Apart from the observation that whatever they are asking has to be
>>> reasonable to cover their alleged expenditure, I would be curious as to
>>> your last point.
>>
>> I thought the Supreme Court in Parking Eye shot and buried that
>> argument.
>
> My understanding was that the "charge" must still be reasonable in light
>>>
>>> Apart from the observation that whatever they are asking has to be
>>> reasonable to cover their alleged expenditure, I would be curious as to
>>> your last point.
>>
>> I thought the Supreme Court in Parking Eye shot and buried that
>> argument.
>
> of the operators losses. It most certainly is not a blank cheque.
No. You are still coming at it from the angle of "losses". That is not
where we are after Parking Eye.
Roland Perry
Dec 14, 2017, 11:58:14 AM12/14/17
to
In message <p0u8af$g83$1...@dont-email.me>, at 16:19:27 on Thu, 14 Dec
2017, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
>>> Apart from the observation that whatever they are asking has to be
>>> reasonable to cover their alleged expenditure...
car park, divided amongst the infringers they caught.
Obviously, lots of ways that might not work out in practice (eg you
couldn't foist the entire annual cost of a scheme on the people you
caught the one day a year you bothered to issue penalty notices).
--
Roland Perry
2017, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
>>> Apart from the observation that whatever they are asking has to be
>>
>> I thought the Supreme Court in Parking Eye shot and buried that
>> argument.
>
>> I thought the Supreme Court in Parking Eye shot and buried that
>> argument.
>
>My understanding was that the "charge" must still be reasonable in light
>of the operators losses.
I thought the charge was supposed to reflect the costs of policing the
>of the operators losses.
car park, divided amongst the infringers they caught.
Obviously, lots of ways that might not work out in practice (eg you
couldn't foist the entire annual cost of a scheme on the people you
caught the one day a year you bothered to issue penalty notices).
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Dec 14, 2017, 11:58:15 AM12/14/17
to
In message <b518516c-7a27-9fd6...@hotmail.com>, at
16:34:29 on Thu, 14 Dec 2017, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
instead?
--
Roland Perry
16:34:29 on Thu, 14 Dec 2017, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Apart from the observation that whatever they are asking has to be
>>>> reasonable to cover their alleged expenditure, I would be curious as to
>>>> your last point.
>>>
>>> I thought the Supreme Court in Parking Eye shot and buried that
>>> argument.
>> My understanding was that the "charge" must still be reasonable in
>>light
>> of the operators losses. It most certainly is not a blank cheque.
>
>No. You are still coming at it from the angle of "losses". That is
>not where we are after Parking Eye.
OK, so we know we aren't *there*. Can you elucidate *where* we are
>>>> reasonable to cover their alleged expenditure, I would be curious as to
>>>> your last point.
>>>
>>> I thought the Supreme Court in Parking Eye shot and buried that
>>> argument.
>> My understanding was that the "charge" must still be reasonable in
>>light
>> of the operators losses. It most certainly is not a blank cheque.
>
>No. You are still coming at it from the angle of "losses". That is
>not where we are after Parking Eye.
instead?
--
Roland Perry
Robin
Dec 14, 2017, 12:36:28 PM12/14/17
to
On 14/12/2017 17:20, Jethro_uk wrote:
> kicked out of court a few times ?
>
I'd be interested to see how you or others square that with the
judgments. As the SC's press release put it:
"the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had
a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended
beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the
provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail
outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which
met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin.
Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having
regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account
the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices."
See also eg Lord Mance at paras. 197-199 who sets it out very clearly.
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 16:53:13 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> In message <p0u8af$g83$1...@dont-email.me>, at 16:19:27 on Thu, 14 Dec
>> 2017,
>> Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
>>
>> >>> Apart from the observation that whatever they are asking has to be
>> >>> reasonable to cover their alleged expenditure...
>>> [quoted text muted]
>
>> In message <p0u8af$g83$1...@dont-email.me>, at 16:19:27 on Thu, 14 Dec
>> 2017,
>> Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
>>
>> >>> Apart from the observation that whatever they are asking has to be
>> >>> reasonable to cover their alleged expenditure...
>>
>> I thought the charge was supposed to reflect the costs of policing the
>> car park, divided amongst the infringers they caught.
>
> Like the supermarket "civil recovery scheme" that I seem to recall got
>> I thought the charge was supposed to reflect the costs of policing the
>> car park, divided amongst the infringers they caught.
>
> kicked out of court a few times ?
>
I'd be interested to see how you or others square that with the
judgments. As the SC's press release put it:
"the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had
a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended
beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the
provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail
outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which
met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin.
Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having
regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account
the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices."
See also eg Lord Mance at paras. 197-199 who sets it out very clearly.
T i m
Dec 15, 2017, 7:34:26 AM12/15/17
to
On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 12:03:50 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
<snip>
Sorry guys, I was watching here for a reply and there were non
initially but now like buses ... ;-)
>> "Failure to Pay for the Duration of Stay"
>>
I now have an update and apology for any possible confusion etc
(although I'm still confused).
A friend was able to send me a photograph of the T&C's board next to
the payment machine and it does say in reasonably large letters (about
the same size as most of the rest):
"Parking must be paid for within 15 mins of entry".
So it seems that they aren't actually saying that it was a 'Failure to
Pay for the Duration of Stay' (because I did on 3 separate occasions)
but *they deemed*, because of their T&C's that I hadn't?
The reason for this timing is they offer (I have since learned from
PALS as they sent me a bit of a scan of a Parking Advice leaflet, plus
advising I send my appeal(s) to UKCPM directly ...) a '15 minute
grace period allowing you to drop off a passenger (within the car park
area presumably), foc'.
So, you either leave before the 15 minutes (fair enough), or *pay to
stay*, within the 15 minutes.
""Visitors have a 15 minute grace period, this allows them to drop off
passengers or alternatively pay a minimum fee of 1 hour."
However, the leaflet also goes on to suggest (to me anyway) that you
can *only* pay for the entire duration of your *predicted* stay at
that time, no 'top-up's' allowed?
'We operate an ANPR system which will identify any vehicle as it
enters and leaves the hospital car park, the driver of the vehicle has
up to 15 mins to pay for parking which must cover the duration of the
stay. The ANPR cameras will identify anyone who has not paid
sufficiently to cover their stay.'
Doesn't the last paragraph sorta open up questions on the first?
The first seems to tie it down that you have to pay for the entire
stay within the first 15 minutes.
The second seems to open it up to the option that as long as you have
paid a sufficient amount during your stay to completely cover your
stay (so including topups) then you should be ok?
So, I'm happier now I understand *why* I received the PCN's (two so
far, potentially 3) but not the justification (other than breaching
that particular T&C etc), if the spirit of their managing the car park
for the hospital is to ensure everone staying over 15 minutes pays for
the time they are there (which I did on at least two of the occasions,
the other I overstayed by 1 minute, according to them). ;-(
The sign I've seen (a picture of) don't seem to have the details I've
quoted from the leaflet that I know of, nor do I know who publishes
the leaflet (I'll try to get hold of a copy, if any of it matters
etc).
Cheers, T i m
<jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
<snip>
Sorry guys, I was watching here for a reply and there were non
initially but now like buses ... ;-)
>> "Failure to Pay for the Duration of Stay"
>>
(although I'm still confused).
A friend was able to send me a photograph of the T&C's board next to
the payment machine and it does say in reasonably large letters (about
the same size as most of the rest):
"Parking must be paid for within 15 mins of entry".
So it seems that they aren't actually saying that it was a 'Failure to
Pay for the Duration of Stay' (because I did on 3 separate occasions)
but *they deemed*, because of their T&C's that I hadn't?
The reason for this timing is they offer (I have since learned from
PALS as they sent me a bit of a scan of a Parking Advice leaflet, plus
advising I send my appeal(s) to UKCPM directly ...) a '15 minute
grace period allowing you to drop off a passenger (within the car park
area presumably), foc'.
So, you either leave before the 15 minutes (fair enough), or *pay to
stay*, within the 15 minutes.
""Visitors have a 15 minute grace period, this allows them to drop off
passengers or alternatively pay a minimum fee of 1 hour."
However, the leaflet also goes on to suggest (to me anyway) that you
can *only* pay for the entire duration of your *predicted* stay at
that time, no 'top-up's' allowed?
'We operate an ANPR system which will identify any vehicle as it
enters and leaves the hospital car park, the driver of the vehicle has
up to 15 mins to pay for parking which must cover the duration of the
stay. The ANPR cameras will identify anyone who has not paid
sufficiently to cover their stay.'
Doesn't the last paragraph sorta open up questions on the first?
The first seems to tie it down that you have to pay for the entire
stay within the first 15 minutes.
The second seems to open it up to the option that as long as you have
paid a sufficient amount during your stay to completely cover your
stay (so including topups) then you should be ok?
So, I'm happier now I understand *why* I received the PCN's (two so
far, potentially 3) but not the justification (other than breaching
that particular T&C etc), if the spirit of their managing the car park
for the hospital is to ensure everone staying over 15 minutes pays for
the time they are there (which I did on at least two of the occasions,
the other I overstayed by 1 minute, according to them). ;-(
The sign I've seen (a picture of) don't seem to have the details I've
quoted from the leaflet that I know of, nor do I know who publishes
the leaflet (I'll try to get hold of a copy, if any of it matters
etc).
Cheers, T i m
tim...
Dec 15, 2017, 9:51:01 AM12/15/17
to
"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:CuruWyBu...@perry.co.uk...
losses incurred by the operator from the parking space being unavailable for
someone else to park in and are not just the value of the fee for the use of
the space - on the (not unreasonable) assumption that, for example, two
people individually parking (and using the associated facilities) for one
hour each is likely to be more "profitable" to the company than one person
parking for 2 hours, and that there is likely to be a loss of opportunity of
sales from people deterred by a full car park, some occupants of which may
have overstayed their allotted time.
FTAOD that's just my take on how Beavis changed the legal interpretation of
"reasonable loss", I accept that it doesn't scale well to parking at a
hospital.
tim
tim...
Dec 15, 2017, 9:51:48 AM12/15/17
to
"T i m" <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote in message
news:q6b73dt213c5n4d0d...@4ax.com...
On the basis of what you have quoted ISTM that it's a system deliberately
designed to make people fall foul of the rules and thus liable to fines
(presumably to provide an income stream for an, otherwise under-remunerated,
third party operator).
IMHO such a system has no place in a car park provided by a government
organisation.
It's one thing for the HNS to argue that they cannot afford to provide
parking for free and have to charge users for using it. Quite another for
them to argue that they can't afford to operate a parking scheme funded by
open and transparent fees and have to resort to the underhand penalty charge
tactics so popular amongst rogue operators.
tim
T i m
Dec 15, 2017, 11:13:43 AM12/15/17
to
On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 13:46:58 -0000, "tim..." <tims_n...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
<snip>
Ok ...
most', it does seem to be fairly inflexible.
People are likely to be old and infirm.
People are likely to be 'ill' (lacking mobility or worse).
People are likely to be distracted by things more important than some
car park small print.
People are rarely in control of the circumstances. Unlike a shop where
you could simply park your trolley and go and attend the meter /
whatever, if you are on you own and half way though a procedure that
ended up running late ...
None of that matters to a 'cold' system of course.
That's where the 'Pay what you owe on exit' as used at our local /
regular hospital makes much more sense all round and wouldn't take
much different technology (if any) to implement at NM.
The question is what do I do next? If I just leave it the 'fine' will
escalate from 60 to £100 and then I understand they will had it over
to their Debt Collectors and failing payment there, potentially to
court. I'm also guessing they might be more inclined to bother when
it's x3 (cost) than 1.
I understand that getting the money back will be fairly difficult if I
do pay (that I have accepted liability etc).
Cheers, T i m
wrote:
<snip>
>
>On the basis of what you have quoted ISTM that it's a system deliberately
>designed to make people fall foul of the rules and thus liable to fines
>(presumably to provide an income stream for an, otherwise under-remunerated,
>third party operator).
I think by my understanding of 'what might seem fair and reasonable to
>On the basis of what you have quoted ISTM that it's a system deliberately
>designed to make people fall foul of the rules and thus liable to fines
>(presumably to provide an income stream for an, otherwise under-remunerated,
>third party operator).
most', it does seem to be fairly inflexible.
>
>IMHO such a system has no place in a car park provided by a government
>organisation.
And especially a hospital car park where:
>IMHO such a system has no place in a car park provided by a government
>organisation.
People are likely to be old and infirm.
People are likely to be 'ill' (lacking mobility or worse).
People are likely to be distracted by things more important than some
car park small print.
People are rarely in control of the circumstances. Unlike a shop where
you could simply park your trolley and go and attend the meter /
whatever, if you are on you own and half way though a procedure that
ended up running late ...
None of that matters to a 'cold' system of course.
That's where the 'Pay what you owe on exit' as used at our local /
regular hospital makes much more sense all round and wouldn't take
much different technology (if any) to implement at NM.
>
>It's one thing for the HNS to argue that they cannot afford to provide
>parking for free and have to charge users for using it. Quite another for
>them to argue that they can't afford to operate a parking scheme funded by
>open and transparent fees and have to resort to the underhand penalty charge
>tactics so popular amongst rogue operators.
Quite.
>It's one thing for the HNS to argue that they cannot afford to provide
>parking for free and have to charge users for using it. Quite another for
>them to argue that they can't afford to operate a parking scheme funded by
>open and transparent fees and have to resort to the underhand penalty charge
>tactics so popular amongst rogue operators.
The question is what do I do next? If I just leave it the 'fine' will
escalate from 60 to £100 and then I understand they will had it over
to their Debt Collectors and failing payment there, potentially to
court. I'm also guessing they might be more inclined to bother when
it's x3 (cost) than 1.
I understand that getting the money back will be fairly difficult if I
do pay (that I have accepted liability etc).
Cheers, T i m
Chris R
Dec 15, 2017, 11:24:36 AM12/15/17
to
doesn't enter into it.
--
Chris R
========legalstuff========
I post to be helpful but not claiming any expertise nor intending
anyone to rely on what I say. Nothing I post here will create a
professional relationship or duty of care. I do not provide legal
services to the public. My posts here refer only to English law except
where specified and are subject to the terms (including limitations of
liability) at http://www.clarityincorporatelaw.co.uk/legalstuff.html
======end legalstuff======
Mike Bristow
Dec 15, 2017, 12:20:05 PM12/15/17
to
In article <p10t01$3j4$1...@dont-email.me>,
Chris R <invalid...@invalid.invalid.com> wrote:
[Beavis v Parking Eye]
http://www.hardwicke.co.uk/insights/articles/the-law-on-penalties-after-parkingeye-v-beavis
} To summarise this, the position as to whether or not a clause in a
} contract is unenforceable as a penalty seems now to follow these
} lines:
}
} 1 Does the clause engage the penalty rule? (Or, to put it another
} way, is the clause under scrutiny a genuine pre-estimate of the
} innocent party’s loss? If yes, then the penalty rule is not
} engaged; if no, then it is engaged.) So if yes…
}
} 2 Does the innocent party have a legitimate interest in charging
} the defaulting party a sum which extends beyond the loss the
} innocent party has actually suffered? (ParkingEye’s legitimate
} interest was deemed to be that it sells its services as the
} manager of car parks and meets the costs of doing so from charges
} for breach of the terms.) If yes, and …
}
} 3 There is some other wider commercial or socio-economic justification
} for the clause, then it does not contravene the penalty rule.
So loss does enter into it (see point 1) but isn't decisive.
--
Mike Bristow mi...@urgle.com
Chris R <invalid...@invalid.invalid.com> wrote:
[Beavis v Parking Eye]
> No, we are at the point where "reasonable loss", or loss generally,
> doesn't enter into it.
From:
> doesn't enter into it.
http://www.hardwicke.co.uk/insights/articles/the-law-on-penalties-after-parkingeye-v-beavis
} To summarise this, the position as to whether or not a clause in a
} contract is unenforceable as a penalty seems now to follow these
} lines:
}
} 1 Does the clause engage the penalty rule? (Or, to put it another
} way, is the clause under scrutiny a genuine pre-estimate of the
} innocent party’s loss? If yes, then the penalty rule is not
} engaged; if no, then it is engaged.) So if yes…
}
} 2 Does the innocent party have a legitimate interest in charging
} the defaulting party a sum which extends beyond the loss the
} innocent party has actually suffered? (ParkingEye’s legitimate
} interest was deemed to be that it sells its services as the
} manager of car parks and meets the costs of doing so from charges
} for breach of the terms.) If yes, and …
}
} 3 There is some other wider commercial or socio-economic justification
} for the clause, then it does not contravene the penalty rule.
So loss does enter into it (see point 1) but isn't decisive.
--
Mike Bristow mi...@urgle.com
Roland Perry
Dec 15, 2017, 12:24:38 PM12/15/17
to
In message <bgr73d5iuiroet73e...@4ax.com>, at 16:07:29 on
Fri, 15 Dec 2017, T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> remarked:
A bit like paying an amount into the county court.
--
Roland Perry
Fri, 15 Dec 2017, T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> remarked:
>I understand that getting the money back will be fairly difficult if I
>do pay (that I have accepted liability etc).
Is there no mechanism for paying without admitting liability?
>do pay (that I have accepted liability etc).
A bit like paying an amount into the county court.
--
Roland Perry
Robin
Dec 15, 2017, 1:39:32 PM12/15/17
to
pre-estimate of the innocent party’s loss" then there's no need to
consider anything more.
the result is that a charge of - say - £85 for a typical car park in the
UK is enforceable one way or another.
T i m
Dec 15, 2017, 3:01:09 PM12/15/17
to
innocent party?
Cheers, T i m
T i m
Dec 15, 2017, 3:02:06 PM12/15/17
to
On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 17:12:33 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:
>In message <bgr73d5iuiroet73e...@4ax.com>, at 16:07:29 on
>Fri, 15 Dec 2017, T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> remarked:
>>I understand that getting the money back will be fairly difficult if I
>>do pay (that I have accepted liability etc).
>
>Is there no mechanism for paying without admitting liability?
Erm, I'm not sure Rowland and not sure how to find out. I've not
spoken to the CM directly as yet as I was wary of exposing my hand if
I was going to appeal using guidance from the MSE site etc?
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/private-parking-tickets
I'm still chatting to PALS at the hospital so I'll see where that
takes me first.
Cheers, T i m
wrote:
>In message <bgr73d5iuiroet73e...@4ax.com>, at 16:07:29 on
>Fri, 15 Dec 2017, T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> remarked:
>>I understand that getting the money back will be fairly difficult if I
>>do pay (that I have accepted liability etc).
>
>Is there no mechanism for paying without admitting liability?
spoken to the CM directly as yet as I was wary of exposing my hand if
I was going to appeal using guidance from the MSE site etc?
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/private-parking-tickets
>
>A bit like paying an amount into the county court.
Never had need to do that (luckily) but get what you are saying. ;-)
>A bit like paying an amount into the county court.
I'm still chatting to PALS at the hospital so I'll see where that
takes me first.
Cheers, T i m
Brian Reay
Dec 15, 2017, 3:02:25 PM12/15/17
to
a recent case in Wales highlighted the dangers of trying to fight cases
using reason/tactics/etc considered unreasonable- a massive bill for
costs. It is clear the NHS staff will be lumbered with not only the
original penalties but a huge surcharge as all avenues for appeal etc
are closed.
Mark Goodge
Dec 15, 2017, 4:35:06 PM12/15/17
to
>>UK is enforceable one way or another.
>
>
>How would this relate when there was no actual (financial) loss to the
>innocent party?
The cost of enforcement is a loss, in Beavis terms, so the mere
>
>
>How would this relate when there was no actual (financial) loss to the
>innocent party?
existence of a PCN eliminates that possibility.
Mark
Robin
Dec 15, 2017, 5:11:44 PM12/15/17
to
loss consequential on the particular breach but I really do think it is
hopeless. Since the quote from the press release seems not to have
sufficed to silent the siren calls let me try Lord Mance:
"199. In these circumstances, the fact that no individual episode of
overstaying, or of mis-parking, could be said to involve ParkingEye or
BAPF in any ascertainable damage is irrelevant. What matters is that a
charge of the order of £85 (reducible on prompt payment) is an
understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests.
Customers using the car park agree to the scheme by doing so."
There's more from other judgements to the same effect. Or from umpteen
commentaries on the case.
So IMHO the "they need to show a loss" argument is not just a fox that
was dead and buried after the SC; it is by now a stinking, rotting
corpse that shouldn't be exhumed without a court order and containment
level 3 facilities ;)
Norman Wells
Dec 15, 2017, 5:23:16 PM12/15/17
to
On 15/12/2017 18:23, Brian Reay wrote:
>
> While I'm no supporter of hospitals charging for parking,
What front line services would you reduce to compensate for the loss of
>
> While I'm no supporter of hospitals charging for parking,
income were they to become free then? Nurses, CAT scans, drugs or doctors?
T i m
Dec 15, 2017, 5:23:52 PM12/15/17
to
On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 18:23:31 +0000, Brian Reay <no...@m.com> wrote:
<snip>
>While I'm no supporter of hospitals charging for parking,
>a recent case in Wales highlighted the dangers of trying to fight cases
>using reason/tactics/etc considered unreasonable- a massive bill for
>costs. It is clear the NHS staff will be lumbered with not only the
>original penalties but a huge surcharge as all avenues for appeal etc
>are closed.
Not right though is it, if it's 'unreasonable'.
Of the two PCN's I've received so far (predicted to be 3, all for the
same 'reason'), one I may well put my hands up to because it was a
overstay (by one minute). To have guaranteed where I stood would
require me starting a stopwatch as I entered the car park and stopped
it as I exited, or do what they hope and pay for more time than I
used.
The other one I paid for 60 minutes and only used ~30 and the PCN
states 'Failure to Pay for the Duration of Stay', when I did, (even if
I didn't do it as quickly as they require, eg, after 30 minutes not
before 15) but I *did* pay.
Now, the wording might not be relevant and is a catchall that covers
*any* payment related issues but ... <shrug>
Cheers, T i m
<snip>
>While I'm no supporter of hospitals charging for parking,
>a recent case in Wales highlighted the dangers of trying to fight cases
>using reason/tactics/etc considered unreasonable- a massive bill for
>costs. It is clear the NHS staff will be lumbered with not only the
>original penalties but a huge surcharge as all avenues for appeal etc
>are closed.
Of the two PCN's I've received so far (predicted to be 3, all for the
same 'reason'), one I may well put my hands up to because it was a
overstay (by one minute). To have guaranteed where I stood would
require me starting a stopwatch as I entered the car park and stopped
it as I exited, or do what they hope and pay for more time than I
used.
The other one I paid for 60 minutes and only used ~30 and the PCN
states 'Failure to Pay for the Duration of Stay', when I did, (even if
I didn't do it as quickly as they require, eg, after 30 minutes not
before 15) but I *did* pay.
Now, the wording might not be relevant and is a catchall that covers
*any* payment related issues but ... <shrug>
Cheers, T i m
Fredxx
Dec 15, 2017, 6:11:25 PM12/15/17
to
about allowing those who can afford to park, and to provide more free
parking for employees.
Many councils make a loss from installing parking meters.
T i m
Dec 16, 2017, 12:37:51 AM12/16/17
to
On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 22:11:38 +0000, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Thanks Mark / Robin.
>I do understand why you hope there needs to be some direct financial
>loss consequential on the particular breach but I really do think it is
>hopeless.
TBH I wasn't really 'hoping' ... I guessed there was no hope from the
getgo ... but wondered if there was a loophole somewhere based on
common sense and reason.
>Since the quote from the press release seems not to have
>sufficed to silent the siren calls let me try Lord Mance:
>
>"199. In these circumstances, the fact that no individual episode of
>overstaying, or of mis-parking, could be said to involve ParkingEye or
>BAPF in any ascertainable damage is irrelevant. What matters is that a
>charge of the order of £85 (reducible on prompt payment) is an
>understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests.
>Customers using the car park agree to the scheme by doing so."
>
>There's more from other judgements to the same effect. Or from umpteen
>commentaries on the case.
So (I apologise from my ignorance here) so are we saying that no one
successfully appeals against these companies any more or just not
using the 'they didn't suffer financial loss' thang?
So, what about what I consider to be a more technical issue ... things
that I believe have allowed legal cases to be dropped elsewhere, like
incorrect wording or timing etc?
eg: 'The reason we issued the PCN to the vehicle is as follows:
Failure to Pay for the Duration of stay', when I actually did (pay).
What I didn't do is pay within 15 mins, but on at least one occasion I
paid (for an hour) within 30 mins and then left. 'Hair trigger'?
Should the wording on the PCN more accurately reflect what actually
happened which seems to be they determine you aren't going to pay if
you haven't paid before 15 mins (even if you then do).
FWIW (and what we are more used to) is at Chase Farm Hospital main car
park you pay on exit using ANPR linked terminals (very sensible and
works well) and Barnet Hospital you pay an initial amount on entry
(again ANPR linked) but can 'Top up' at any time thereafter whilst
there, fully pay before you leave or pay up to midnight that day
elsewhere (by many means including by text or online).
Cheers, T i m
<snip>
Thanks Mark / Robin.
>I do understand why you hope there needs to be some direct financial
>loss consequential on the particular breach but I really do think it is
>hopeless.
getgo ... but wondered if there was a loophole somewhere based on
common sense and reason.
>Since the quote from the press release seems not to have
>sufficed to silent the siren calls let me try Lord Mance:
>
>"199. In these circumstances, the fact that no individual episode of
>overstaying, or of mis-parking, could be said to involve ParkingEye or
>BAPF in any ascertainable damage is irrelevant. What matters is that a
>charge of the order of £85 (reducible on prompt payment) is an
>understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests.
>Customers using the car park agree to the scheme by doing so."
>
>There's more from other judgements to the same effect. Or from umpteen
>commentaries on the case.
successfully appeals against these companies any more or just not
using the 'they didn't suffer financial loss' thang?
>
>So IMHO the "they need to show a loss" argument is not just a fox that
>was dead and buried after the SC; it is by now a stinking, rotting
>corpse that shouldn't be exhumed without a court order and containment
>level 3 facilities ;)
Noted. ;-)
>So IMHO the "they need to show a loss" argument is not just a fox that
>was dead and buried after the SC; it is by now a stinking, rotting
>corpse that shouldn't be exhumed without a court order and containment
>level 3 facilities ;)
So, what about what I consider to be a more technical issue ... things
that I believe have allowed legal cases to be dropped elsewhere, like
incorrect wording or timing etc?
eg: 'The reason we issued the PCN to the vehicle is as follows:
Failure to Pay for the Duration of stay', when I actually did (pay).
What I didn't do is pay within 15 mins, but on at least one occasion I
paid (for an hour) within 30 mins and then left. 'Hair trigger'?
Should the wording on the PCN more accurately reflect what actually
happened which seems to be they determine you aren't going to pay if
you haven't paid before 15 mins (even if you then do).
FWIW (and what we are more used to) is at Chase Farm Hospital main car
park you pay on exit using ANPR linked terminals (very sensible and
works well) and Barnet Hospital you pay an initial amount on entry
(again ANPR linked) but can 'Top up' at any time thereafter whilst
there, fully pay before you leave or pay up to midnight that day
elsewhere (by many means including by text or online).
Cheers, T i m
T i m
Dec 16, 2017, 12:38:17 AM12/16/17
to
On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 21:36:56 +0000, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
Would you happen know if when a hospital oursources it's parking
management, does the hospital still take all the revenue, a percentage
or none at all?
I wouldn't have thought it was the latter (or second) because many of
these agencies offer their facilities free and that allows the
hospitals to focus on fixing people and not running a car park.
Or maybe the parking 'fee' goes to the hospital and the PCN's go to
the agency (and therefore why they might not make their systems as
'friendly' as the might / could (should?))?
Cheers, T i m
wrote:
management, does the hospital still take all the revenue, a percentage
or none at all?
I wouldn't have thought it was the latter (or second) because many of
these agencies offer their facilities free and that allows the
hospitals to focus on fixing people and not running a car park.
Or maybe the parking 'fee' goes to the hospital and the PCN's go to
the agency (and therefore why they might not make their systems as
'friendly' as the might / could (should?))?
Cheers, T i m
Brian Reay
Dec 16, 2017, 2:28:22 AM12/16/17
to
On 15/12/2017 21:36, Norman Wells wrote:
Charging those attending hospital, visitors, or staff is not acceptable
in my view.
Roland Perry
Dec 16, 2017, 3:08:11 AM12/16/17
to
In message <f9itjn...@mid.individual.net>, at 21:36:56 on Fri, 15
Dec 2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
The only reason these sorts of car parks exist in their current form is
because the NHS has decided to centralise so many of its services (to
save money) and also relocate themselves typically on the edge of town,
thus forcing the patients to travel much greater distances to *them*.
Therefore, people partaking in this exercise have *already* in effect
contributed their time and petrol in order that the NHS can better
afford the items you list.
Charging excessive amounts to park is "double dipping".
--
Roland Perry
Dec 2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
because the NHS has decided to centralise so many of its services (to
save money) and also relocate themselves typically on the edge of town,
thus forcing the patients to travel much greater distances to *them*.
Therefore, people partaking in this exercise have *already* in effect
contributed their time and petrol in order that the NHS can better
afford the items you list.
Charging excessive amounts to park is "double dipping".
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Dec 16, 2017, 3:08:11 AM12/16/17
to
In message <p12fna$ela$1...@dont-email.me>, at 06:50:17 on Sat, 16 Dec
2017, Brian Reay <no...@m.com> remarked:
>>> While I'm no supporter of hospitals charging for parking,
>> What front line services would you reduce to compensate for the loss
>>of income were they to become free then? Nurses, CAT scans, drugs or
>>doctors?
>
>There are other funding / financial routes.
>
>Charging those attending hospital, visitors, or staff is not acceptable
>in my view.
Charges for staff are a sore point, but at some inherently badly
planned/located mega-hospitals they do see a need to encourage[1] staff
to at least ride-share if possible.
However, shift-working for patient-facing staff makes ride-sharing much
harder to organise. The nightmare shifts being those which change at
breakfast time on a Sunday, when for most of the country there's simply
no public transport running at all. But of course the roads are empty.
If the government wants 7-day hospitals, they really do need to think
about 7-day public transport for those affected.
[1] A carrot would be more acceptable than a stick, of course.
--
Roland Perry
2017, Brian Reay <no...@m.com> remarked:
>>> While I'm no supporter of hospitals charging for parking,
>> What front line services would you reduce to compensate for the loss
>>of income were they to become free then? Nurses, CAT scans, drugs or
>>doctors?
>
>There are other funding / financial routes.
>
>Charging those attending hospital, visitors, or staff is not acceptable
>in my view.
planned/located mega-hospitals they do see a need to encourage[1] staff
to at least ride-share if possible.
However, shift-working for patient-facing staff makes ride-sharing much
harder to organise. The nightmare shifts being those which change at
breakfast time on a Sunday, when for most of the country there's simply
no public transport running at all. But of course the roads are empty.
If the government wants 7-day hospitals, they really do need to think
about 7-day public transport for those affected.
[1] A carrot would be more acceptable than a stick, of course.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Dec 16, 2017, 3:08:18 AM12/16/17
to
In message <u6p83d12kq4uf97dt...@4ax.com>, at 00:18:34 on
Sat, 16 Dec 2017, T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> remarked:
>>> While I'm no supporter of hospitals charging for parking,
>>
>>What front line services would you reduce to compensate for the loss of
>>income were they to become free then? Nurses, CAT scans, drugs or doctors?
>
>Would you happen know if when a hospital oursources it's parking
>management, does the hospital still take all the revenue, a percentage
>or none at all?
>
>I wouldn't have thought it was the latter (or second) because many of
>these agencies offer their facilities free and that allows the
>hospitals to focus on fixing people and not running a car park.
Perhaps the hospitals should bring in outside caterers, and charge
patients commercial rates for meals, so they can "focus on fixing
people, not running a restaurant".
--
Roland Perry
Sat, 16 Dec 2017, T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> remarked:
>>> While I'm no supporter of hospitals charging for parking,
>>
>>What front line services would you reduce to compensate for the loss of
>>income were they to become free then? Nurses, CAT scans, drugs or doctors?
>
>Would you happen know if when a hospital oursources it's parking
>management, does the hospital still take all the revenue, a percentage
>or none at all?
>
>I wouldn't have thought it was the latter (or second) because many of
>these agencies offer their facilities free and that allows the
>hospitals to focus on fixing people and not running a car park.
patients commercial rates for meals, so they can "focus on fixing
people, not running a restaurant".
--
Roland Perry
Robin
Dec 16, 2017, 3:38:13 AM12/16/17
to
On 16/12/2017 00:10, T i m wrote:
<snip>
>
> So, what about what I consider to be a more technical issue ... things
> that I believe have allowed legal cases to be dropped elsewhere, like
> incorrect wording or timing etc?
Those and other points (eg insufficient signage) can certainly mean PCNs
will fail. But, as I said early on in the thread in uk.d-i-y, you need
someone who knows more and better than me to advise on them. All I was
trying to do here is stop the "they can only recover their loss" rising
like Count Dracula in a B-movie.
<snip>
<snip>
>
> So, what about what I consider to be a more technical issue ... things
> that I believe have allowed legal cases to be dropped elsewhere, like
> incorrect wording or timing etc?
will fail. But, as I said early on in the thread in uk.d-i-y, you need
someone who knows more and better than me to advise on them. All I was
trying to do here is stop the "they can only recover their loss" rising
like Count Dracula in a B-movie.
<snip>
Martin Brown
Dec 16, 2017, 5:01:31 AM12/16/17
to
On 15/12/2017 21:36, Norman Wells wrote:
The ones I know have sold the land to a third party to raise cash. There
is no connection between the parking company running the satellite car
parks and the hospital. This only becomes obvious when you have a free
pass for critical care and find only two of the five carparks accept it.
Only the central carparks which are inside the hospital perimeter are
still owned by the hospital (and perhaps operated by a third party).
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Norman Wells
Dec 16, 2017, 5:08:29 AM12/16/17
to
On 16/12/2017 07:57, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <f9itjn...@mid.individual.net>, at 21:36:56 on Fri, 15
> Dec 2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>> On 15/12/2017 18:23, Brian Reay wrote:
>>> While I'm no supporter of hospitals charging for parking,
>>
>> What front line services would you reduce to compensate for the loss
>> of income were they to become free then? Nurses, CAT scans, drugs or
>> doctors?
>
> The only reason these sorts of car parks exist in their current form is
> because the NHS has decided to centralise so many of its services (to
> save money) and also relocate themselves typically on the edge of town,
> thus forcing the patients to travel much greater distances to *them*.
Hospitals are big things. Those in town centres cannot expand. New
> In message <f9itjn...@mid.individual.net>, at 21:36:56 on Fri, 15
> Dec 2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>> On 15/12/2017 18:23, Brian Reay wrote:
>>> While I'm no supporter of hospitals charging for parking,
>>
>> What front line services would you reduce to compensate for the loss
>> of income were they to become free then? Nurses, CAT scans, drugs or
>> doctors?
>
> The only reason these sorts of car parks exist in their current form is
> because the NHS has decided to centralise so many of its services (to
> save money) and also relocate themselves typically on the edge of town,
> thus forcing the patients to travel much greater distances to *them*.
hospitals can't be built in town centres.
The distance people have to travel to hospital depends just on where
they live and where the hospital is. Most don't actually live in a town
centre next to where the town centre hospital was, and will probably
actually find it easier to access a hospital on the edge of town where
at least some parking can be provided.
I see no reason why those using the service should not pay a little
extra for that convenience. Nor do I see any reason why they should not
be happy to do so, as they are anywhere else they are provided with
convenient parking.
> Therefore, people partaking in this exercise have *already* in effect
> contributed their time and petrol in order that the NHS can better
> afford the items you list.
> Charging excessive amounts to park is "double dipping".
Norman Wells
Dec 16, 2017, 5:08:45 AM12/16/17
to
They already outsource many services like cleaning because it's more
efficient.
Norman Wells
Dec 16, 2017, 5:09:32 AM12/16/17
to
On 16/12/2017 06:50, Brian Reay wrote:
> On 15/12/2017 21:36, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 15/12/2017 18:23, Brian Reay wrote:
>>>
>>> While I'm no supporter of hospitals charging for parking,
>>
>> What front line services would you reduce to compensate for the loss
>> of income were they to become free then? Nurses, CAT scans, drugs or
>> doctors?
>
> There are other funding / financial routes.
Then do say what they are. I'm sure that nice Mr Hunt will be very
> On 15/12/2017 21:36, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 15/12/2017 18:23, Brian Reay wrote:
>>>
>>> While I'm no supporter of hospitals charging for parking,
>>
>> What front line services would you reduce to compensate for the loss
>> of income were they to become free then? Nurses, CAT scans, drugs or
>> doctors?
>
> There are other funding / financial routes.
interested in your ideas.
> Charging those attending hospital, visitors, or staff is not acceptable
> in my view.
budget, so as to avoid cuts in front line services. Car parks cost
considerable sums to build, maintain and administer.
People pay to use car parks elsewhere all the time. Why should
hospitals be any different? At least that way the people using the
service can give a little back towards its funding. They'd normally be
reasonably happy to do that, but not for some reason it seems when it's
associated with their cars.
T i m
Dec 16, 2017, 6:14:05 AM12/16/17
to
On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 08:55:48 +0000, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
<snip>
>In that case it is down to you to say who should pay, and out of which
>budget, so as to avoid cuts in front line services. Car parks cost
>considerable sums to build, maintain and administer.
And why many outsource the management and maintenance and even sell
the land off (to be kept as a car park) I'm informed.
to the hospital (or doctors / dentist etc).
>At least that way the people using the
>service can give a little back towards its funding.
I agree, as long as the prices are 'reasonable'.
>They'd normally be
>reasonably happy to do that, but not for some reason it seems when it's
>associated with their cars.
I (for one) am perfectly happy to pay to use hospital car parks (see
pricing comment above) but *luckily* most of the hospitals we have to
use have reasonable parking systems in place (with no draconian
penalties for making a small mistake that don't seem to be justified).
Like, it's pretty obvious that you have parked over a line on a
parking bay, or gone over your time when you have a paper ticket in
your windscreen or receipt of some fashion to remind you *exactly*
what the timings are but not if you do actually pay in full before you
leave but are considered as not paying at all or because you are 60
seconds (or possibly 1 second, marked as 1 minute)) over the hour you
paid for because they hold and don't share all the timing information
with you?
It's not like missing a train when if you are late it's gone, it's
like being forced to pay for your meal just after the starter rather
than before you leave?
As it happens, we can transfer some money from our savings and
'afford' to pay 3 x £60 PCN (because of our bad luck we have had three
appointments between when doing it wrong the first time and receiving
the PCN nearly 14 days later ...? (How come they can't get the PCN out
to us as fast as they can issue them in the first place?)).
Cheers, T i m
wrote:
<snip>
>In that case it is down to you to say who should pay, and out of which
>budget, so as to avoid cuts in front line services. Car parks cost
>considerable sums to build, maintain and administer.
the land off (to be kept as a car park) I'm informed.
>
>People pay to use car parks elsewhere all the time. Why should
>hospitals be any different?
I think the only difference is that most people don't *choose* to go
>People pay to use car parks elsewhere all the time. Why should
>hospitals be any different?
to the hospital (or doctors / dentist etc).
>At least that way the people using the
>service can give a little back towards its funding.
>They'd normally be
>reasonably happy to do that, but not for some reason it seems when it's
>associated with their cars.
pricing comment above) but *luckily* most of the hospitals we have to
use have reasonable parking systems in place (with no draconian
penalties for making a small mistake that don't seem to be justified).
Like, it's pretty obvious that you have parked over a line on a
parking bay, or gone over your time when you have a paper ticket in
your windscreen or receipt of some fashion to remind you *exactly*
what the timings are but not if you do actually pay in full before you
leave but are considered as not paying at all or because you are 60
seconds (or possibly 1 second, marked as 1 minute)) over the hour you
paid for because they hold and don't share all the timing information
with you?
It's not like missing a train when if you are late it's gone, it's
like being forced to pay for your meal just after the starter rather
than before you leave?
As it happens, we can transfer some money from our savings and
'afford' to pay 3 x £60 PCN (because of our bad luck we have had three
appointments between when doing it wrong the first time and receiving
the PCN nearly 14 days later ...? (How come they can't get the PCN out
to us as fast as they can issue them in the first place?)).
Cheers, T i m
T i m
Dec 16, 2017, 6:14:38 AM12/16/17
to
On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 08:57:56 +0000, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
<snip>
>>> Would you happen know if when a hospital oursources it's parking
>>> management, does the hospital still take all the revenue, a percentage
>>> or none at all?
>>>
>>> I wouldn't have thought it was the latter (or second) because many of
>>> these agencies offer their facilities free and that allows the
>>> hospitals to focus on fixing people and not running a car park.
>>
>> Perhaps the hospitals should bring in outside caterers, and charge
>> patients commercial rates for meals, so they can "focus on fixing
>> people, not running a restaurant".
>
>Why not?
>
>They already outsource many services like cleaning because it's more
>efficient.
And I thought some did outsource the catering?
No different than getting contractors in to do building repairs or
anything that wasn't directly related to fixing people?
My mate runs a car garage and he buys all his parts with cash, not on
account. He does so because he doesn't have an accounts department and
doesn't want to outsource such either.
Cheers, T i m
wrote:
<snip>
>>> Would you happen know if when a hospital oursources it's parking
>>> management, does the hospital still take all the revenue, a percentage
>>> or none at all?
>>>
>>> I wouldn't have thought it was the latter (or second) because many of
>>> these agencies offer their facilities free and that allows the
>>> hospitals to focus on fixing people and not running a car park.
>>
>> Perhaps the hospitals should bring in outside caterers, and charge
>> patients commercial rates for meals, so they can "focus on fixing
>> people, not running a restaurant".
>
>Why not?
>
>They already outsource many services like cleaning because it's more
>efficient.
No different than getting contractors in to do building repairs or
anything that wasn't directly related to fixing people?
My mate runs a car garage and he buys all his parts with cash, not on
account. He does so because he doesn't have an accounts department and
doesn't want to outsource such either.
Cheers, T i m
Norman Wells
Dec 16, 2017, 6:15:12 AM12/16/17
to
On 16/12/2017 10:01, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 15/12/2017 21:36, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 15/12/2017 18:23, Brian Reay wrote:
>>>
>>> While I'm no supporter of hospitals charging for parking,
>>
>> What front line services would you reduce to compensate for the loss
>> of income were they to become free then? Nurses, CAT scans, drugs or
>> doctors?
>
> What makes you think any money from hospital carparks goes to the NHS?
Google.
> On 15/12/2017 21:36, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 15/12/2017 18:23, Brian Reay wrote:
>>>
>>> While I'm no supporter of hospitals charging for parking,
>>
>> What front line services would you reduce to compensate for the loss
>> of income were they to become free then? Nurses, CAT scans, drugs or
>> doctors?
>
> What makes you think any money from hospital carparks goes to the NHS?
"Hospitals in England net more money than ever from car park charges"
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/dec/28/hospitals-in-england-net-more-money-than-ever-from-car-park-charges
> The ones I know have sold the land to a third party to raise cash. There
> is no connection between the parking company running the satellite car
> parks and the hospital. This only becomes obvious when you have a free
> pass for critical care and find only two of the five carparks accept it.
>
> Only the central carparks which are inside the hospital perimeter are
> still owned by the hospital (and perhaps operated by a third party).
expect the NHS to provide, pay for and administer them, using NHS
resources to do so. That being the case, front line services would have
to be cut if they were to be free of charge. All I am asking is which
such services you would cut.
T i m
Dec 16, 2017, 6:15:32 AM12/16/17
to
Yes, I thought I remember that getting overthrown as it was on the
news a while back.
I think we went from 'They can do anything' ... to 'them being reigned
in' ... and we may be getting back to them being 'nearly able to do
what they want, as long as they state they will'. Like you get the
choice to park elsewhere when visiting a busy inner city hospital.
You would only swap a PCN for paying in full but not within their
arbitrary timescale for a PCN for parking in a residents only bay. ;-(
Another anomaly I've since noticed (also mentioned similar elsewhere)
because I'm now paranoid that they are out to be unreasonable ...
Prices:
Up to 1 hour, £2
Up to 2 hours, £3
--
--
--
Up to 8 hours, £8
8 to 24 hours, £15.
What does the '8 to 24 hours' mean?
That you have to buy two tickets, an 'Up to 8 hours' to get you to
the, and an '8-24 hours' for the rest? If so, when do you have to buy
the second ticket? Within 15 mins after arriving?
If not wouldn't it just say 'Up to 24 hours ...' ?
Cheers, T i m
Mark Goodge
Dec 16, 2017, 6:41:32 AM12/16/17
to
On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 00:10:37 +0000, T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 22:11:38 +0000, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Since the quote from the press release seems not to have
>>sufficed to silent the siren calls let me try Lord Mance:
>>
>>"199. In these circumstances, the fact that no individual episode of
>>overstaying, or of mis-parking, could be said to involve ParkingEye or
>>BAPF in any ascertainable damage is irrelevant. What matters is that a
>>charge of the order of £85 (reducible on prompt payment) is an
>>understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests.
>>Customers using the car park agree to the scheme by doing so."
>>
>>There's more from other judgements to the same effect. Or from umpteen
>>commentaries on the case.
>
>So (I apologise from my ignorance here) so are we saying that no one
>successfully appeals against these companies any more or just not
>using the 'they didn't suffer financial loss' thang?
There are plenty of possible avenues for appeal. If the PCN was
>On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 22:11:38 +0000, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Since the quote from the press release seems not to have
>>sufficed to silent the siren calls let me try Lord Mance:
>>
>>"199. In these circumstances, the fact that no individual episode of
>>overstaying, or of mis-parking, could be said to involve ParkingEye or
>>BAPF in any ascertainable damage is irrelevant. What matters is that a
>>charge of the order of £85 (reducible on prompt payment) is an
>>understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests.
>>Customers using the car park agree to the scheme by doing so."
>>
>>There's more from other judgements to the same effect. Or from umpteen
>>commentaries on the case.
>
>So (I apologise from my ignorance here) so are we saying that no one
>successfully appeals against these companies any more or just not
>using the 'they didn't suffer financial loss' thang?
incorrectly issued, or the signage was invalid, or no infraction had
actually been committed, etc.
What has been lost, post-Beavis, is not ways to challenge the validity
of the PCN. All that has been lost is what was previously considered
an effective challenge to the value of it.
>>So IMHO the "they need to show a loss" argument is not just a fox that
>>was dead and buried after the SC; it is by now a stinking, rotting
>>corpse that shouldn't be exhumed without a court order and containment
>>level 3 facilities ;)
>
>Noted. ;-)
>
>So, what about what I consider to be a more technical issue ... things
>that I believe have allowed legal cases to be dropped elsewhere, like
>incorrect wording or timing etc?
>
>eg: 'The reason we issued the PCN to the vehicle is as follows:
>Failure to Pay for the Duration of stay', when I actually did (pay).
>
>What I didn't do is pay within 15 mins, but on at least one occasion I
>paid (for an hour) within 30 mins and then left. 'Hair trigger'?
appeals system and POPLA may (and, arguably, should) be sympathetic
to. However, it's unlikely to sway a court, as a court will have to go
by the actual wording of the contract in order to determine whether
you breached it. Which, unless you can make an argument that you were
unaware of the 15 minute rule, you did.
>Should the wording on the PCN more accurately reflect what actually
>happened which seems to be they determine you aren't going to pay if
>you haven't paid before 15 mins (even if you then do).
>
>FWIW (and what we are more used to) is at Chase Farm Hospital main car
>park you pay on exit using ANPR linked terminals (very sensible and
>works well) and Barnet Hospital you pay an initial amount on entry
>(again ANPR linked) but can 'Top up' at any time thereafter whilst
>there, fully pay before you leave or pay up to midnight that day
>elsewhere (by many means including by text or online).
parking, particularly given the difficulty of estimating in advance
how long you are likely to need to be on the premises. Pay on Exit is
much better for unpredictable lengths of stay. The difficulty, from
the operator's perspective, is that it's more expensive to run, and
isn't always suitable without considerable changes to the physical
layout of the parking. It's not a simple drop-in solution.
Mark
Mark Goodge
Dec 16, 2017, 7:07:04 AM12/16/17
to
device. It's a means of price-rationing a finite resource.
The problem with free parking with no time limit is that people will
park there all day even if they don't really need to. Particularly in
urban locations (which tends to apply to a lot of hospitals), free
parkign will simply attract users who are just there to park in order
to visit or work at nearby premises.
The solution to that for free parking is generally to have a limit on
time, so it can't be used by commuters and people who use the car park
as a park-and-ride/park-and-walk/park-and-cycle interchange. But
that's unsuitable for hospitals, because people may well need to be
there all day. So the space has to be rationed in some other way, and
making people pay for it is the most effective.
Mark
Martin Brown
Dec 16, 2017, 8:37:06 AM12/16/17
to
the wards cleaned *properly*. It is a false economy to have some minimum
wage drudge doing a cursory job of cleaning in a hospital.
At least these days the NHS has learnt from clean room technology and no
longer has blind corners where dust bunnies can accumulate.
I have seen both situations in practice in two different hospitals. The
privatised cleaners had no incentive to do a decent job at all and the
cross infection statistics showed it clearly. There was no-one that
didn't leave those wards with a hospital acquired UTI infection.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Roland Perry
Dec 16, 2017, 9:28:58 AM12/16/17
to
In message <uat93d5isvh82gbr3...@4ax.com>, at 10:31:56 on
market rate for delivering those meals to the beds. And if not, what
front line services would some say were being cut in order to provide
them free of charge?
ps. As the festive season approaches, I've know in-patients who had a
stay over Xmas, and the on-ward catering was reduced to sandwiches; in
order not to incur extra costs having people cook hot food on such
special days.
--
Roland Perry
>>>> Would you happen know if when a hospital oursources it's parking
>>>> management, does the hospital still take all the revenue, a percentage
>>>> or none at all?
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't have thought it was the latter (or second) because many of
>>>> these agencies offer their facilities free and that allows the
>>>> hospitals to focus on fixing people and not running a car park.
>>>
>>> Perhaps the hospitals should bring in outside caterers, and charge
>>> patients commercial rates for meals, so they can "focus on fixing
>>> people, not running a restaurant".
>>
>>Why not?
>>
>>They already outsource many services like cleaning because it's more
>>efficient.
>
>And I thought some did outsource the catering?
But the point I'm making is this: do the outsourced caterers charge a
>>>> management, does the hospital still take all the revenue, a percentage
>>>> or none at all?
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't have thought it was the latter (or second) because many of
>>>> these agencies offer their facilities free and that allows the
>>>> hospitals to focus on fixing people and not running a car park.
>>>
>>> Perhaps the hospitals should bring in outside caterers, and charge
>>> patients commercial rates for meals, so they can "focus on fixing
>>> people, not running a restaurant".
>>
>>Why not?
>>
>>They already outsource many services like cleaning because it's more
>>efficient.
>
>And I thought some did outsource the catering?
market rate for delivering those meals to the beds. And if not, what
front line services would some say were being cut in order to provide
them free of charge?
ps. As the festive season approaches, I've know in-patients who had a
stay over Xmas, and the on-ward catering was reduced to sandwiches; in
order not to incur extra costs having people cook hot food on such
special days.
--
Roland Perry
T i m
Dec 16, 2017, 10:45:18 AM12/16/17
to
On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 14:25:20 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:
<snip>
answer ... I think there could equally be 'other services' that might
not be as important as 'front line' they could be trimmed, *if*
contract catering was more expensive than doing it in house.
sandwich <g>) but I guess it would some.
Would I want someone to give up their holiday to come in a cook (or
defrost / microwave more likely) me a dinner? No.
However, if it was especially important for me to eat well as part of
my recovery then that would be different (as it would be 'medical' as
such), assuming that couldn't be gleaned from a sandwich?
Cheers, T i m
wrote:
<snip>
>>
>>And I thought some did outsource the catering?
>
>But the point I'm making is this: do the outsourced caterers charge a
>market rate for delivering those meals to the beds. And if not, what
>front line services would some say were being cut in order to provide
>them free of charge?
Whilst I understand your question and don't have an and don't have an
>>And I thought some did outsource the catering?
>
>But the point I'm making is this: do the outsourced caterers charge a
>market rate for delivering those meals to the beds. And if not, what
>front line services would some say were being cut in order to provide
>them free of charge?
answer ... I think there could equally be 'other services' that might
not be as important as 'front line' they could be trimmed, *if*
contract catering was more expensive than doing it in house.
>
>ps. As the festive season approaches, I've know in-patients who had a
>stay over Xmas, and the on-ward catering was reduced to sandwiches; in
>order not to incur extra costs having people cook hot food on such
>special days.
Personally, that wouldn't bother me (now you have made me want a
>ps. As the festive season approaches, I've know in-patients who had a
>stay over Xmas, and the on-ward catering was reduced to sandwiches; in
>order not to incur extra costs having people cook hot food on such
>special days.
sandwich <g>) but I guess it would some.
Would I want someone to give up their holiday to come in a cook (or
defrost / microwave more likely) me a dinner? No.
However, if it was especially important for me to eat well as part of
my recovery then that would be different (as it would be 'medical' as
such), assuming that couldn't be gleaned from a sandwich?
Cheers, T i m
T i m
Dec 16, 2017, 10:45:28 AM12/16/17
to
On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 12:07:01 +0000, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>Charging for hospital car parking is not primarily a revenue-raising
>device. It's a means of price-rationing a finite resource.
>
>The problem with free parking with no time limit is that people will
>park there all day even if they don't really need to. Particularly in
>urban locations (which tends to apply to a lot of hospitals), free
>parkign will simply attract users who are just there to park in order
>to visit or work at nearby premises.
>
>The solution to that for free parking is generally to have a limit on
>time, so it can't be used by commuters and people who use the car park
>as a park-and-ride/park-and-walk/park-and-cycle interchange. But
>that's unsuitable for hospitals, because people may well need to be
>there all day. So the space has to be rationed in some other way, and
>making people pay for it is the most effective.
>
Agreed. Given that our appointments are often posted to us, what would
stop that including a 'permit' section or barcode that you could scan
as you entered the car park or main building that 'validates' you as a
genuine patient for that day (and or even approximate duration)?
Cheers, T i m
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>Charging for hospital car parking is not primarily a revenue-raising
>device. It's a means of price-rationing a finite resource.
>
>The problem with free parking with no time limit is that people will
>park there all day even if they don't really need to. Particularly in
>urban locations (which tends to apply to a lot of hospitals), free
>parkign will simply attract users who are just there to park in order
>to visit or work at nearby premises.
>
>The solution to that for free parking is generally to have a limit on
>time, so it can't be used by commuters and people who use the car park
>as a park-and-ride/park-and-walk/park-and-cycle interchange. But
>that's unsuitable for hospitals, because people may well need to be
>there all day. So the space has to be rationed in some other way, and
>making people pay for it is the most effective.
>
stop that including a 'permit' section or barcode that you could scan
as you entered the car park or main building that 'validates' you as a
genuine patient for that day (and or even approximate duration)?
Cheers, T i m
tim...
Dec 16, 2017, 10:45:36 AM12/16/17
to
"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vk1a3d9k16ieeqn96...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 06:50:17 +0000, Brian Reay <no...@m.com> wrote:
>
>>On 15/12/2017 21:36, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> On 15/12/2017 18:23, Brian Reay wrote:
>>>>
>>>> While I'm no supporter of hospitals charging for parking,
>>>
>>> What front line services would you reduce to compensate for the loss of
>>> income were they to become free then? Nurses, CAT scans, drugs or
>>> doctors?
>>
>>There are other funding / financial routes.
>>
>>Charging those attending hospital, visitors, or staff is not acceptable
>>in my view.
>
> Charging for hospital car parking is not primarily a revenue-raising
> device. It's a means of price-rationing a finite resource.
that may be true for town centre hospitals, but it doesn't stand to scrutiny
>
>>On 15/12/2017 21:36, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> On 15/12/2017 18:23, Brian Reay wrote:
>>>>
>>>> While I'm no supporter of hospitals charging for parking,
>>>
>>> What front line services would you reduce to compensate for the loss of
>>> income were they to become free then? Nurses, CAT scans, drugs or
>>> doctors?
>>
>>There are other funding / financial routes.
>>
>>Charging those attending hospital, visitors, or staff is not acceptable
>>in my view.
>
> Charging for hospital car parking is not primarily a revenue-raising
> device. It's a means of price-rationing a finite resource.
at the new edge of town hospitals that are becoming the norm where there is
no reason to park there except to visit the hospital, and last time I
checked people don't visit hospitals as a "nice" day out but purely on an
"as required" basis
tim
T i m
Dec 16, 2017, 10:46:12 AM12/16/17
to
On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 11:41:29 +0000, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>>So (I apologise from my ignorance here) so are we saying that no one
>>successfully appeals against these companies any more or just not
>>using the 'they didn't suffer financial loss' thang?
>
>There are plenty of possible avenues for appeal. If the PCN was
>incorrectly issued, or the signage was invalid, or no infraction had
>actually been committed, etc.
Ok, thanks, I don't think there was any of that in this case(s).
>
<snip>
>>What I didn't do is pay within 15 mins, but on at least one occasion I
>>paid (for an hour) within 30 mins and then left. 'Hair trigger'?
>
>These are the sort of things that both the parking company's internal
>appeals system and POPLA may (and, arguably, should) be sympathetic
>to.
You would like to think. Whilst I guess it doesn't have much way
legally (as you go onto mention) but I still think they should be seen
to be doing things fairly and reasonably, both for their but more so,
their clients sakes.
The 'problem' with it being a hospital they don't have the same reason
to be sympathetic to such things as say a retail outfit as we are
hardly going to (have the choice / option to) 'go elsewhere'. ;-(
>However, it's unlikely to sway a court, as a court will have to go
>by the actual wording of the contract in order to determine whether
>you breached it.
Understood.
> Which, unless you can make an argument that you were
>unaware of the 15 minute rule, you did.
Agreed. Whilst I realise 'ignorance is no defence', anyone ever
visiting a hospital they have visited before who might have been
running on a tight schedule (unforeseen circumstances rather than bad
planning etc) and then found, in the rain, amongst others trying to do
the same, that the machine didn't seem to print a ticket (even though
it made the noises) that you just might not be inclined to stand there
reading the T&C's or every nuance of the meter and potentially
preventing others from going about their business. And once you have
finished your appointment and it's still raining (and you have
ascertained that there 1) is a 'new system' and 2) you have fed the
right money into the machine for the duration of your stay ... you
don't stand there and read it on the way out either.
Because that seemed to work and now know there is an ANPR system that
may well work the same as other hospitals you uses, you *assume* (and
yes, I know what assumption makes of us <g>) that this system is the
same as the other (when as a 'technical person you see no reason why
it shouldn't)?
what your exit time should be (and more specifically when you should
exit the space, not the car park as a whole?) and it generally gave
you at least the opportunity to 'Top up' as / when you realised things
were either going to take longer than suggested or alternatively, was
cancelled completely. Many a time I (as the driver of a passenger that
was going for treatment) have initially put the minimum timer on first
and then gone out and topped up when I knew what sort of stay we were
in for (running late, waiting for consultant, one of two machines down
etc). These seems to be no provision or allowance for that with the
current system at North Mid.
>Pay on Exit is
>much better for unpredictable lengths of stay.
Agreed.
> The difficulty, from
>the operator's perspective, is that it's more expensive to run,
Why though Mark, if we are talking about a location that already has
all the hardware in place (ANPR, payment terminals with ASCII
keyboards and cash / card readers etc)?
> and
>isn't always suitable without considerable changes to the physical
>layout of the parking. It's not a simple drop-in solution.
No, understood, where it isn't already in place. ;-)
So, if you tool all those very human points I raised above (and I know
this is a 'legal' ng) plus no logical reason why they would need to be
so inflexible for the location (a hospital not shopping centre etc)
and especially *if* they don't allow you to top up, so pushing you to
overestimate the duration of your stay and so pay more than you need,
*maybe* there is some real need for them to change their MO, to better
suit the situation?
I did previously contest a PCN (aging where they 'silently' changed
the rules somewhere where I had been parking regularly for over 40
years) and whilst the signs were clear enough ... they were only
visible at all if you actually went and read them ... and do we all
do that every time we park somewhere regularly? Not only was my PCN
squashed, *everone* who had been fined had their fines refunded as
well (but this was a local Council, not some private parking company).
My point was that if you weren't actively looking to catch people out,
the signs needed to be big, clear and different enough to make it
obvious something had changed (and they weren't).
What would have been far more 'reasonable' (especially when parking
somewhere that was previously free for 30 mins and then went to free
for 30 mins but you need a free ticket displayed, and I had only been
there 10 mins) that a wireless terminal would tell the Traffic Warden
that this was your 'fist offence' and put a polite pre-printed note
under your wiper?
AFAIAC, this should be all / only about making sure people actually
pay what they owe for the duration of their stay, and making that vas
easy as possible for them to do so as possible.
Sorry for the rant ... ;-)
Cheers, T i m
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>>So (I apologise from my ignorance here) so are we saying that no one
>>successfully appeals against these companies any more or just not
>>using the 'they didn't suffer financial loss' thang?
>
>There are plenty of possible avenues for appeal. If the PCN was
>incorrectly issued, or the signage was invalid, or no infraction had
>actually been committed, etc.
>
>What has been lost, post-Beavis, is not ways to challenge the validity
>of the PCN. All that has been lost is what was previously considered
>an effective challenge to the value of it.
OK.
>What has been lost, post-Beavis, is not ways to challenge the validity
>of the PCN. All that has been lost is what was previously considered
>an effective challenge to the value of it.
>
<snip>
>>What I didn't do is pay within 15 mins, but on at least one occasion I
>>paid (for an hour) within 30 mins and then left. 'Hair trigger'?
>
>These are the sort of things that both the parking company's internal
>appeals system and POPLA may (and, arguably, should) be sympathetic
>to.
legally (as you go onto mention) but I still think they should be seen
to be doing things fairly and reasonably, both for their but more so,
their clients sakes.
The 'problem' with it being a hospital they don't have the same reason
to be sympathetic to such things as say a retail outfit as we are
hardly going to (have the choice / option to) 'go elsewhere'. ;-(
>However, it's unlikely to sway a court, as a court will have to go
>by the actual wording of the contract in order to determine whether
>you breached it.
> Which, unless you can make an argument that you were
>unaware of the 15 minute rule, you did.
visiting a hospital they have visited before who might have been
running on a tight schedule (unforeseen circumstances rather than bad
planning etc) and then found, in the rain, amongst others trying to do
the same, that the machine didn't seem to print a ticket (even though
it made the noises) that you just might not be inclined to stand there
reading the T&C's or every nuance of the meter and potentially
preventing others from going about their business. And once you have
finished your appointment and it's still raining (and you have
ascertained that there 1) is a 'new system' and 2) you have fed the
right money into the machine for the duration of your stay ... you
don't stand there and read it on the way out either.
Because that seemed to work and now know there is an ANPR system that
may well work the same as other hospitals you uses, you *assume* (and
yes, I know what assumption makes of us <g>) that this system is the
same as the other (when as a 'technical person you see no reason why
it shouldn't)?
>
>>Should the wording on the PCN more accurately reflect what actually
>>happened which seems to be they determine you aren't going to pay if
>>you haven't paid before 15 mins (even if you then do).
>>
>>FWIW (and what we are more used to) is at Chase Farm Hospital main car
>>park you pay on exit using ANPR linked terminals (very sensible and
>>works well) and Barnet Hospital you pay an initial amount on entry
>>(again ANPR linked) but can 'Top up' at any time thereafter whilst
>>there, fully pay before you leave or pay up to midnight that day
>>elsewhere (by many means including by text or online).
>
>I agree that Pay and Display is probably very unsuited to hospital
>parking, particularly given the difficulty of estimating in advance
>how long you are likely to need to be on the premises.
Well at least with the old ticket system you had positive feedback
>>Should the wording on the PCN more accurately reflect what actually
>>happened which seems to be they determine you aren't going to pay if
>>you haven't paid before 15 mins (even if you then do).
>>
>>FWIW (and what we are more used to) is at Chase Farm Hospital main car
>>park you pay on exit using ANPR linked terminals (very sensible and
>>works well) and Barnet Hospital you pay an initial amount on entry
>>(again ANPR linked) but can 'Top up' at any time thereafter whilst
>>there, fully pay before you leave or pay up to midnight that day
>>elsewhere (by many means including by text or online).
>
>I agree that Pay and Display is probably very unsuited to hospital
>parking, particularly given the difficulty of estimating in advance
>how long you are likely to need to be on the premises.
what your exit time should be (and more specifically when you should
exit the space, not the car park as a whole?) and it generally gave
you at least the opportunity to 'Top up' as / when you realised things
were either going to take longer than suggested or alternatively, was
cancelled completely. Many a time I (as the driver of a passenger that
was going for treatment) have initially put the minimum timer on first
and then gone out and topped up when I knew what sort of stay we were
in for (running late, waiting for consultant, one of two machines down
etc). These seems to be no provision or allowance for that with the
current system at North Mid.
>Pay on Exit is
>much better for unpredictable lengths of stay.
> The difficulty, from
>the operator's perspective, is that it's more expensive to run,
all the hardware in place (ANPR, payment terminals with ASCII
keyboards and cash / card readers etc)?
> and
>isn't always suitable without considerable changes to the physical
>layout of the parking. It's not a simple drop-in solution.
So, if you tool all those very human points I raised above (and I know
this is a 'legal' ng) plus no logical reason why they would need to be
so inflexible for the location (a hospital not shopping centre etc)
and especially *if* they don't allow you to top up, so pushing you to
overestimate the duration of your stay and so pay more than you need,
*maybe* there is some real need for them to change their MO, to better
suit the situation?
I did previously contest a PCN (aging where they 'silently' changed
the rules somewhere where I had been parking regularly for over 40
years) and whilst the signs were clear enough ... they were only
visible at all if you actually went and read them ... and do we all
do that every time we park somewhere regularly? Not only was my PCN
squashed, *everone* who had been fined had their fines refunded as
well (but this was a local Council, not some private parking company).
My point was that if you weren't actively looking to catch people out,
the signs needed to be big, clear and different enough to make it
obvious something had changed (and they weren't).
What would have been far more 'reasonable' (especially when parking
somewhere that was previously free for 30 mins and then went to free
for 30 mins but you need a free ticket displayed, and I had only been
there 10 mins) that a wireless terminal would tell the Traffic Warden
that this was your 'fist offence' and put a polite pre-printed note
under your wiper?
AFAIAC, this should be all / only about making sure people actually
pay what they owe for the duration of their stay, and making that vas
easy as possible for them to do so as possible.
Sorry for the rant ... ;-)
Cheers, T i m
Roland Perry
Dec 16, 2017, 11:26:43 AM12/16/17
to
In message <hkca3dlj8280ut6eh...@4ax.com>, at 15:09:52 on
>>ps. As the festive season approaches, I've know in-patients who had a
>>stay over Xmas, and the on-ward catering was reduced to sandwiches; in
>>order not to incur extra costs having people cook hot food on such
>>special days.
>
>Personally, that wouldn't bother me (now you have made me want a
>sandwich <g>) but I guess it would some.
>
>Would I want someone to give up their holiday to come in a cook (or
>defrost / microwave more likely) me a dinner? No.
If you work in the NHS, and several other 365-day public service
enterprises, then the concept of "holiday" becomes detached from "series
of rest days" (in between shifts).
I know someone who works in a hospital and has just gone on a genuine
holiday (for 5 days perhaps) for the first time in ages. Other "days not
working" are just "days" (and/or more to the point "nights") when they
are off shift. Weekends, Bank holidays, everything just blurs into a
continuum. If you don't like that, don't pick it as a career.
>However, if it was especially important for me to eat well as part of
>my recovery
Most people who haven't been chucked out of the hospital ahead of "long
weekends" like Xmas or Easter, are almost by definition sufficiently
poorly that diet is an important part of their recovery.
>then that would be different (as it would be 'medical' as
>such), assuming that couldn't be gleaned from a sandwich?
--
Roland Perry
Sat, 16 Dec 2017, T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> remarked:
>On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 14:25:20 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
><snip>
>>>
>>>And I thought some did outsource the catering?
>>
>>But the point I'm making is this: do the outsourced caterers charge a
>>market rate for delivering those meals to the beds. And if not, what
>>front line services would some say were being cut in order to provide
>>them free of charge?
>
>Whilst I understand your question and don't have an and don't have an
>answer ... I think there could equally be 'other services' that might
>not be as important as 'front line' they could be trimmed, *if*
>contract catering was more expensive than doing it in house.
Your sarcasm detector is broken.
>wrote:
>
><snip>
>>>
>>>And I thought some did outsource the catering?
>>
>>But the point I'm making is this: do the outsourced caterers charge a
>>market rate for delivering those meals to the beds. And if not, what
>>front line services would some say were being cut in order to provide
>>them free of charge?
>
>Whilst I understand your question and don't have an and don't have an
>answer ... I think there could equally be 'other services' that might
>not be as important as 'front line' they could be trimmed, *if*
>contract catering was more expensive than doing it in house.
>>ps. As the festive season approaches, I've know in-patients who had a
>>stay over Xmas, and the on-ward catering was reduced to sandwiches; in
>>order not to incur extra costs having people cook hot food on such
>>special days.
>
>Personally, that wouldn't bother me (now you have made me want a
>sandwich <g>) but I guess it would some.
>
>Would I want someone to give up their holiday to come in a cook (or
>defrost / microwave more likely) me a dinner? No.
enterprises, then the concept of "holiday" becomes detached from "series
of rest days" (in between shifts).
I know someone who works in a hospital and has just gone on a genuine
holiday (for 5 days perhaps) for the first time in ages. Other "days not
working" are just "days" (and/or more to the point "nights") when they
are off shift. Weekends, Bank holidays, everything just blurs into a
continuum. If you don't like that, don't pick it as a career.
>However, if it was especially important for me to eat well as part of
>my recovery
weekends" like Xmas or Easter, are almost by definition sufficiently
poorly that diet is an important part of their recovery.
>then that would be different (as it would be 'medical' as
>such), assuming that couldn't be gleaned from a sandwich?
Roland Perry
Mark Goodge
Dec 16, 2017, 11:35:13 AM12/16/17
to
On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 12:45:17 -0000, "tim..." <tims_n...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Any edge of town parking is attractive as a park-and-ride or
park-and-cycle interchange. That can create pressures which are not
immediately apparant from the expected usage of the car park simply to
visit the facility they are associated with.
Also, just because revenue isn't the prime reason for charging a
parking fee, covering costs is. Car parks are not zero cost to run[1].
If parking is free, then that cost is borne entirely by the owner of
the car park (eg, the hospital). Outsourcing the management of the car
park to a third party that recoups its costs (and makes a profit) via
parking fees will, even if it doesn't generate revenue for the
hospital, remove it as a cost centre for the hospital.
[1] One thing that many people do not appreciate is that parking
spaces - all the way from a simple staff car park for a handful of
cars up to a huge city centre multi-storey car park - are subject to
business rates. The rateable value of a car park is based on the
number of spaces. So, for a large organisation, such as a hospital,
this will be a very significant amount.
Mark
wrote:
park-and-cycle interchange. That can create pressures which are not
immediately apparant from the expected usage of the car park simply to
visit the facility they are associated with.
Also, just because revenue isn't the prime reason for charging a
parking fee, covering costs is. Car parks are not zero cost to run[1].
If parking is free, then that cost is borne entirely by the owner of
the car park (eg, the hospital). Outsourcing the management of the car
park to a third party that recoups its costs (and makes a profit) via
parking fees will, even if it doesn't generate revenue for the
hospital, remove it as a cost centre for the hospital.
[1] One thing that many people do not appreciate is that parking
spaces - all the way from a simple staff car park for a handful of
cars up to a huge city centre multi-storey car park - are subject to
business rates. The rateable value of a car park is based on the
number of spaces. So, for a large organisation, such as a hospital,
this will be a very significant amount.
Mark
Roland Perry
Dec 16, 2017, 12:49:10 PM12/16/17
to
In message <f9k62r...@mid.individual.net>, at 09:07:39 on Sat, 16
*inconvenience*.
I agree many clinical procedures (especially like heart transplants or
major trauma) are far better done in centralised facilities, but the
patients are unlikely to be requiring local parking. The vast majority
are attending for outpatients clinics (for both diagnosis and follow-up)
where all that's required is the consultant and perhaps some facilities
that are just as likely to be found at a GP's Health Centre as a
hospital. The last consultant I saw didn't even have a nurse take my
blood pressure or weight, and all he did was discuss some test results.
Back in the day many consultants would have done their rounds in the
County, spending half a day once a fortnight in a borrowed room at this
or that Health Centre or Cottage Hospital, seeing patients living in a
radius of a few miles, and with few transport issues.
Insisting the patients all travel to the same centralised hospital is
simply creating a problem for themselves, and *if* it's saving them as
much as they claim it is, they can flipping well use some of those
savings to provide parking for people driving from 30 miles away.
>> Therefore, people partaking in this exercise have *already* in effect
>>contributed their time and petrol in order that the NHS can better
>>afford the items you list.
>
>How does their use of their time benefit the NHS?
Because if the consultant used to spend an hour travelling and setting
up shop in a local clinic, and see perhaps a ten patients in a half day,
the NHS is trading off two hours of *his* time against twenty hours of
patient time trekking to and from the mega hospital. Slightly more
perhaps, because by the nature of their size it's not really possible to
park within thirty feet of the consulting room like it used to be.
>> Charging excessive amounts to park is "double dipping".
>
>No-one mentioned 'excessive'. That's your own contribution.
You don't think £60 is excessive? OK, so you could argue that's an edge
case. But jumping through hoops to make sure you only pay £5 is
something that's reported so often it's clearly a symptom of a broken
system.
--
Roland Perry
Dec 2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>On 16/12/2017 07:57, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <f9itjn...@mid.individual.net>, at 21:36:56 on Fri, 15
>>Dec 2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>>> On 15/12/2017 18:23, Brian Reay wrote:
>>>> While I'm no supporter of hospitals charging for parking,
>>>
>>> What front line services would you reduce to compensate for the loss
>>>of income were they to become free then? Nurses, CAT scans, drugs or
>>>doctors?
>> The only reason these sorts of car parks exist in their current form
>>is because the NHS has decided to centralise so many of its services
>>(to save money) and also relocate themselves typically on the edge of
>>town, thus forcing the patients to travel much greater distances to
>>*them*.
>
>Hospitals are big things. Those in town centres cannot expand. New
>hospitals can't be built in town centres.
>
>The distance people have to travel to hospital depends just on where
>they live and where the hospital is. Most don't actually live in a
>town centre next to where the town centre hospital was, and will
>probably actually find it easier to access a hospital on the edge of
>town where at least some parking can be provided.
>
>I see no reason why those using the service should not pay a little
>extra for that convenience.
You've failed to take on board that they are paying for the
>On 16/12/2017 07:57, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <f9itjn...@mid.individual.net>, at 21:36:56 on Fri, 15
>>Dec 2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>>> On 15/12/2017 18:23, Brian Reay wrote:
>>>> While I'm no supporter of hospitals charging for parking,
>>>
>>> What front line services would you reduce to compensate for the loss
>>>of income were they to become free then? Nurses, CAT scans, drugs or
>>>doctors?
>> The only reason these sorts of car parks exist in their current form
>>is because the NHS has decided to centralise so many of its services
>>(to save money) and also relocate themselves typically on the edge of
>>town, thus forcing the patients to travel much greater distances to
>>*them*.
>
>Hospitals are big things. Those in town centres cannot expand. New
>hospitals can't be built in town centres.
>
>The distance people have to travel to hospital depends just on where
>they live and where the hospital is. Most don't actually live in a
>town centre next to where the town centre hospital was, and will
>probably actually find it easier to access a hospital on the edge of
>town where at least some parking can be provided.
>
>I see no reason why those using the service should not pay a little
>extra for that convenience.
*inconvenience*.
I agree many clinical procedures (especially like heart transplants or
major trauma) are far better done in centralised facilities, but the
patients are unlikely to be requiring local parking. The vast majority
are attending for outpatients clinics (for both diagnosis and follow-up)
where all that's required is the consultant and perhaps some facilities
that are just as likely to be found at a GP's Health Centre as a
hospital. The last consultant I saw didn't even have a nurse take my
blood pressure or weight, and all he did was discuss some test results.
Back in the day many consultants would have done their rounds in the
County, spending half a day once a fortnight in a borrowed room at this
or that Health Centre or Cottage Hospital, seeing patients living in a
radius of a few miles, and with few transport issues.
Insisting the patients all travel to the same centralised hospital is
simply creating a problem for themselves, and *if* it's saving them as
much as they claim it is, they can flipping well use some of those
savings to provide parking for people driving from 30 miles away.
>> Therefore, people partaking in this exercise have *already* in effect
>>contributed their time and petrol in order that the NHS can better
>>afford the items you list.
>
>How does their use of their time benefit the NHS?
up shop in a local clinic, and see perhaps a ten patients in a half day,
the NHS is trading off two hours of *his* time against twenty hours of
patient time trekking to and from the mega hospital. Slightly more
perhaps, because by the nature of their size it's not really possible to
park within thirty feet of the consulting room like it used to be.
>> Charging excessive amounts to park is "double dipping".
>
>No-one mentioned 'excessive'. That's your own contribution.
case. But jumping through hoops to make sure you only pay £5 is
something that's reported so often it's clearly a symptom of a broken
system.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Dec 16, 2017, 1:00:14 PM12/16/17
to
In message <i2ia3dlgd4vab9vnn...@4ax.com>, at 16:35:10 on
Sat, 16 Dec 2017, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
Hospital in Ely?
Unfortunately, the range of things they treat there is very limited
(minor injuries+ and some stuff to keep a critical mass of work for the
radiology department), and I haven't yet encountered a consultant
[still] doing visits there.
Although I did once have a chat with a consultant at Hinchingbrooke [an
hour's tedious drive away in Huntingdon for non-locals] and as an
ice-breaker he asked where I lived, and when I told him he said "I know
where that is, I used to have a weekly clinic at PoW and walked right
past on the way from the station".
--
Roland Perry
Sat, 16 Dec 2017, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
>[1] One thing that many people do not appreciate is that parking
>spaces - all the way from a simple staff car park for a handful of
>cars up to a huge city centre multi-storey car park - are subject to
>business rates. The rateable value of a car park is based on the
>number of spaces.
Even if the parking is free - like it is at the Princess of Wales
>spaces - all the way from a simple staff car park for a handful of
>cars up to a huge city centre multi-storey car park - are subject to
>business rates. The rateable value of a car park is based on the
>number of spaces.
Hospital in Ely?
Unfortunately, the range of things they treat there is very limited
(minor injuries+ and some stuff to keep a critical mass of work for the
radiology department), and I haven't yet encountered a consultant
[still] doing visits there.
Although I did once have a chat with a consultant at Hinchingbrooke [an
hour's tedious drive away in Huntingdon for non-locals] and as an
ice-breaker he asked where I lived, and when I told him he said "I know
where that is, I used to have a weekly clinic at PoW and walked right
past on the way from the station".
--
Roland Perry
Mark Goodge
Dec 16, 2017, 1:24:17 PM12/16/17
to
On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 17:58:00 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:
>In message <i2ia3dlgd4vab9vnn...@4ax.com>, at 16:35:10 on
>Sat, 16 Dec 2017, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>remarked:
>>[1] One thing that many people do not appreciate is that parking
>>spaces - all the way from a simple staff car park for a handful of
>>cars up to a huge city centre multi-storey car park - are subject to
>>business rates. The rateable value of a car park is based on the
>>number of spaces.
>
>Even if the parking is free - like it is at the Princess of Wales
>Hospital in Ely?
Yes.
Mark
wrote:
>In message <i2ia3dlgd4vab9vnn...@4ax.com>, at 16:35:10 on
>Sat, 16 Dec 2017, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>remarked:
>>[1] One thing that many people do not appreciate is that parking
>>spaces - all the way from a simple staff car park for a handful of
>>cars up to a huge city centre multi-storey car park - are subject to
>>business rates. The rateable value of a car park is based on the
>>number of spaces.
>
>Even if the parking is free - like it is at the Princess of Wales
>Hospital in Ely?
Mark
Norman Wells
Dec 16, 2017, 1:28:52 PM12/16/17
to
On 16/12/2017 17:46, Roland Perry wrote:
> Insisting the patients all travel to the same centralised hospital is
> simply creating a problem for themselves, and *if* it's saving them as
> much as they claim it is, they can flipping well use some of those
> savings to provide parking for people driving from 30 miles away.
They do, but what you haven't addressed is why that parking, which costs
> Insisting the patients all travel to the same centralised hospital is
> simply creating a problem for themselves, and *if* it's saving them as
> much as they claim it is, they can flipping well use some of those
> savings to provide parking for people driving from 30 miles away.
money to provide and administer, should be free.
The NHS has limited resources. If you make it bear the costs of
providing free parking facilities, it will have to make savings
elsewhere. So, tell us please what front line services you would cut.
>>> Therefore, people partaking in this exercise have *already* in effect
>>> contributed their time and petrol in order that the NHS can better
>>> afford the items you list.
>>
>> How does their use of their time benefit the NHS?
>
> Because if the consultant used to spend an hour travelling and setting
> up shop in a local clinic, and see perhaps a ten patients in a half day,
> the NHS is trading off two hours of *his* time against twenty hours of
> patient time trekking to and from the mega hospital. Slightly more
> perhaps, because by the nature of their size it's not really possible to
> park within thirty feet of the consulting room like it used to be.
their appointments.
>>> Charging excessive amounts to park is "double dipping".
>>
>> No-one mentioned 'excessive'. That's your own contribution.
>
> You don't think £60 is excessive? OK, so you could argue that's an edge
> case. But jumping through hoops to make sure you only pay £5 is
> something that's reported so often it's clearly a symptom of a broken
> system.
to be adult about reading the conditions and abiding by the rules.
James Wilkinson Sword
Dec 16, 2017, 1:29:10 PM12/16/17
to
On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 16:19:27 -0000, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 12:29:00 +0000, Robin wrote:
>
>> On 14/12/2017 12:03, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 16:23:38 +0000, T i m wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 13:40:21 +0000, T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> I wanted to ask CPM what exactly I was being 'charged' for, either
>>>>> 'over stay', (fair enough) or non payment (on one or both), which
>>>>> wouldn't be fair or reasonable and we did pay (in full on at least
>>>>> one occasion covered by the PCN).
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I just wanted to add that I've read the PCN myself (the Mrs was
>>>> checking them out earlier) and it does actually say:
>>>>
>>>> "Failure to Pay for the Duration of Stay"
>>>>
>>>> .... which could be valid if they are only charging me for the extra
>>>> minute over the 60 they accept I did pay for but not the second where
>>>> they are charging me for the 30 minutes that I would have paid an hour
>>>> for or if they are saying I didn't pay anything towards the 61 minutes
>>>> I did stay there for?
>>>>
>>>> As an aside, are they charging for the time between when you enter and
>>>> exit their ANPR system (inc driving round looking for somewhere *to
>>>> park*) or the time you are *actually parked* therein? Do they
>>>> typically automatically allow say 10 minutes for you to do that before
>>>> the clock starts?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers, T i m
>>>
>>> Apart from the observation that whatever they are asking has to be
>>> reasonable to cover their alleged expenditure, I would be curious as to
>>> your last point.
>>
>> I thought the Supreme Court in Parking Eye shot and buried that
>> argument.
>
> My understanding was that the "charge" must still be reasonable in light
> of the operators losses. It most certainly is not a blank cheque.
So the original parking fee they should have paid plus a tenner for paperwork. Not £100.
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 12:29:00 +0000, Robin wrote:
>
>> On 14/12/2017 12:03, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 16:23:38 +0000, T i m wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 13:40:21 +0000, T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> I wanted to ask CPM what exactly I was being 'charged' for, either
>>>>> 'over stay', (fair enough) or non payment (on one or both), which
>>>>> wouldn't be fair or reasonable and we did pay (in full on at least
>>>>> one occasion covered by the PCN).
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I just wanted to add that I've read the PCN myself (the Mrs was
>>>> checking them out earlier) and it does actually say:
>>>>
>>>> "Failure to Pay for the Duration of Stay"
>>>>
>>>> .... which could be valid if they are only charging me for the extra
>>>> minute over the 60 they accept I did pay for but not the second where
>>>> they are charging me for the 30 minutes that I would have paid an hour
>>>> for or if they are saying I didn't pay anything towards the 61 minutes
>>>> I did stay there for?
>>>>
>>>> As an aside, are they charging for the time between when you enter and
>>>> exit their ANPR system (inc driving round looking for somewhere *to
>>>> park*) or the time you are *actually parked* therein? Do they
>>>> typically automatically allow say 10 minutes for you to do that before
>>>> the clock starts?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers, T i m
>>>
>>> Apart from the observation that whatever they are asking has to be
>>> reasonable to cover their alleged expenditure, I would be curious as to
>>> your last point.
>>
>> I thought the Supreme Court in Parking Eye shot and buried that
>> argument.
>
> My understanding was that the "charge" must still be reasonable in light
> of the operators losses. It most certainly is not a blank cheque.
So the original parking fee they should have paid plus a tenner for paperwork. Not £100.
Roland Perry
Dec 16, 2017, 1:44:43 PM12/16/17
to
In message <v4pa3d5uijafsebjh...@4ax.com>, at 18:24:12 on
It was originally based on the rental income you could get, but a free
car park sounds like something no-one would want to rent.
--
Roland Perry
Sat, 16 Dec 2017, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
>>>[1] One thing that many people do not appreciate is that parking
>>>spaces - all the way from a simple staff car park for a handful of
>>>cars up to a huge city centre multi-storey car park - are subject to
>>>business rates. The rateable value of a car park is based on the
>>>number of spaces.
>>
>>Even if the parking is free - like it is at the Princess of Wales
>>Hospital in Ely?
>
>Yes.
What's the rateable value of an asset that's a liability?
remarked:
>>>[1] One thing that many people do not appreciate is that parking
>>>spaces - all the way from a simple staff car park for a handful of
>>>cars up to a huge city centre multi-storey car park - are subject to
>>>business rates. The rateable value of a car park is based on the
>>>number of spaces.
>>
>>Even if the parking is free - like it is at the Princess of Wales
>>Hospital in Ely?
>
>Yes.
It was originally based on the rental income you could get, but a free
car park sounds like something no-one would want to rent.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Dec 16, 2017, 1:44:43 PM12/16/17
to
In message <op.zbcpp...@red.lan>, at 18:02:09 on Sat, 16 Dec 2017,
James Wilkinson Sword <imv...@somewear.com> remarked:
>>>> Apart from the observation that whatever they are asking has to be
>>>> reasonable to cover their alleged expenditure, I would be curious as to
>>>> your last point.
>>>
>>> I thought the Supreme Court in Parking Eye shot and buried that
>>> argument.
>>
>> My understanding was that the "charge" must still be reasonable in light
>> of the operators losses. It most certainly is not a blank cheque.
>
>So the original parking fee they should have paid plus a tenner for paperwork. Not £100.
The expenses are not hypothecated to each individual infringement, but
are supposed to reflect the entire annual cost of running the
enforcement scheme, divided by the number of tickets they issue.
--
Roland Perry
James Wilkinson Sword <imv...@somewear.com> remarked:
>>>> Apart from the observation that whatever they are asking has to be
>>>> reasonable to cover their alleged expenditure, I would be curious as to
>>>> your last point.
>>>
>>> I thought the Supreme Court in Parking Eye shot and buried that
>>> argument.
>>
>> My understanding was that the "charge" must still be reasonable in light
>> of the operators losses. It most certainly is not a blank cheque.
>
>So the original parking fee they should have paid plus a tenner for paperwork. Not £100.
are supposed to reflect the entire annual cost of running the
enforcement scheme, divided by the number of tickets they issue.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Dec 16, 2017, 1:48:12 PM12/16/17
to
In message <f9l6sj...@mid.individual.net>, at 18:27:31 on Sat, 16
rather than going to the patients.
> So, tell us please what front line services you would cut.
>
>>>> Therefore, people partaking in this exercise have *already* in
>>>>effect contributed their time and petrol in order that the NHS can
>>>>better afford the items you list.
>>>
>>> How does their use of their time benefit the NHS?
>> Because if the consultant used to spend an hour travelling and
>>setting up shop in a local clinic, and see perhaps a ten patients in
>>a half day, the NHS is trading off two hours of *his* time against
>>twenty hours of patient time trekking to and from the mega hospital.
>>Slightly more perhaps, because by the nature of their size it's not
>>really possible to park within thirty feet of the consulting room
>>like it used to be.
>
>The NHS neither gains nor loses from the time patients spend getting to
>their appointments.
It gains the time that the consultants aren't on the road travelling to
non-centralised clinics.
>>>> Charging excessive amounts to park is "double dipping".
>>>
>>> No-one mentioned 'excessive'. That's your own contribution.
>> You don't think £60 is excessive? OK, so you could argue that's an
>>edge case. But jumping through hoops to make sure you only pay £5 is
>>something that's reported so often it's clearly a symptom of a broken
>>system.
>
>It's the same as parking anywhere there is a charge.
No, there are plenty of places with a charge which have simple and clear
rules.
>You are expected to be adult about reading the conditions and abiding
>by the rules.
Often the rules are ambiguous, or poorly drafted. We've seen some
classic examples in this thread.
There's a classic example at my local station. Lots of signs saying that
all parking is chargeable, and then there's four spaces next to the
entrance which say "20 minutes only".
It's completely unclear if this means they are always free of charge for
10 minutes [the traditional ex-BR meaning], or whether you have to pay
for a day's ticket and *also* leave within 20 minutes (typically there
won't even be a non-20-minute space available to move to, if that's what
they expect you to do).
Of course, this has lots of interplay with things like the station
ticket office having opening hours, but then springing completely
undocumented half-hour "breaks" when the blind is down. As for picking
up a passenger whose train turns out to be 30 minutes late, well, maybe
we just shouldn't go there. (That's a play on words, btw).
--
Roland Perry
Dec 2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>On 16/12/2017 17:46, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> Insisting the patients all travel to the same centralised hospital is
>>simply creating a problem for themselves, and *if* it's saving them as
>>much as they claim it is, they can flipping well use some of those
>>savings to provide parking for people driving from 30 miles away.
>
>They do, but what you haven't addressed is why that parking, which
>costs money to provide and administer, should be free.
>
>The NHS has limited resources. If you make it bear the costs of
>providing free parking facilities, it will have to make savings
>elsewhere.
They have already got those savings, by making patients come to them,
>
>> Insisting the patients all travel to the same centralised hospital is
>>simply creating a problem for themselves, and *if* it's saving them as
>>much as they claim it is, they can flipping well use some of those
>>savings to provide parking for people driving from 30 miles away.
>
>They do, but what you haven't addressed is why that parking, which
>costs money to provide and administer, should be free.
>
>The NHS has limited resources. If you make it bear the costs of
>providing free parking facilities, it will have to make savings
>elsewhere.
rather than going to the patients.
> So, tell us please what front line services you would cut.
>
>>>> Therefore, people partaking in this exercise have *already* in
>>>>effect contributed their time and petrol in order that the NHS can
>>>>better afford the items you list.
>>>
>>> How does their use of their time benefit the NHS?
>> Because if the consultant used to spend an hour travelling and
>>setting up shop in a local clinic, and see perhaps a ten patients in
>>a half day, the NHS is trading off two hours of *his* time against
>>twenty hours of patient time trekking to and from the mega hospital.
>>Slightly more perhaps, because by the nature of their size it's not
>>really possible to park within thirty feet of the consulting room
>>like it used to be.
>
>The NHS neither gains nor loses from the time patients spend getting to
>their appointments.
non-centralised clinics.
>>>> Charging excessive amounts to park is "double dipping".
>>>
>>> No-one mentioned 'excessive'. That's your own contribution.
>> You don't think £60 is excessive? OK, so you could argue that's an
>>edge case. But jumping through hoops to make sure you only pay £5 is
>>something that's reported so often it's clearly a symptom of a broken
>>system.
>
>It's the same as parking anywhere there is a charge.
rules.
>You are expected to be adult about reading the conditions and abiding
>by the rules.
classic examples in this thread.
There's a classic example at my local station. Lots of signs saying that
all parking is chargeable, and then there's four spaces next to the
entrance which say "20 minutes only".
It's completely unclear if this means they are always free of charge for
10 minutes [the traditional ex-BR meaning], or whether you have to pay
for a day's ticket and *also* leave within 20 minutes (typically there
won't even be a non-20-minute space available to move to, if that's what
they expect you to do).
Of course, this has lots of interplay with things like the station
ticket office having opening hours, but then springing completely
undocumented half-hour "breaks" when the blind is down. As for picking
up a passenger whose train turns out to be 30 minutes late, well, maybe
we just shouldn't go there. (That's a play on words, btw).
--
Roland Perry
Mark Goodge
Dec 16, 2017, 2:38:57 PM12/16/17
to
On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 18:37:14 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:
>In message <v4pa3d5uijafsebjh...@4ax.com>, at 18:24:12 on
>Sat, 16 Dec 2017, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>remarked:
>
>>>>[1] One thing that many people do not appreciate is that parking
>>>>spaces - all the way from a simple staff car park for a handful of
>>>>cars up to a huge city centre multi-storey car park - are subject to
>>>>business rates. The rateable value of a car park is based on the
>>>>number of spaces.
>>>
>>>Even if the parking is free - like it is at the Princess of Wales
>>>Hospital in Ely?
>>
>>Yes.
>
>What's the rateable value of an asset that's a liability?
Rateable values are based on a nitional value to the average occupant.
The fact that the current occupant is making a loss on it is
irrelevant.
>It was originally based on the rental income you could get, but a free
>car park sounds like something no-one would want to rent.
It's free by choice. They could charge.
More generally, the rateable value of a parking space is based on what
you could reasonably expect to make in rent from someone who wanted to
have their own, exclusive parking space and was willing to pay for it.
That will obviously vary according to location - in, say, central
Cambridge, a private parking space might be quite valuable, while on
the outskirts of Ely it's fairly negligible. But it's a positive
non-zero figure, no matter what.
I can't tell you the actual figures used for the hospital car park, as
the calulations used to determine hospital rateable values are, for
some reason, not made public. But you can look up the rateable value
of council car parks in the area, using the online tool:
https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/business-rates-find/search
According to that, Angel Drove car park is assessed as being worth
£215 per space, and Broad Street (Forehill) car park is worth £245 per
space. And that's despite the fact that the latter is free, while the
former has parking fees. The difference is purely the location.
Mark
wrote:
>In message <v4pa3d5uijafsebjh...@4ax.com>, at 18:24:12 on
>Sat, 16 Dec 2017, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>remarked:
>
>>>>[1] One thing that many people do not appreciate is that parking
>>>>spaces - all the way from a simple staff car park for a handful of
>>>>cars up to a huge city centre multi-storey car park - are subject to
>>>>business rates. The rateable value of a car park is based on the
>>>>number of spaces.
>>>
>>>Even if the parking is free - like it is at the Princess of Wales
>>>Hospital in Ely?
>>
>>Yes.
>
>What's the rateable value of an asset that's a liability?
The fact that the current occupant is making a loss on it is
irrelevant.
>It was originally based on the rental income you could get, but a free
>car park sounds like something no-one would want to rent.
More generally, the rateable value of a parking space is based on what
you could reasonably expect to make in rent from someone who wanted to
have their own, exclusive parking space and was willing to pay for it.
That will obviously vary according to location - in, say, central
Cambridge, a private parking space might be quite valuable, while on
the outskirts of Ely it's fairly negligible. But it's a positive
non-zero figure, no matter what.
I can't tell you the actual figures used for the hospital car park, as
the calulations used to determine hospital rateable values are, for
some reason, not made public. But you can look up the rateable value
of council car parks in the area, using the online tool:
https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/business-rates-find/search
According to that, Angel Drove car park is assessed as being worth
£215 per space, and Broad Street (Forehill) car park is worth £245 per
space. And that's despite the fact that the latter is free, while the
former has parking fees. The difference is purely the location.
Mark
Norman Wells
Dec 16, 2017, 3:30:12 PM12/16/17
to
On 16/12/2017 18:47, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <f9l6sj...@mid.individual.net>, at 18:27:31 on Sat, 16
> Dec 2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>> On 16/12/2017 17:46, Roland Perry wrote:
>>
>>> Insisting the patients all travel to the same centralised hospital is
>>> simply creating a problem for themselves, and *if* it's saving them
>>> as much as they claim it is, they can flipping well use some of those
>>> savings to provide parking for people driving from 30 miles away.
>>
>> They do, but what you haven't addressed is why that parking, which
>> costs money to provide and administer, should be free.
>>
>> The NHS has limited resources. If you make it bear the costs of
>> providing free parking facilities, it will have to make savings
>> elsewhere.
>
> They have already got those savings, by making patients come to them,
> rather than going to the patients.
I think the NHS has already spent any efficiency savings it has made
> In message <f9l6sj...@mid.individual.net>, at 18:27:31 on Sat, 16
> Dec 2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>> On 16/12/2017 17:46, Roland Perry wrote:
>>
>>> Insisting the patients all travel to the same centralised hospital is
>>> simply creating a problem for themselves, and *if* it's saving them
>>> as much as they claim it is, they can flipping well use some of those
>>> savings to provide parking for people driving from 30 miles away.
>>
>> They do, but what you haven't addressed is why that parking, which
>> costs money to provide and administer, should be free.
>>
>> The NHS has limited resources. If you make it bear the costs of
>> providing free parking facilities, it will have to make savings
>> elsewhere.
>
> They have already got those savings, by making patients come to them,
> rather than going to the patients.
anywhere on providing extra front line services.
If you want them now to provide free car parking, they will have to cut
them again. Which would you cut? Do say.
>>>>> Charging excessive amounts to park is "double dipping".
>>>>
>>>> No-one mentioned 'excessive'. That's your own contribution.
>>> You don't think £60 is excessive? OK, so you could argue that's an
>>> edge case. But jumping through hoops to make sure you only pay £5 is
>>> something that's reported so often it's clearly a symptom of a broken
>>> system.
>>
>> It's the same as parking anywhere there is a charge.
>
> No, there are plenty of places with a charge which have simple and clear
> rules.
>
>> You are expected to be adult about reading the conditions and abiding
>> by the rules.
>
> Often the rules are ambiguous, or poorly drafted. We've seen some
> classic examples in this thread.
will win. Normally, however, the signage is perfectly clear, and there
is no argument.
Norman Wells
Dec 16, 2017, 3:31:10 PM12/16/17
to
it, it pays to read it.
Norman Wells
Dec 16, 2017, 3:31:33 PM12/16/17
to
Its rateable value is what it is.
James Wilkinson Sword
Dec 16, 2017, 3:31:46 PM12/16/17
to
T i m
Dec 16, 2017, 9:31:54 PM12/16/17
to
On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 19:04:53 +0000, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
>On 16/12/2017 18:47, Roland Perry wrote:
<snip>
>> Often the rules are ambiguous, or poorly drafted. We've seen some
>> classic examples in this thread.
>
>If they are where you've parked, you can appeal on that basis and you
>will win. Normally, however, the signage is perfectly clear, and there
>is no argument.
>From what I understand I have been sent a PNC for (and I'm still not
100% sure), it may have been there to read, if you felt the need or
had the time or interest to read it?
How often do you read all the T&C's of every piece of software you
install or upgrade for example?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to absolve myself of the
responsibility, I should have stood there in the rain, holding up the
queue of people also trying to figure out why no tickets were coming
out the machine or if was ok to initially buy an hour and come back
and top up if required, all things one can *normally* do at most pay
car parks?
The issue for me isn't the legal one of who is right or wrong, but
more the moral one of are the Parking Management actually reflecting
the needs of the hospital. Are they offering features that may well be
unique to that of a hospital environment or are they 'taking unfair
advantage' of the position they have been put in, namely to offload
the hospital parking services from the hospital itself but applying
'unreasonable and unnecessary rules and restrictions, potentially for
no legitimate or technical reason. For all I know, this could be an
experimental / trial system and they are waiting for patient feedback
to see if it has worked or not?
eg, We go to a (different) local hospital and park. When we leave,
outside the car park is a shelter with a payment machine in it where
you start to enter the registration number of your vehicle and as soon
as you have entered enough unique characters (normally no more than 3
or so) you are left with just your reg and you select it and it tells
you what you owe. No complication, no confusion, no rushing back to
make sure you don't overstay, no need to go out (in a thin gown with
your ar$e hanging out) to 'top up', it's just as it should be. You can
pay with cash, card or by text.
Another, also has an ANPR system they may require to make an initial
payment at the machine (I'm not sure) but you can either pay the
outstanding fee before you leave or remotely up to midnight that night
by phone, text or on the net.
When going to hospital, do you think any hospital would intentionally
want that system to have 'gotchas' that cost it's patients
disproportionate amounts of money, even when they believe they have
paid in full (and it wasn't obvious how and when payment should be
made or if top ups were possible)?
Given my experience with the other system and that I've rarely ever
had a parking fine (the last was squashed because of poor signage),
how can a system be considered 'reasonable' that allows you to pay (in
full) before you leave but still sends you a PCN for £60-100 with the
charge that you 'Failed to pay'? Why would I not pay before the 15
minutes or £2 an hour or £3 for two hours and risk a 60 fine, if I was
aware of it?
And we aren't talking of a warden controlled system here ... but one
linked via ANPR and with all the hardware in place provide a system
that would be considered fair to most?
Even if you wanted to retain the 15 minute grace period, the system
would only need to determine if you left no more than 15 mins after
entering (something the driver would need a stopwatch to monitor for
themselves, given a 1 second overstay could yield a £60 PCN), and if
over 15 minutes, did they pay for the duration of stay in full yes /
no. If no, by all means send a PCN or better, give people till (say)
midnight the next day to pay (as you can with the congestion charge
and the Dartford crossing).
<shrug>
Cheers, T i m
wrote:
>On 16/12/2017 18:47, Roland Perry wrote:
>> Often the rules are ambiguous, or poorly drafted. We've seen some
>> classic examples in this thread.
>
>If they are where you've parked, you can appeal on that basis and you
>will win. Normally, however, the signage is perfectly clear, and there
>is no argument.
100% sure), it may have been there to read, if you felt the need or
had the time or interest to read it?
How often do you read all the T&C's of every piece of software you
install or upgrade for example?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to absolve myself of the
responsibility, I should have stood there in the rain, holding up the
queue of people also trying to figure out why no tickets were coming
out the machine or if was ok to initially buy an hour and come back
and top up if required, all things one can *normally* do at most pay
car parks?
The issue for me isn't the legal one of who is right or wrong, but
more the moral one of are the Parking Management actually reflecting
the needs of the hospital. Are they offering features that may well be
unique to that of a hospital environment or are they 'taking unfair
advantage' of the position they have been put in, namely to offload
the hospital parking services from the hospital itself but applying
'unreasonable and unnecessary rules and restrictions, potentially for
no legitimate or technical reason. For all I know, this could be an
experimental / trial system and they are waiting for patient feedback
to see if it has worked or not?
eg, We go to a (different) local hospital and park. When we leave,
outside the car park is a shelter with a payment machine in it where
you start to enter the registration number of your vehicle and as soon
as you have entered enough unique characters (normally no more than 3
or so) you are left with just your reg and you select it and it tells
you what you owe. No complication, no confusion, no rushing back to
make sure you don't overstay, no need to go out (in a thin gown with
your ar$e hanging out) to 'top up', it's just as it should be. You can
pay with cash, card or by text.
Another, also has an ANPR system they may require to make an initial
payment at the machine (I'm not sure) but you can either pay the
outstanding fee before you leave or remotely up to midnight that night
by phone, text or on the net.
When going to hospital, do you think any hospital would intentionally
want that system to have 'gotchas' that cost it's patients
disproportionate amounts of money, even when they believe they have
paid in full (and it wasn't obvious how and when payment should be
made or if top ups were possible)?
Given my experience with the other system and that I've rarely ever
had a parking fine (the last was squashed because of poor signage),
how can a system be considered 'reasonable' that allows you to pay (in
full) before you leave but still sends you a PCN for £60-100 with the
charge that you 'Failed to pay'? Why would I not pay before the 15
minutes or £2 an hour or £3 for two hours and risk a 60 fine, if I was
aware of it?
And we aren't talking of a warden controlled system here ... but one
linked via ANPR and with all the hardware in place provide a system
that would be considered fair to most?
Even if you wanted to retain the 15 minute grace period, the system
would only need to determine if you left no more than 15 mins after
entering (something the driver would need a stopwatch to monitor for
themselves, given a 1 second overstay could yield a £60 PCN), and if
over 15 minutes, did they pay for the duration of stay in full yes /
no. If no, by all means send a PCN or better, give people till (say)
midnight the next day to pay (as you can with the congestion charge
and the Dartford crossing).
<shrug>
Cheers, T i m
Chris R
Dec 17, 2017, 2:41:04 AM12/17/17
to
any provable loss. Please read Robin's posts.
--
Chris R
Roland Perry
Dec 17, 2017, 2:46:44 AM12/17/17
to
In message <f9l8gh...@mid.individual.net>, at 18:55:14 on Sat, 16
Dec 2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>>>>> [1] One thing that many people do not appreciate is that parking
>>>>> spaces - all the way from a simple staff car park for a handful of
>>>>> cars up to a huge city centre multi-storey car park - are subject to
>>>>> business rates. The rateable value of a car park is based on the
>>>>> number of spaces.
>>>>
>>>> Even if the parking is free - like it is at the Princess of Wales
>>>> Hospital in Ely?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>> What's the rateable value of an asset that's a liability?
>> It was originally based on the rental income you could get, but a
>>free car park sounds like something no-one would want to rent.
>
>It's not a free car park but a car park.
>
>Its rateable value is what it is.
I'm still interested in how the council valuer sets a market rental for
such a patch of land.
--
Roland Perry
Dec 2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>>>>> [1] One thing that many people do not appreciate is that parking
>>>>> spaces - all the way from a simple staff car park for a handful of
>>>>> cars up to a huge city centre multi-storey car park - are subject to
>>>>> business rates. The rateable value of a car park is based on the
>>>>> number of spaces.
>>>>
>>>> Even if the parking is free - like it is at the Princess of Wales
>>>> Hospital in Ely?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>> What's the rateable value of an asset that's a liability?
>> It was originally based on the rental income you could get, but a
>>free car park sounds like something no-one would want to rent.
>
>It's not a free car park but a car park.
>
>Its rateable value is what it is.
such a patch of land.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Dec 17, 2017, 2:46:44 AM12/17/17
to
In message <op.zbcrw...@red.lan>, at 18:49:41 on Sat, 16 Dec 2017,
the same level of fee (~£50-£100) it must be averaged out by some
agreement other, over the whole parking empire. Not car park by car
park.
--
Roland Perry
James Wilkinson Sword <imv...@somewear.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Apart from the observation that whatever they are asking has to be
>>>>>> reasonable to cover their alleged expenditure, I would be curious as to
>>>>>> your last point.
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought the Supreme Court in Parking Eye shot and buried that
>>>>> argument.
>>>>
>>>> My understanding was that the "charge" must still be reasonable in light
>>>> of the operators losses. It most certainly is not a blank cheque.
>>>
>>> So the original parking fee they should have paid plus a tenner for paperwork. Not £100.
>>
>> The expenses are not hypothecated to each individual infringement, but
>> are supposed to reflect the entire annual cost of running the
>> enforcement scheme, divided by the number of tickets they issue.
>
>If they're only capable of getting tickets to 10% of the infringers, that does
>not give them the right to charge them ten times as much. Would you be ok if
>they only caught 1 in 10,000 and charged them 10,000 times the cost?
I expected someone to ask that, but since all such places charge much
>>>>>> Apart from the observation that whatever they are asking has to be
>>>>>> reasonable to cover their alleged expenditure, I would be curious as to
>>>>>> your last point.
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought the Supreme Court in Parking Eye shot and buried that
>>>>> argument.
>>>>
>>>> My understanding was that the "charge" must still be reasonable in light
>>>> of the operators losses. It most certainly is not a blank cheque.
>>>
>>> So the original parking fee they should have paid plus a tenner for paperwork. Not £100.
>>
>> The expenses are not hypothecated to each individual infringement, but
>> are supposed to reflect the entire annual cost of running the
>> enforcement scheme, divided by the number of tickets they issue.
>
>If they're only capable of getting tickets to 10% of the infringers, that does
>not give them the right to charge them ten times as much. Would you be ok if
>they only caught 1 in 10,000 and charged them 10,000 times the cost?
the same level of fee (~£50-£100) it must be averaged out by some
agreement other, over the whole parking empire. Not car park by car
park.
--
Roland Perry
Chris R
Dec 17, 2017, 2:49:26 AM12/17/17
to
park; so the rates are affected by the difference in overall value the
site would have if it did not have the car park. That could be even more.
--
Chris R
Roland Perry
Dec 17, 2017, 2:57:17 AM12/17/17
to
In message <f9l92k...@mid.individual.net>, at 19:04:53 on Sat, 16
inconvenience to patients, caused by in this instance them having to
spend half a day travelling to and from some centralised facility *and*
having to pay for parking which wouldn't have been needed when they were
treated locally.
This doesn't just happen at the hospital level. One town I used to live
in, and where my GP was literally a few doors away, has converted to a
centralised Health Centre with in effect merging about half a dozen
previously independent GPs. A trip to that would be quite an expedition,
especially if one was ill. Which for some strange reason many people
visiting their GP are.
>If you want them now to provide free car parking, they will have to cut
>them again.
That's double-dipping, and not acceptable.
>Which would you cut? Do say.
Which services are you willing to cut, rather than make patients pay £20
a day for their meals? If that's too much, they could always send out
for a pizza. (Don't laugh, it's quite a common thing to happen on
maternity wards).
>>> It's the same as parking anywhere there is a charge.
>> No, there are plenty of places with a charge which have simple and
>>clear rules.
>>
>>> You are expected to be adult about reading the conditions and
>>>abiding by the rules.
>> Often the rules are ambiguous, or poorly drafted. We've seen some
>>classic examples in this thread.
>
>If they are where you've parked, you can appeal on that basis and you
>will win. Normally, however, the signage is perfectly clear, and there
>is no argument.
The problem is that the excess charges are cunningly arranged to be not
worth the time and effort involved in appealing for the majority of
parkers, even if they would eventually win as a result of demonstrating
the ambiguity in the signage.
Then there's the car parks where the clocks on the ticket machines are
incorrect, so people end up looking like he overstayed, when they
haven't. That's more deterministic and I know people who have won
appeals because they are easy to prove.
--
Roland Perry
Dec 2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>On 16/12/2017 18:47, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <f9l6sj...@mid.individual.net>, at 18:27:31 on Sat, 16
>>Dec 2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>>> On 16/12/2017 17:46, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>
>>>> Insisting the patients all travel to the same centralised hospital
>>>>is simply creating a problem for themselves, and *if* it's saving
>>>>them as much as they claim it is, they can flipping well use some
>>>>of those savings to provide parking for people driving from 30 miles away.
>>>
>>> They do, but what you haven't addressed is why that parking, which
>>>costs money to provide and administer, should be free.
>>>
>>> The NHS has limited resources. If you make it bear the costs of
>>>providing free parking facilities, it will have to make savings
>>>elsewhere.
>> They have already got those savings, by making patients come to
>>them, rather than going to the patients.
>
>I think the NHS has already spent any efficiency savings it has made
>anywhere on providing extra front line services.
I hope so. Although often such services are provided at great extra
>On 16/12/2017 18:47, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <f9l6sj...@mid.individual.net>, at 18:27:31 on Sat, 16
>>Dec 2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>>> On 16/12/2017 17:46, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>
>>>> Insisting the patients all travel to the same centralised hospital
>>>>is simply creating a problem for themselves, and *if* it's saving
>>>>them as much as they claim it is, they can flipping well use some
>>>>of those savings to provide parking for people driving from 30 miles away.
>>>
>>> They do, but what you haven't addressed is why that parking, which
>>>costs money to provide and administer, should be free.
>>>
>>> The NHS has limited resources. If you make it bear the costs of
>>>providing free parking facilities, it will have to make savings
>>>elsewhere.
>> They have already got those savings, by making patients come to
>>them, rather than going to the patients.
>
>I think the NHS has already spent any efficiency savings it has made
>anywhere on providing extra front line services.
inconvenience to patients, caused by in this instance them having to
spend half a day travelling to and from some centralised facility *and*
having to pay for parking which wouldn't have been needed when they were
treated locally.
This doesn't just happen at the hospital level. One town I used to live
in, and where my GP was literally a few doors away, has converted to a
centralised Health Centre with in effect merging about half a dozen
previously independent GPs. A trip to that would be quite an expedition,
especially if one was ill. Which for some strange reason many people
visiting their GP are.
>If you want them now to provide free car parking, they will have to cut
>them again.
>Which would you cut? Do say.
a day for their meals? If that's too much, they could always send out
for a pizza. (Don't laugh, it's quite a common thing to happen on
maternity wards).
>>> It's the same as parking anywhere there is a charge.
>> No, there are plenty of places with a charge which have simple and
>>clear rules.
>>
>>> You are expected to be adult about reading the conditions and
>>>abiding by the rules.
>> Often the rules are ambiguous, or poorly drafted. We've seen some
>>classic examples in this thread.
>
>If they are where you've parked, you can appeal on that basis and you
>will win. Normally, however, the signage is perfectly clear, and there
>is no argument.
worth the time and effort involved in appealing for the majority of
parkers, even if they would eventually win as a result of demonstrating
the ambiguity in the signage.
Then there's the car parks where the clocks on the ticket machines are
incorrect, so people end up looking like he overstayed, when they
haven't. That's more deterministic and I know people who have won
appeals because they are easy to prove.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Dec 17, 2017, 2:57:25 AM12/17/17
to
In message <vr3b3dhgbvb7jvpog...@4ax.com>, at 22:16:59 on
outdoors and raining, and the machines had neither illumination nor
shelter. Should I have known to take an umbrella and a torch?
--
Roland Perry
>Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to absolve myself of the
>responsibility, I should have stood there in the rain, holding up the
>queue of people also trying to figure out why no tickets were coming
>out the machine
The last hospital car park I bought a ticket at, it as before dawn,
>responsibility, I should have stood there in the rain, holding up the
>queue of people also trying to figure out why no tickets were coming
>out the machine
outdoors and raining, and the machines had neither illumination nor
shelter. Should I have known to take an umbrella and a torch?
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Dec 17, 2017, 3:18:29 AM12/17/17
to
In message <p1572d$ive$2...@dont-email.me>, at 07:40:42 on Sun, 17 Dec
2017, Chris R <invalid...@invalid.invalid.com> remarked:
>> The expenses are not hypothecated to each individual infringement,
>>but are supposed to reflect the entire annual cost of running the
>>enforcement scheme, divided by the number of tickets they issue.
>
>No, they are not. The charge does not have to be connected in any way
>to any provable loss. Please read Robin's posts.
Robin's posting cited a charge associated with ensuring compliance to "a
scheme serving legitimate interests", and thus I'm not going anywhere
near the word "loss". But I am looking at the ~£85 being a way to
recover the *cost* of the compliance scheme.
Or is the charge a genuine "penalty" plucked from thin air to make
people sufficiently afraid of trying to evade payment? If so, the
difficulty is that they catch too many people who for whatever reason
think they've paid, but have tripped over some unexpected small print.
The NHS, in particular, should not be turning its back on the often
vulnerable service users who stumble like that. Even if we did accept
they have a good enough reason to raise funds by charging for car
parking.
Charging visitors (rather than patients) £10 to use the loo would raise
some much needed cash too.
--
Roland Perry
2017, Chris R <invalid...@invalid.invalid.com> remarked:
>> The expenses are not hypothecated to each individual infringement,
>>but are supposed to reflect the entire annual cost of running the
>>enforcement scheme, divided by the number of tickets they issue.
>
>No, they are not. The charge does not have to be connected in any way
>to any provable loss. Please read Robin's posts.
scheme serving legitimate interests", and thus I'm not going anywhere
near the word "loss". But I am looking at the ~£85 being a way to
recover the *cost* of the compliance scheme.
Or is the charge a genuine "penalty" plucked from thin air to make
people sufficiently afraid of trying to evade payment? If so, the
difficulty is that they catch too many people who for whatever reason
think they've paid, but have tripped over some unexpected small print.
The NHS, in particular, should not be turning its back on the often
vulnerable service users who stumble like that. Even if we did accept
they have a good enough reason to raise funds by charging for car
parking.
Charging visitors (rather than patients) £10 to use the loo would raise
some much needed cash too.
--
Roland Perry
Robin
Dec 17, 2017, 3:21:30 AM12/17/17
to
On 17/12/2017 07:49, Chris R wrote:
>
> Surely the rateable value is of the whole site, not just of the car
> park; so the rates are affected by the difference in overall value the
> site would have if it did not have the car park. That could be even more.
That is true if the car park is part of a single hereditament - eg an
>
> Surely the rateable value is of the whole site, not just of the car
> park; so the rates are affected by the difference in overall value the
> site would have if it did not have the car park. That could be even more.
office block with car park for occupiers. But a car park open to the
public would usually be a separate hereditament and valued as such.
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
Robin
Dec 17, 2017, 3:23:59 AM12/17/17
to
Roland Perry
Dec 17, 2017, 3:52:56 AM12/17/17
to
In message <p157i3$ive$3...@dont-email.me>, at 07:49:04 on Sun, 17 Dec
now transferred to the NHS, has an easily determined "value", because
that's what someone would pay for it, and it's not a very liquid market.
Obviously, if you demolished it and built houses (which is what
eventually happens to most of them), the *land* would be worth a
fortune, but I don't think business rates are set on that basis.
--
Roland Perry
>> I can't tell you the actual figures used for the hospital car park,
>>as the calulations used to determine hospital rateable values are,
>>for some reason, not made public. But you can look up the rateable
>>value of council car parks in the area, using the online tool:
>>https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/business-rates-find/search According
>>to that, Angel Drove car park is assessed as being worth £215 per
>>space, and Broad Street (Forehill) car park is worth £245 per space.
>>And that's despite the fact that the latter is free, while the former
>>has parking fees. The difference is purely the location.
>
>Surely the rateable value is of the whole site, not just of the car
>park; so the rates are affected by the difference in overall value the
>site would have if it did not have the car park. That could be even more.
I'm struggling with the idea that a crumbling ex-WW2 military hospital,
>>as the calulations used to determine hospital rateable values are,
>>for some reason, not made public. But you can look up the rateable
>>value of council car parks in the area, using the online tool:
>>https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/business-rates-find/search According
>>to that, Angel Drove car park is assessed as being worth £215 per
>>space, and Broad Street (Forehill) car park is worth £245 per space.
>>And that's despite the fact that the latter is free, while the former
>>has parking fees. The difference is purely the location.
>
>Surely the rateable value is of the whole site, not just of the car
>park; so the rates are affected by the difference in overall value the
>site would have if it did not have the car park. That could be even more.
now transferred to the NHS, has an easily determined "value", because
that's what someone would pay for it, and it's not a very liquid market.
Obviously, if you demolished it and built houses (which is what
eventually happens to most of them), the *land* would be worth a
fortune, but I don't think business rates are set on that basis.
--
Roland Perry
Norman Wells
Dec 17, 2017, 4:51:51 AM12/17/17
to
On 17/12/2017 07:53, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <f9l92k...@mid.individual.net>, at 19:04:53 on Sat, 16
> Dec 2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>> On 16/12/2017 18:47, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <f9l6sj...@mid.individual.net>, at 18:27:31 on Sat, 16
>>> Dec 2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>>>> On 16/12/2017 17:46, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The NHS has limited resources. If you make it bear the costs of
>>>> providing free parking facilities, it will have to make savings
>>>> elsewhere.
>>> They have already got those savings, by making patients come to
>>> them, rather than going to the patients.
>>
>> I think the NHS has already spent any efficiency savings it has made
>> anywhere on providing extra front line services.
>
> I hope so. Although often such services are provided at great extra
> inconvenience to patients, caused by in this instance them having to
> spend half a day travelling to and from some centralised facility
Not necessarily. There are others whose doorstep it will be on.
> In message <f9l92k...@mid.individual.net>, at 19:04:53 on Sat, 16
> Dec 2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>> On 16/12/2017 18:47, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <f9l6sj...@mid.individual.net>, at 18:27:31 on Sat, 16
>>> Dec 2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>>>> On 16/12/2017 17:46, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The NHS has limited resources. If you make it bear the costs of
>>>> providing free parking facilities, it will have to make savings
>>>> elsewhere.
>>> They have already got those savings, by making patients come to
>>> them, rather than going to the patients.
>>
>> I think the NHS has already spent any efficiency savings it has made
>> anywhere on providing extra front line services.
>
> I hope so. Although often such services are provided at great extra
> inconvenience to patients, caused by in this instance them having to
> spend half a day travelling to and from some centralised facility
But you're running an argument that services should be decentralised,
not that car parking should be free. It's a different matter.
Presumably the NHS considers it more efficient to have all the
facilities anyone is likely to require under the same roof rather than
just what can be carried in a peripatetic doctor's bag.
> *and*
> having to pay for parking which wouldn't have been needed when they were
> treated locally.
distance you've travelled to get there. Do you?
They cost money to build and adminster wherever they are and I see no
reason why those using them should not pay a reasonable sum to do so.
> This doesn't just happen at the hospital level. One town I used to live
> in, and where my GP was literally a few doors away, has converted to a
> centralised Health Centre with in effect merging about half a dozen
> previously independent GPs. A trip to that would be quite an expedition,
> especially if one was ill. Which for some strange reason many people
> visiting their GP are.
will have gained.
>> If you want them now to provide free car parking, they will have to
>> cut them again.
>
> That's double-dipping, and not acceptable.
>
>> Which would you cut? Do say.
>
> Which services are you willing to cut, rather than make patients pay £20
> a day for their meals? If that's too much, they could always send out
> for a pizza. (Don't laugh, it's quite a common thing to happen on
> maternity wards).
parking at hospitals, what would you cut? Doctors, nurses, drugs or
equipment?
>>>> It's the same as parking anywhere there is a charge.
>>> No, there are plenty of places with a charge which have simple and
>>> clear rules.
>>>
>>>> You are expected to be adult about reading the conditions and
>>>> abiding by the rules.
>
>>> Often the rules are ambiguous, or poorly drafted. We've seen some
>>> classic examples in this thread.
>>
>> If they are where you've parked, you can appeal on that basis and you
>> will win. Normally, however, the signage is perfectly clear, and
>> there is no argument.
>
> The problem is that the excess charges are cunningly arranged to be not
> worth the time and effort involved in appealing for the majority of
> parkers, even if they would eventually win as a result of demonstrating
> the ambiguity in the signage.
including Beavis v Parking Eye, there are any number of people out there
who are willing to argue about even tiny sums of money. They are never
at fault, you see.
But the level of charges is not 'cunningly arranged' to deter appeals,
but to deter parking in breach of the conditions and stop people taking
liberties, which they otherwise would.
> Then there's the car parks where the clocks on the ticket machines are
> incorrect, so people end up looking like he overstayed, when they
> haven't. That's more deterministic and I know people who have won
> appeals because they are easy to prove.
Norman Wells
Dec 17, 2017, 4:52:11 AM12/17/17
to
On 17/12/2017 08:09, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <p1572d$ive$2...@dont-email.me>, at 07:40:42 on Sun, 17 Dec
> 2017, Chris R <invalid...@invalid.invalid.com> remarked:
>
>>> The expenses are not hypothecated to each individual infringement,
>>> but are supposed to reflect the entire annual cost of running the
>>> enforcement scheme, divided by the number of tickets they issue.
>>
>> No, they are not. The charge does not have to be connected in any way
>> to any provable loss. Please read Robin's posts.
>
> Robin's posting cited a charge associated with ensuring compliance to "a
> scheme serving legitimate interests", and thus I'm not going anywhere
> near the word "loss". But I am looking at the ~£85 being a way to
> recover the *cost* of the compliance scheme.
>
> Or is the charge a genuine "penalty" plucked from thin air to make
> people sufficiently afraid of trying to evade payment? If so, the
> difficulty is that they catch too many people who for whatever reason
> think they've paid, but have tripped over some unexpected small print.
All the principles were fully discussed in Parking Eye v Beavis:
> In message <p1572d$ive$2...@dont-email.me>, at 07:40:42 on Sun, 17 Dec
> 2017, Chris R <invalid...@invalid.invalid.com> remarked:
>
>>> The expenses are not hypothecated to each individual infringement,
>>> but are supposed to reflect the entire annual cost of running the
>>> enforcement scheme, divided by the number of tickets they issue.
>>
>> No, they are not. The charge does not have to be connected in any way
>> to any provable loss. Please read Robin's posts.
>
> Robin's posting cited a charge associated with ensuring compliance to "a
> scheme serving legitimate interests", and thus I'm not going anywhere
> near the word "loss". But I am looking at the ~£85 being a way to
> recover the *cost* of the compliance scheme.
>
> Or is the charge a genuine "penalty" plucked from thin air to make
> people sufficiently afraid of trying to evade payment? If so, the
> difficulty is that they catch too many people who for whatever reason
> think they've paid, but have tripped over some unexpected small print.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/402.html
and
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0280-judgment.pdf
Norman Wells
Dec 17, 2017, 4:52:59 AM12/17/17
to
never accept that it's their fault and that they're liable, whatever the
circumstances. It's always the fault of the car park operator who never
seems to have put up visible signage, and is always out to fleece anyone
who uses his park.
That *may* be true of a very small minority, or in other rare cases, but
the law is against them. The vast majority, as shown by the cases that
have gone to court, have acted perfectly properly in all respects and
are fully entitled to recover the charges they have levied.
I put it down to cultural factors. We have lost any sense of personal
responsibility, and now have a blame culture. We also seem to have an
inbred entitlement to park for free wherever and whenever we choose.
It's a toxic mix.
Robin
Dec 17, 2017, 5:20:40 AM12/17/17
to
On 17/12/2017 09:20, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 17/12/2017 08:23, Robin wrote:
<snip>
> On 17/12/2017 08:23, Robin wrote:
>>
>> Do I have to hammer a stake through someone's heart?
>
> It won't work. There are some who receive a parking ticket who will
> never accept that it's their fault and that they're liable, whatever the
> circumstances. It's always the fault of the car park operator who never
> seems to have put up visible signage, and is always out to fleece anyone
> who uses his park.
>
> That *may* be true of a very small minority, or in other rare cases, but
> the law is against them. The vast majority, as shown by the cases that
> have gone to court, have acted perfectly properly in all respects and
> are fully entitled to recover the charges they have levied.
>
> I put it down to cultural factors. We have lost any sense of personal
> responsibility, and now have a blame culture. We also seem to have an
> inbred entitlement to park for free wherever and whenever we choose.
>
> It's a toxic mix.
FTAOD I was addressing only the persistence of assertions about the law
>> Do I have to hammer a stake through someone's heart?
>
> It won't work. There are some who receive a parking ticket who will
> never accept that it's their fault and that they're liable, whatever the
> circumstances. It's always the fault of the car park operator who never
> seems to have put up visible signage, and is always out to fleece anyone
> who uses his park.
>
> That *may* be true of a very small minority, or in other rare cases, but
> the law is against them. The vast majority, as shown by the cases that
> have gone to court, have acted perfectly properly in all respects and
> are fully entitled to recover the charges they have levied.
>
> I put it down to cultural factors. We have lost any sense of personal
> responsibility, and now have a blame culture. We also seem to have an
> inbred entitlement to park for free wherever and whenever we choose.
>
> It's a toxic mix.
governing the quantum of a penalty charge.
Norman Wells
Dec 17, 2017, 5:30:47 AM12/17/17
to
you have good reason not to pay anything, and you will win if you take
any parking charges to appeal.
Roland Perry
Dec 17, 2017, 5:37:42 AM12/17/17
to
In message <f9mr64...@mid.individual.net>, at 09:20:03 on Sun, 17
Dec 2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
> There are some who receive a parking ticket who will never accept that
>it's their fault and that they're liable, whatever the circumstances.
>It's always the fault of the car park operator who never seems to have
>put up visible signage, and is always out to fleece anyone who uses his
>park.
>
>That *may* be true of a very small minority, or in other rare cases,
>but the law is against them. The vast majority, as shown by the cases
>that have gone to court, have acted perfectly properly in all respects
>and are fully entitled to recover the charges they have levied.
There's no correlation between the handful of cases which have gone to
court and the hundreds of people each day caught out by small print
which really does appear to be deliberately deployed in order to catch
as many people as possible on a "technicality".
My understanding is that local authority parking enforcement[1] has a
ten minute grace period now, thanks to the Deregulation Act.
But private parking (which includes parking in public places like
hospitals and railway stations) can still get away with issuing
penalties when a person is just one minute late jumping through some
quirky, poorly documented local hoop.
Can you have a second attempt at responding to my question about:
<<There's a classic example at my local station. Lots of signs saying
that all parking is chargeable, and then there's four spaces next to the
building entrance which say "20 minutes only".
It's completely unclear if this means they are always free of charge for
20 minutes [the traditional ex-BR meaning], or whether you have to pay
which might apply in such circumstances, then now's the time to say.
It's not the only contradiction there, because the big sign with the
rules (which takes about five minutes to read) prohibits buses from
parking there, yet one of the bays is super-sized and has "buses only"
painted on the tarmac. Go figure, as they say.
[1] Irrespective of whether it's outsourced or not.
--
Roland Perry
Dec 2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
> There are some who receive a parking ticket who will never accept that
>it's their fault and that they're liable, whatever the circumstances.
>It's always the fault of the car park operator who never seems to have
>put up visible signage, and is always out to fleece anyone who uses his
>park.
>
>That *may* be true of a very small minority, or in other rare cases,
>but the law is against them. The vast majority, as shown by the cases
>that have gone to court, have acted perfectly properly in all respects
>and are fully entitled to recover the charges they have levied.
court and the hundreds of people each day caught out by small print
which really does appear to be deliberately deployed in order to catch
as many people as possible on a "technicality".
My understanding is that local authority parking enforcement[1] has a
ten minute grace period now, thanks to the Deregulation Act.
But private parking (which includes parking in public places like
hospitals and railway stations) can still get away with issuing
penalties when a person is just one minute late jumping through some
quirky, poorly documented local hoop.
Can you have a second attempt at responding to my question about:
<<There's a classic example at my local station. Lots of signs saying
that all parking is chargeable, and then there's four spaces next to the
It's completely unclear if this means they are always free of charge for
for a day's ticket and *also* leave within 20 minutes>>
If you aware of a statutory definition of "parking" versus "waiting"
which might apply in such circumstances, then now's the time to say.
It's not the only contradiction there, because the big sign with the
rules (which takes about five minutes to read) prohibits buses from
parking there, yet one of the bays is super-sized and has "buses only"
painted on the tarmac. Go figure, as they say.
[1] Irrespective of whether it's outsourced or not.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Dec 17, 2017, 5:49:09 AM12/17/17
to
In message <a3825e35-90dc-e0dd...@hotmail.com>, at
10:20:34 on Sun, 17 Dec 2017, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
As for quantum, there's widespread agreement within the parking industry
that "~£85" is the figure to be looking at.
What's not so clear to me is why, if the quantum of penalty doesn't
reflect any costs incurred (which would also include collection costs),
there's typically a discount for fast payment.
In the OP's case, why does the parking company want to throw away £40
just because the penalty was paid a few days sooner?
--
Roland Perry
10:20:34 on Sun, 17 Dec 2017, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>>> Do I have to hammer a stake through someone's heart?
>> It won't work. There are some who receive a parking ticket who will
>>never accept that it's their fault and that they're liable, whatever
>>the circumstances. It's always the fault of the car park operator
>>who never seems to have put up visible signage, and is always out to
>>fleece anyone who uses his park.
>> That *may* be true of a very small minority, or in other rare cases,
>>but the law is against them. The vast majority, as shown by the
>>cases that have gone to court, have acted perfectly properly in all
>>respects and are fully entitled to recover the charges they have levied.
>> I put it down to cultural factors. We have lost any sense of
>>personal responsibility, and now have a blame culture. We also seem
>>to have an inbred entitlement to park for free wherever and whenever
>>we choose.
>> It's a toxic mix.
>
>FTAOD I was addressing only the persistence of assertions about the law
>governing the quantum of a penalty charge.
Thanks for confirming it's a [non-judicial] *penalty* charge.
>> It won't work. There are some who receive a parking ticket who will
>>never accept that it's their fault and that they're liable, whatever
>>the circumstances. It's always the fault of the car park operator
>>who never seems to have put up visible signage, and is always out to
>>fleece anyone who uses his park.
>> That *may* be true of a very small minority, or in other rare cases,
>>but the law is against them. The vast majority, as shown by the
>>cases that have gone to court, have acted perfectly properly in all
>>respects and are fully entitled to recover the charges they have levied.
>> I put it down to cultural factors. We have lost any sense of
>>personal responsibility, and now have a blame culture. We also seem
>>to have an inbred entitlement to park for free wherever and whenever
>>we choose.
>> It's a toxic mix.
>
>FTAOD I was addressing only the persistence of assertions about the law
>governing the quantum of a penalty charge.
As for quantum, there's widespread agreement within the parking industry
that "~£85" is the figure to be looking at.
What's not so clear to me is why, if the quantum of penalty doesn't
reflect any costs incurred (which would also include collection costs),
there's typically a discount for fast payment.
In the OP's case, why does the parking company want to throw away £40
just because the penalty was paid a few days sooner?
--
Roland Perry
Robin
Dec 17, 2017, 5:58:49 AM12/17/17
to
On 17/12/2017 10:39, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <a3825e35-90dc-e0dd...@hotmail.com>, at
> 10:20:34 on Sun, 17 Dec 2017, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Do I have to hammer a stake through someone's heart?
>>> It won't work. There are some who receive a parking ticket who will
>>> never accept that it's their fault and that they're liable, whatever
>>> the circumstances. It's always the fault of the car park operator
>>> who never seems to have put up visible signage, and is always out to
>>> fleece anyone who uses his park.
>>> That *may* be true of a very small minority, or in other rare cases,
>>> but the law is against them. The vast majority, as shown by the
>>> cases that have gone to court, have acted perfectly properly in all
>>> respects and are fully entitled to recover the charges they have
>>> levied.
>>> I put it down to cultural factors. We have lost any sense of
>>> personal responsibility, and now have a blame culture. We also seem
>>> to have an inbred entitlement to park for free wherever and whenever
>>> we choose.
>>> It's a toxic mix.
>>
>> FTAOD I was addressing only the persistence of assertions about the
>> law governing the quantum of a penalty charge.
>
> Thanks for confirming it's a [non-judicial] *penalty* charge.
You are building castles on a typo. It should, of course, have been
> In message <a3825e35-90dc-e0dd...@hotmail.com>, at
> 10:20:34 on Sun, 17 Dec 2017, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Do I have to hammer a stake through someone's heart?
>>> It won't work. There are some who receive a parking ticket who will
>>> never accept that it's their fault and that they're liable, whatever
>>> the circumstances. It's always the fault of the car park operator
>>> who never seems to have put up visible signage, and is always out to
>>> fleece anyone who uses his park.
>>> That *may* be true of a very small minority, or in other rare cases,
>>> but the law is against them. The vast majority, as shown by the
>>> cases that have gone to court, have acted perfectly properly in all
>>> respects and are fully entitled to recover the charges they have
>>> levied.
>>> I put it down to cultural factors. We have lost any sense of
>>> personal responsibility, and now have a blame culture. We also seem
>>> to have an inbred entitlement to park for free wherever and whenever
>>> we choose.
>>> It's a toxic mix.
>>
>> FTAOD I was addressing only the persistence of assertions about the
>> law governing the quantum of a penalty charge.
>
> Thanks for confirming it's a [non-judicial] *penalty* charge.
"parking charge notice" in the context of a private sector car park
operator. I apologise for my slip.
> As for quantum, there's widespread agreement within the parking industry
> that "~£85" is the figure to be looking at.
>
> What's not so clear to me is why, if the quantum of penalty doesn't
> reflect any costs incurred (which would also include collection costs),
> there's typically a discount for fast payment.
>
> In the OP's case, why does the parking company want to throw away £40
> just because the penalty was paid a few days sooner?
--
Norman Wells
Dec 17, 2017, 6:30:33 AM12/17/17
to
On 17/12/2017 10:32, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <f9mr64...@mid.individual.net>, at 09:20:03 on Sun, 17
> Dec 2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>
>> There are some who receive a parking ticket who will never accept that
>> it's their fault and that they're liable, whatever the circumstances.
>> It's always the fault of the car park operator who never seems to have
>> put up visible signage, and is always out to fleece anyone who uses
>> his park.
>>
>> That *may* be true of a very small minority, or in other rare cases,
>> but the law is against them. The vast majority, as shown by the cases
>> that have gone to court, have acted perfectly properly in all respects
>> and are fully entitled to recover the charges they have levied.
>
> There's no correlation between the handful of cases which have gone to
> court and the hundreds of people each day caught out by small print
> which really does appear to be deliberately deployed in order to catch
> as many people as possible on a "technicality".
>
> My understanding is that local authority parking enforcement[1] has a
> ten minute grace period now, thanks to the Deregulation Act.
>
> But private parking (which includes parking in public places like
> hospitals and railway stations)
They are not 'public places' actually. They are owned by the NHS or
> In message <f9mr64...@mid.individual.net>, at 09:20:03 on Sun, 17
> Dec 2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>
>> There are some who receive a parking ticket who will never accept that
>> it's their fault and that they're liable, whatever the circumstances.
>> It's always the fault of the car park operator who never seems to have
>> put up visible signage, and is always out to fleece anyone who uses
>> his park.
>>
>> That *may* be true of a very small minority, or in other rare cases,
>> but the law is against them. The vast majority, as shown by the cases
>> that have gone to court, have acted perfectly properly in all respects
>> and are fully entitled to recover the charges they have levied.
>
> There's no correlation between the handful of cases which have gone to
> court and the hundreds of people each day caught out by small print
> which really does appear to be deliberately deployed in order to catch
> as many people as possible on a "technicality".
>
> My understanding is that local authority parking enforcement[1] has a
> ten minute grace period now, thanks to the Deregulation Act.
>
> But private parking (which includes parking in public places like
> hospitals and railway stations)
rail companies who operate them as private car parks for their
customers, setting the conditions as they see fit.
> can still get away with issuing
> penalties when a person is just one minute late jumping through some
> quirky, poorly documented local hoop.
is for one hour or one hour and ten minutes (including grace period),
you're late and in breach of the conditions. There has to be a cut-off
point somewhere.
And wherever that cut-off point is, you'll always get people who'll try
to take advantage and push it to extremes.
> Can you have a second attempt at responding to my question about:
>
> <<There's a classic example at my local station. Lots of signs saying
> that all parking is chargeable, and then there's four spaces next to the
> building entrance which say "20 minutes only".
>
> It's completely unclear if this means they are always free of charge for
> 20 minutes [the traditional ex-BR meaning], or whether you have to pay
> for a day's ticket and *also* leave within 20 minutes>>
>
> If you aware of a statutory definition of "parking" versus "waiting"
> which might apply in such circumstances, then now's the time to say.
>
> It's not the only contradiction there, because the big sign with the
> rules (which takes about five minutes to read) prohibits buses from
> parking there, yet one of the bays is super-sized and has "buses only"
> painted on the tarmac. Go figure, as they say.
is insufficient to form a contract, it's grounds for rejecting any charges.
T i m
Dec 17, 2017, 6:59:56 AM12/17/17
to
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 07:55:52 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:
Quite.
The thing is, we are talking about humans existing in an ever
robotising world.
A speed camera outside a school will catch someone doing 36 in a 30,
even though it's a Sunday afternoon, clear, dry and empty. It won't
catch someone driving past the school at 29 mpg at 3:15 on a school
day and in thick fog.
Would it be unreasonable to provide both light and shelter around
these payment machines? (Like they do at my local hospital and
station).
It's as if they (some) are *trying* to make the whole process of
paying for car parking as difficult and uncomfortable as possible,
especially in the light that others seem to have made it as easy as
they can?
I could sort of get that if parking was free and you just needed to
press a button to get a (free) ticket to allow them to monitor your
stay duration ... but some of these machines are quite complex / un
intuitive, (do you need to put the whole reg in or just the numbers or
first 3 characters ... do you put the reg in first , duration or the
cash / card etc etc) and when you have a queue behind you who are on
an absolute schedule (hospital appointment, catching a train or plane
etc), rather than just going shopping it increases the chances of
doing something wrong.
As a parallel it's like HID headlights on cars. For years we 'managed'
with incandescent lamps and whilst looking into some oncoming
headlights wasn't nice, it wasn't as painful as the sort of levels of
light you often get off an HID lamp and you could even see past them
to some extent. Now you are left momentarily blinded because the light
level is more that 'humans' can cope with. Same thing applies with
levels of sound, vibration or temperature.
IMHO, anyone providing a service like car parking *should* make the
delivery of that as straightforward and 'human / user friendly' as
possible, especially considering the demographic of the people who
will be typically using it.
It seems that several local hospitals feel the same regarding their
patient experience ...
https://www.royalfree.nhs.uk/contact-us/getting-to-our-hospitals/parking-at-our-hospitals/
Cheers, T i m
wrote:
The thing is, we are talking about humans existing in an ever
robotising world.
A speed camera outside a school will catch someone doing 36 in a 30,
even though it's a Sunday afternoon, clear, dry and empty. It won't
catch someone driving past the school at 29 mpg at 3:15 on a school
day and in thick fog.
Would it be unreasonable to provide both light and shelter around
these payment machines? (Like they do at my local hospital and
station).
It's as if they (some) are *trying* to make the whole process of
paying for car parking as difficult and uncomfortable as possible,
especially in the light that others seem to have made it as easy as
they can?
I could sort of get that if parking was free and you just needed to
press a button to get a (free) ticket to allow them to monitor your
stay duration ... but some of these machines are quite complex / un
intuitive, (do you need to put the whole reg in or just the numbers or
first 3 characters ... do you put the reg in first , duration or the
cash / card etc etc) and when you have a queue behind you who are on
an absolute schedule (hospital appointment, catching a train or plane
etc), rather than just going shopping it increases the chances of
doing something wrong.
As a parallel it's like HID headlights on cars. For years we 'managed'
with incandescent lamps and whilst looking into some oncoming
headlights wasn't nice, it wasn't as painful as the sort of levels of
light you often get off an HID lamp and you could even see past them
to some extent. Now you are left momentarily blinded because the light
level is more that 'humans' can cope with. Same thing applies with
levels of sound, vibration or temperature.
IMHO, anyone providing a service like car parking *should* make the
delivery of that as straightforward and 'human / user friendly' as
possible, especially considering the demographic of the people who
will be typically using it.
It seems that several local hospitals feel the same regarding their
patient experience ...
https://www.royalfree.nhs.uk/contact-us/getting-to-our-hospitals/parking-at-our-hospitals/
Cheers, T i m
T i m
Dec 17, 2017, 7:09:08 AM12/17/17
to
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 07:53:45 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:
<snip>
>Which services are you willing to cut, rather than make patients pay £20
>a day for their meals? If that's too much, they could always send out
>for a pizza. (Don't laugh, it's quite a common thing to happen on
>maternity wards).
Exactly what we did 27 years ago. ;-)
Mrs and I were both Radio Amateurs (although I took my ticket mainly
to do Packet Radio) and when she was in the maternity wing (pre mobile
phones) the only way to call home was via the pay phone.
However, she took a 2m hand held in with her and could get into the
local repeater from the hospital and was able to call me to request
different clothes or at one point, a Big Mac. ;-)
The nurses though she was married to a Minicab driver. ;-)
Cheers, T i m
wrote:
<snip>
>Which services are you willing to cut, rather than make patients pay £20
>a day for their meals? If that's too much, they could always send out
>for a pizza. (Don't laugh, it's quite a common thing to happen on
>maternity wards).
Mrs and I were both Radio Amateurs (although I took my ticket mainly
to do Packet Radio) and when she was in the maternity wing (pre mobile
phones) the only way to call home was via the pay phone.
However, she took a 2m hand held in with her and could get into the
local repeater from the hospital and was able to call me to request
different clothes or at one point, a Big Mac. ;-)
The nurses though she was married to a Minicab driver. ;-)
Cheers, T i m
T i m
Dec 17, 2017, 7:28:36 AM12/17/17
to
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 11:22:07 +0000, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
<snip>
>No. Every car park is different. All I can say is that if the signage
>is insufficient to form a contract, it's grounds for rejecting any charges.
As an aside here, the only times I've been caught out so far are when
an *existing system* changes in a less than clear / obvious way.
So, if I am visiting a new car park I have a quick look at any signs
and look around at the cars and see what others are doing and *always*
try to abide by the rules (why wouldn't I)?
If I *re-visit* that car park, I generally *don't* read the signs or
assume anything has changed unless there are obvious reasons to think
it has (like a barrier where there was none before or the absence of
tickets on display on other peoples windscreens).
In the case of my situation, I had previously used the car park when
it was a ticket system, several times with no issues.
When I came across the fact that things had changed it was with
others, in inclement weather and whilst against the clock (and did the
(arbitrarily) correct thing by accident).
Because I then thought the system was now the same as other hospital
car parks I have used regularly, I assumed (to my cost) they were
operating the same system.
However, in two of the three cases I did pay in full and before I
left. On the third, I incorrectly measured the time I was parked and
didn't include the time it took to get from the entrance and park, and
from the parking space and the exit and was 'caught' for a 60 second
overstay).
Was it my intention to deny them full payment in any of the instances?
Do I have a history on non payment?
Was what I did 'reasonable', based on my experiences of other such
facilities?
Was a penalty charge of £180 (3 x 60) appropriate for my 'error(s)'?
(I only got 3 because of the time it took for them to send out the
PCN). If you make the same mistake 3 times within the same time
period, is it one or three incidences?
Cheers, T i m
wrote:
<snip>
>No. Every car park is different. All I can say is that if the signage
>is insufficient to form a contract, it's grounds for rejecting any charges.
an *existing system* changes in a less than clear / obvious way.
So, if I am visiting a new car park I have a quick look at any signs
and look around at the cars and see what others are doing and *always*
try to abide by the rules (why wouldn't I)?
If I *re-visit* that car park, I generally *don't* read the signs or
assume anything has changed unless there are obvious reasons to think
it has (like a barrier where there was none before or the absence of
tickets on display on other peoples windscreens).
In the case of my situation, I had previously used the car park when
it was a ticket system, several times with no issues.
When I came across the fact that things had changed it was with
others, in inclement weather and whilst against the clock (and did the
(arbitrarily) correct thing by accident).
Because I then thought the system was now the same as other hospital
car parks I have used regularly, I assumed (to my cost) they were
operating the same system.
However, in two of the three cases I did pay in full and before I
left. On the third, I incorrectly measured the time I was parked and
didn't include the time it took to get from the entrance and park, and
from the parking space and the exit and was 'caught' for a 60 second
overstay).
Was it my intention to deny them full payment in any of the instances?
Do I have a history on non payment?
Was what I did 'reasonable', based on my experiences of other such
facilities?
Was a penalty charge of £180 (3 x 60) appropriate for my 'error(s)'?
(I only got 3 because of the time it took for them to send out the
PCN). If you make the same mistake 3 times within the same time
period, is it one or three incidences?
Cheers, T i m
Mark Goodge
Dec 17, 2017, 9:12:36 AM12/17/17
to
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 09:20:03 +0000, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
>On 17/12/2017 08:23, Robin wrote:
>> On 17/12/2017 07:40, Chris R wrote:
>>> No, they are not. The charge does not have to be connected in any way
>>> to any provable loss. Please read Robin's posts.
>>
>> Do I have to hammer a stake through someone's heart?
>
>It won't work. There are some who receive a parking ticket who will
>never accept that it's their fault and that they're liable, whatever the
>circumstances. It's always the fault of the car park operator who never
>seems to have put up visible signage, and is always out to fleece anyone
>who uses his park.
>
>That *may* be true of a very small minority, or in other rare cases, but
>the law is against them. The vast majority, as shown by the cases that
>have gone to court, have acted perfectly properly in all respects and
>are fully entitled to recover the charges they have levied.
The success rate for appeals at POPLA is around 40%, so there clearly
is a non-trivial number of people who do have genuine reasons for not
paying. But these are all cases where either there is a clear error -
the ANPR didn't work, the parking attendant misread a number plate,
someone is a victim of plate cloning, etc - or where there are
persuasive grounds for leniency - a purchased ticket was obscured by
snowfall, someone was taken ill and failed to return to their vehicle
in time, etc. In other words, either the rules were not actually
broken (at least, not by the recipient of the PCN), or there were very
good reasons for breaking the rules.
But the cases which tend to make the headlines (and which lead to
interminable threads on ulm) are those where the driver has broken the
rules, and knows full well that they have broken the rules, and has no
excuse for breaking the rules, but is under the mistaken impression
that the rules don't apply to them (or, that the consequences of
breaking the rules are unenforceable). These are the cases where
Beavis applies, in spades, and where the complainant is liable to find
themselves considerably out of pocket if they continue their futile
argument.
Mark
wrote:
>On 17/12/2017 08:23, Robin wrote:
>> On 17/12/2017 07:40, Chris R wrote:
>>> No, they are not. The charge does not have to be connected in any way
>>> to any provable loss. Please read Robin's posts.
>>
>> Do I have to hammer a stake through someone's heart?
>
>It won't work. There are some who receive a parking ticket who will
>never accept that it's their fault and that they're liable, whatever the
>circumstances. It's always the fault of the car park operator who never
>seems to have put up visible signage, and is always out to fleece anyone
>who uses his park.
>
>That *may* be true of a very small minority, or in other rare cases, but
>the law is against them. The vast majority, as shown by the cases that
>have gone to court, have acted perfectly properly in all respects and
>are fully entitled to recover the charges they have levied.
is a non-trivial number of people who do have genuine reasons for not
paying. But these are all cases where either there is a clear error -
the ANPR didn't work, the parking attendant misread a number plate,
someone is a victim of plate cloning, etc - or where there are
persuasive grounds for leniency - a purchased ticket was obscured by
snowfall, someone was taken ill and failed to return to their vehicle
in time, etc. In other words, either the rules were not actually
broken (at least, not by the recipient of the PCN), or there were very
good reasons for breaking the rules.
But the cases which tend to make the headlines (and which lead to
interminable threads on ulm) are those where the driver has broken the
rules, and knows full well that they have broken the rules, and has no
excuse for breaking the rules, but is under the mistaken impression
that the rules don't apply to them (or, that the consequences of
breaking the rules are unenforceable). These are the cases where
Beavis applies, in spades, and where the complainant is liable to find
themselves considerably out of pocket if they continue their futile
argument.
Mark
Mark Goodge
Dec 17, 2017, 9:14:22 AM12/17/17
to
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 10:39:27 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:
>What's not so clear to me is why, if the quantum of penalty doesn't
>reflect any costs incurred (which would also include collection costs),
>there's typically a discount for fast payment.
>
>In the OP's case, why does the parking company want to throw away Ł40
Mark
wrote:
>What's not so clear to me is why, if the quantum of penalty doesn't
>reflect any costs incurred (which would also include collection costs),
>there's typically a discount for fast payment.
>
>just because the penalty was paid a few days sooner?
It encourages payment, and thus reduces collection costs overall.
Mark
Mark Goodge
Dec 17, 2017, 9:21:51 AM12/17/17
to
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 11:22:07 +0000, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
>On 17/12/2017 10:32, Roland Perry wrote:
>> My understanding is that local authority parking enforcement[1] has a
>> ten minute grace period now, thanks to the Deregulation Act.
>>
>> But private parking (which includes parking in public places like
>> hospitals and railway stations)
>
>They are not 'public places' actually. They are owned by the NHS or
>rail companies who operate them as private car parks for their
>customers, setting the conditions as they see fit.
They are public places. A public place, in law, is a place to which
the public normally has access. That includes a lot of private
property, such as many car parks.
The word "public" has different meanings in the phrases "public
place", "public property" and "public right of way". It's important
not to confuse them in circumstances such as this.
>> can still get away with issuing
>> penalties when a person is just one minute late jumping through some
>> quirky, poorly documented local hoop.
>
>Whatever the rules are, if you're one minute late, whether the parking
>is for one hour or one hour and ten minutes (including grace period),
>you're late and in breach of the conditions. There has to be a cut-off
>point somewhere.
>
>And wherever that cut-off point is, you'll always get people who'll try
>to take advantage and push it to extremes.
Well, yes. All that the Deregulation Act has done is to make every
council-run parking period ten minutes longer than it says on the
sign. This is, of course, to the benefit of people who are trying to
go by the signs but are, through no fault of their own, slightly late
returning to their vehicle. But for those who understand the law, they
will simply treat every displayed parking period as being ten minutes
shorter than reality.
You could achieve exactly the same thing by reducing the displayed
period by ten minutes instead, and enforcing it on the same cut-off
point as before.
Mark
wrote:
>On 17/12/2017 10:32, Roland Perry wrote:
>> My understanding is that local authority parking enforcement[1] has a
>> ten minute grace period now, thanks to the Deregulation Act.
>>
>> But private parking (which includes parking in public places like
>> hospitals and railway stations)
>
>They are not 'public places' actually. They are owned by the NHS or
>rail companies who operate them as private car parks for their
>customers, setting the conditions as they see fit.
the public normally has access. That includes a lot of private
property, such as many car parks.
The word "public" has different meanings in the phrases "public
place", "public property" and "public right of way". It's important
not to confuse them in circumstances such as this.
>> can still get away with issuing
>> penalties when a person is just one minute late jumping through some
>> quirky, poorly documented local hoop.
>
>Whatever the rules are, if you're one minute late, whether the parking
>is for one hour or one hour and ten minutes (including grace period),
>you're late and in breach of the conditions. There has to be a cut-off
>point somewhere.
>
>And wherever that cut-off point is, you'll always get people who'll try
>to take advantage and push it to extremes.
council-run parking period ten minutes longer than it says on the
sign. This is, of course, to the benefit of people who are trying to
go by the signs but are, through no fault of their own, slightly late
returning to their vehicle. But for those who understand the law, they
will simply treat every displayed parking period as being ten minutes
shorter than reality.
You could achieve exactly the same thing by reducing the displayed
period by ten minutes instead, and enforcing it on the same cut-off
point as before.
Mark
Mark Goodge
Dec 17, 2017, 9:30:57 AM12/17/17
to
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 07:40:27 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:
The council doesn't. Rateable values are set by the Valuation Office
Agency. The guidance for how market values are to be assessed runs to
very many pages. If you want to read it, it's available online:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/valuation-office-agency-rating-manual
If, having read it, you still have unanswered questions, then you
would probably need to either contact the VOA directly or talk to
someone with proffessional experience of the field. It isn't really a
legal question.
Mark
wrote:
Agency. The guidance for how market values are to be assessed runs to
very many pages. If you want to read it, it's available online:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/valuation-office-agency-rating-manual
If, having read it, you still have unanswered questions, then you
would probably need to either contact the VOA directly or talk to
someone with proffessional experience of the field. It isn't really a
legal question.
Mark
Mark Goodge
Dec 17, 2017, 9:45:03 AM12/17/17
to
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 08:21:27 +0000, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 17/12/2017 07:49, Chris R wrote:
>>
>> Surely the rateable value is of the whole site, not just of the car
>> park; so the rates are affected by the difference in overall value the
>> site would have if it did not have the car park. That could be even more.
>
>That is true if the car park is part of a single hereditament - eg an
>office block with car park for occupiers. But a car park open to the
>public would usually be a separate hereditament and valued as such.
That's what I was going to say :-)
>On 17/12/2017 07:49, Chris R wrote:
>>
>> Surely the rateable value is of the whole site, not just of the car
>> park; so the rates are affected by the difference in overall value the
>> site would have if it did not have the car park. That could be even more.
>
>That is true if the car park is part of a single hereditament - eg an
>office block with car park for occupiers. But a car park open to the
>public would usually be a separate hereditament and valued as such.
But, also, it's worth noting that the "rateable value" of a premises
can comprise multiple subdivisions. For example, commercial premises
are assessed separately on office space and warehouse and/or retail
space, and the total rateable value is the sum of all the parts.
Mark
Mark Goodge
Dec 17, 2017, 10:06:35 AM12/17/17
to
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 08:40:34 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:
>In message <p157i3$ive$3...@dont-email.me>, at 07:49:04 on Sun, 17 Dec
>2017, Chris R <invalid...@invalid.invalid.com> remarked:
>
>>> I can't tell you the actual figures used for the hospital car park,
>>>as the calulations used to determine hospital rateable values are,
>>>for some reason, not made public. But you can look up the rateable
>>>value of council car parks in the area, using the online tool:
>>>https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/business-rates-find/search According
>>>to that, Angel Drove car park is assessed as being worth £215 per
>>>space, and Broad Street (Forehill) car park is worth £245 per space.
>>>And that's despite the fact that the latter is free, while the former
>>>has parking fees. The difference is purely the location.
>>
>>Surely the rateable value is of the whole site, not just of the car
>>park; so the rates are affected by the difference in overall value the
>>site would have if it did not have the car park. That could be even more.
>
>I'm struggling with the idea that a crumbling ex-WW2 military hospital,
>now transferred to the NHS, has an easily determined "value", because
>that's what someone would pay for it, and it's not a very liquid market.
Who said it was easy? It's actually quite difficult to determine a
putative rental value of some more esoteric properties. That's
precisely why there are a very large number of guidance notes to be
applied, and why working for the VOA in a role which involves valuing
the awkward cases can be quite lucrative (and why it can also be quite
lucrative to be a legal professional involved in challenging VOA
decisions)[1].
>Obviously, if you demolished it and built houses (which is what
>eventually happens to most of them), the *land* would be worth a
>fortune, but I don't think business rates are set on that basis.
No, they're not. Rateable values are based on what would be a
reasonable market rent for the premises as it is now. That's partly
because rental values are, generally, easier to determine (for most
commercial properties, you can simply look at what rents are actually
being charged), and partly because sale values, particularly for
commercial property, are often more a reflection of long-term
investment value than current revenue-generating value.
[1] See http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/LC/2015/1.html for one
such legal case which both illustrates the complexities of valuing
healthcare premises and the ramifications of challenging such a
valuation.
Mark
wrote:
>In message <p157i3$ive$3...@dont-email.me>, at 07:49:04 on Sun, 17 Dec
>2017, Chris R <invalid...@invalid.invalid.com> remarked:
>
>>> I can't tell you the actual figures used for the hospital car park,
>>>as the calulations used to determine hospital rateable values are,
>>>for some reason, not made public. But you can look up the rateable
>>>value of council car parks in the area, using the online tool:
>>>https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/business-rates-find/search According
>>>to that, Angel Drove car park is assessed as being worth £215 per
>>>space, and Broad Street (Forehill) car park is worth £245 per space.
>>>And that's despite the fact that the latter is free, while the former
>>>has parking fees. The difference is purely the location.
>>
>>Surely the rateable value is of the whole site, not just of the car
>>park; so the rates are affected by the difference in overall value the
>>site would have if it did not have the car park. That could be even more.
>
>I'm struggling with the idea that a crumbling ex-WW2 military hospital,
>now transferred to the NHS, has an easily determined "value", because
>that's what someone would pay for it, and it's not a very liquid market.
putative rental value of some more esoteric properties. That's
precisely why there are a very large number of guidance notes to be
applied, and why working for the VOA in a role which involves valuing
the awkward cases can be quite lucrative (and why it can also be quite
lucrative to be a legal professional involved in challenging VOA
decisions)[1].
>Obviously, if you demolished it and built houses (which is what
>eventually happens to most of them), the *land* would be worth a
>fortune, but I don't think business rates are set on that basis.
reasonable market rent for the premises as it is now. That's partly
because rental values are, generally, easier to determine (for most
commercial properties, you can simply look at what rents are actually
being charged), and partly because sale values, particularly for
commercial property, are often more a reflection of long-term
investment value than current revenue-generating value.
[1] See http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/LC/2015/1.html for one
such legal case which both illustrates the complexities of valuing
healthcare premises and the ramifications of challenging such a
valuation.
Mark
Norman Wells
Dec 17, 2017, 10:43:40 AM12/17/17
to
James Wilkinson Sword
Dec 17, 2017, 10:47:34 AM12/17/17
to
Brian Reay
Dec 17, 2017, 10:48:18 AM12/17/17
to
On 17/12/2017 10:39, Roland Perry wrote:
it what you like, admin to 'chase up' etc), margin (they are a business,
VAT, overheads (again they are a business), and, it seems, some element
they can 'discount' for 'early settlement.
We could debate until the cows come home what each should be etc. but it
will vary depending on their costing structure (companies cost work
differently, even if the end price comes out much the same.
'Throwing away' £40, about half if your £85 number is the going rate,
for prompt payment, would suggest to me that they cover their costs and
make a return on £45 - ie the real cost is under £45 and they probably
don't expect many to delay.
The next question may well be, £45 (including profit) to cover the work
involved in sending a letter from a tin pot parking company, plus the
prework (getting details from machine etc), reasonable?
Paul Cummins
Dec 17, 2017, 10:48:50 AM12/17/17
to
In article <f9n2b0...@mid.individual.net>, h...@unseen.ac.am (Norman
> or rail companies who operate them
in accordance wth the relevant byelaws, which say nothing about Parking
Charges?
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
====
Visit North Kent's 2nd biggest supplier of Sour Grapes
http://www.grapesdirect.co.uk
Wells) wrote:
> They are owned by the NHS
Remind me, who owns the NHS?
> They are owned by the NHS
> or rail companies who operate them
Charges?
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
====
Visit North Kent's 2nd biggest supplier of Sour Grapes
http://www.grapesdirect.co.uk
Roland Perry
Dec 17, 2017, 10:56:18 AM12/17/17
to
In message <f9mstb...@mid.individual.net>, at 09:49:31 on Sun, 17
Dec 2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>>>> The expenses are not hypothecated to each individual infringement,
>>>>but are supposed to reflect the entire annual cost of running the
>>>>enforcement scheme, divided by the number of tickets they issue.
>>>
>>> No, they are not. The charge does not have to be connected in any
>>>way to any provable loss. Please read Robin's posts.
>> Robin's posting cited a charge associated with ensuring compliance
>>to "a scheme serving legitimate interests", and thus I'm not going
>>anywhere near the word "loss". But I am looking at the ~£85 being a
>>way to recover the *cost* of the compliance scheme.
>> Or is the charge a genuine "penalty" plucked from thin air to make
>>people sufficiently afraid of trying to evade payment? If so, the
>>difficulty is that they catch too many people who for whatever reason
>>think they've paid, but have tripped over some unexpected small print.
>
>All the principles were fully discussed in Parking Eye v Beavis:
>
>http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/402.html
>
>and
>
>https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0280-judgment.pdf
As you obviously know where to look, can you summarise the salient
points?
--
Roland Perry
Dec 2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>>>> The expenses are not hypothecated to each individual infringement,
>>>>but are supposed to reflect the entire annual cost of running the
>>>>enforcement scheme, divided by the number of tickets they issue.
>>>
>>> No, they are not. The charge does not have to be connected in any
>>>way to any provable loss. Please read Robin's posts.
>> Robin's posting cited a charge associated with ensuring compliance
>>to "a scheme serving legitimate interests", and thus I'm not going
>>anywhere near the word "loss". But I am looking at the ~£85 being a
>>way to recover the *cost* of the compliance scheme.
>> Or is the charge a genuine "penalty" plucked from thin air to make
>>people sufficiently afraid of trying to evade payment? If so, the
>>difficulty is that they catch too many people who for whatever reason
>>think they've paid, but have tripped over some unexpected small print.
>
>All the principles were fully discussed in Parking Eye v Beavis:
>
>http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/402.html
>
>and
>
>https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0280-judgment.pdf
points?
--
Roland Perry
T i m
Dec 17, 2017, 11:00:43 AM12/17/17
to
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 14:12:31 +0000, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>The success rate for appeals at POPLA is around 40%, so there clearly
>is a non-trivial number of people who do have genuine reasons for not
>paying. But these are all cases where either there is a clear error -
>the ANPR didn't work, the parking attendant misread a number plate,
>someone is a victim of plate cloning, etc - or where there are
>persuasive grounds for leniency - a purchased ticket was obscured by
>snowfall, someone was taken ill and failed to return to their vehicle
>in time, etc. In other words, either the rules were not actually
>broken (at least, not by the recipient of the PCN), or there were very
>good reasons for breaking the rules.
>
JOOI, where do you think my question stands ...
>But the cases which tend to make the headlines (and which lead to
>interminable threads on ulm) are those where the driver has broken the
>rules,
Fact. In so far as it appears I *didn't* comply with the T&C's but
*did* pay in full, before leaving.
>and knows full well that they have broken the rules,
Only after receiving 2 PCN's (on the same day for two different stays
3 days apart), and whilst I'm now aware / sure the PCN's were issued
for me failing to pay for the duration of my day *within 15 mins*, I
don't know if they do actually acknowledge my payments.
>and has no
>excuse for breaking the rules,
Is 'an excuse' the same as the consequences of chaos theory? When a
combination of events line up to make an outcome become what it does?
Like, if I just got the one PCN for the one visit where I
inadvertently failed to pay within 15 minutes (but paid for a one hour
stay in ~30 and then left) I may not be asking the questions here and
simply paid up. But because they took 12 days to get the first PCN to
me, by then got two more (and so a Ł180 penalty) because repeated the
same mistake / assumption.
> but is under the mistaken impression
>that the rules don't apply to them (or, that the consequences of
>breaking the rules are unenforceable).
Certainly not the case here.
>These are the cases where
>Beavis applies, in spades, and where the complainant is liable to find
>themselves considerably out of pocket if they continue their futile
>argument.
And that was the crux of the question, would the panel consider any
appeals 'futile'? I don't suppose 'the machine' cares that we are
talking about human beings just attending hospital appointments here
and that 'to err is human'?.
As it happens, we can afford to pay the PCNs, but others might not
.... and they issued over 550 in the two days between our first two.
Cheers, T i m
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>The success rate for appeals at POPLA is around 40%, so there clearly
>is a non-trivial number of people who do have genuine reasons for not
>paying. But these are all cases where either there is a clear error -
>the ANPR didn't work, the parking attendant misread a number plate,
>someone is a victim of plate cloning, etc - or where there are
>persuasive grounds for leniency - a purchased ticket was obscured by
>snowfall, someone was taken ill and failed to return to their vehicle
>in time, etc. In other words, either the rules were not actually
>broken (at least, not by the recipient of the PCN), or there were very
>good reasons for breaking the rules.
>
>But the cases which tend to make the headlines (and which lead to
>interminable threads on ulm) are those where the driver has broken the
>rules,
*did* pay in full, before leaving.
>and knows full well that they have broken the rules,
3 days apart), and whilst I'm now aware / sure the PCN's were issued
for me failing to pay for the duration of my day *within 15 mins*, I
don't know if they do actually acknowledge my payments.
>and has no
>excuse for breaking the rules,
combination of events line up to make an outcome become what it does?
Like, if I just got the one PCN for the one visit where I
inadvertently failed to pay within 15 minutes (but paid for a one hour
stay in ~30 and then left) I may not be asking the questions here and
simply paid up. But because they took 12 days to get the first PCN to
me, by then got two more (and so a Ł180 penalty) because repeated the
same mistake / assumption.
> but is under the mistaken impression
>that the rules don't apply to them (or, that the consequences of
>breaking the rules are unenforceable).
>These are the cases where
>Beavis applies, in spades, and where the complainant is liable to find
>themselves considerably out of pocket if they continue their futile
>argument.
appeals 'futile'? I don't suppose 'the machine' cares that we are
talking about human beings just attending hospital appointments here
and that 'to err is human'?.
As it happens, we can afford to pay the PCNs, but others might not
.... and they issued over 550 in the two days between our first two.
Cheers, T i m
Roland Perry
Dec 17, 2017, 11:20:44 AM12/17/17
to
In message <a22fb0d0-7631-1f70...@hotmail.com>, at
10:58:45 on Sun, 17 Dec 2017, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
I'm not relying on the name itself (where typos are permitted in polite
conversation) but the *concept* of a PCN, or whatever, being a penalty
charge [no capital letters] applied non-judicially. Simply for someone
not following some obscure and poorly drafted rules to the letter.
--
Roland Perry
10:58:45 on Sun, 17 Dec 2017, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
conversation) but the *concept* of a PCN, or whatever, being a penalty
charge [no capital letters] applied non-judicially. Simply for someone
not following some obscure and poorly drafted rules to the letter.
--
Roland Perry
Mark Goodge
Dec 17, 2017, 11:21:39 AM12/17/17
to
entirely irrelevent to the validity of the charge. That is precisely
the outcome of Beavis. The charge does not have to be based in any way
on the amount expended by the parking operator in enforcing the
parking fee.
The whole concept that the charge has to be a "genuine pre-estimate of
loss", or based on some such formulation, has ceased to be. It has
kicked the bucket, shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain
and joined the choir invisible. It is an ex-principle. It lives on
only in the befuddled minds of assorted keyboard warriors,
self-entitled petrolheads and disreputable false friends of
unfortunate parking miscreants.
The current state of the law, post-Beavis, is that a reasonable charge
is one which is effective as a deterrent without being unduly
punitive. The Supreme Court agreed that £85 (with a discount for early
setttlement) falls within the limits of what is reasonable.
There has, to date, been no subsequent test of a higher amount that
might give us any indication of where the courts would place the upper
boundary of reasonableness. So someone might, possibly, succeed in
challenging a charge of, say, £150 on the grounds that that is
significantly more than necessary for the purpose of deterrence and
hence becomes a punitive charge - which would be unlawful. But until
someone does try to challenge a higher value, we won't know.
Mark
T i m
Dec 17, 2017, 11:25:09 AM12/17/17
to
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 12:36:47 +0000, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
<snip>
>> Was it my intention to deny them full payment in any of the instances?
>>
>> Do I have a history on non payment?
>>
>> Was what I did 'reasonable', based on my experiences of other such
>> facilities?
>
>Did you appeal?
>
No, I haven't as yet Norman because I didn't want to show my hand
until I had exhausted all other avenues. I have spoken to both PALS
and Estates and am awaiting their replies and suggestions. BTW, I'm
not looking for any special favours, 'We'll deal with it just this
time' type solutions, I would like them (the hospital) to closely
consider if the actions of those sanctioned with the responsibility of
managing their car parks for them to be doing so fairly and
reasonably.
On that .... one of the PALS replies suggested they had recently
introduced "car parking representative in the main entrance",
suggesting I may be far from alone having issues her ... and over 550
PCNs issued over a 48 hour period (and over a weekend at that) would
suggest to me that something wasn't quite right?
Looking at the bigger picture and assuming the hospital is keen to
know that it's patients are being treated reasonably whist partaking
of *all* matters whist on their site (and under their care), I see no
reason why they wouldn't be interested to investigate any facet that
may be dragging down the overall experience for many of it's
'customers', be it the on-site retail, restaurant or car park.
I don't consider myself anything other than 'typical' of most people
attending that hospital and have never had any other issues with
parking at any other hospital ever (and at 61 years old I've been to
my fair share over the years, luckily so far, mostly as the free
transport service). ;-)
But then this is probably OT here, it being more about what might be
considered 'right' than what is considered 'legal'.
Cheers, T i m
wrote:
<snip>
>> Was it my intention to deny them full payment in any of the instances?
>>
>> Do I have a history on non payment?
>>
>> Was what I did 'reasonable', based on my experiences of other such
>> facilities?
>
>Did you appeal?
>
until I had exhausted all other avenues. I have spoken to both PALS
and Estates and am awaiting their replies and suggestions. BTW, I'm
not looking for any special favours, 'We'll deal with it just this
time' type solutions, I would like them (the hospital) to closely
consider if the actions of those sanctioned with the responsibility of
managing their car parks for them to be doing so fairly and
reasonably.
On that .... one of the PALS replies suggested they had recently
introduced "car parking representative in the main entrance",
suggesting I may be far from alone having issues her ... and over 550
PCNs issued over a 48 hour period (and over a weekend at that) would
suggest to me that something wasn't quite right?
Looking at the bigger picture and assuming the hospital is keen to
know that it's patients are being treated reasonably whist partaking
of *all* matters whist on their site (and under their care), I see no
reason why they wouldn't be interested to investigate any facet that
may be dragging down the overall experience for many of it's
'customers', be it the on-site retail, restaurant or car park.
I don't consider myself anything other than 'typical' of most people
attending that hospital and have never had any other issues with
parking at any other hospital ever (and at 61 years old I've been to
my fair share over the years, luckily so far, mostly as the free
transport service). ;-)
But then this is probably OT here, it being more about what might be
considered 'right' than what is considered 'legal'.
Cheers, T i m
Roland Perry
Dec 17, 2017, 11:31:26 AM12/17/17
to
In message <msuc3d505kofgmo4b...@4ax.com>, at 14:14:19 on
Sun, 17 Dec 2017, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
fiercely denies is the situation.
Especially, perhaps, when the individual costs of enforcement from one
individual notice to another, vary in this way.
--
Roland Perry
Sun, 17 Dec 2017, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
>>What's not so clear to me is why, if the quantum of penalty doesn't
>>reflect any costs incurred (which would also include collection costs),
>>there's typically a discount for fast payment.
>>
>>In the OP's case, why does the parking company want to throw away £40
>>reflect any costs incurred (which would also include collection costs),
>>there's typically a discount for fast payment.
>>
>>just because the penalty was paid a few days sooner?
>
>It encourages payment, and thus reduces collection costs overall.
But that's categorising it as a cost-of-enforcement, which Robin
>
>It encourages payment, and thus reduces collection costs overall.
fiercely denies is the situation.
Especially, perhaps, when the individual costs of enforcement from one
individual notice to another, vary in this way.
--
Roland Perry
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages