The University Hospital of Wales has around 1,000 parking spaces for staff. In order to park there, staff must enter a contract with the hospital. They apply and if succesfull are given a permit to park. Around 10,000 permits are in current force.
Although issuing 10,000 permits for 1,000 spaces seems on the face of it a perfectly reasonable strategy, in practice it has not worked well. For some reason far more staff attempt to park than there are spaces for, leading to chaos and a bumper payday for parking contractor Indigo. Offsite parking can be up to a 45 minute walk away.
Tickets start at £20 and are then increased to £120 by artificially bumping them between debt collectors ZZPS and Wright Hassall.
There are currently 100,000 unpaid tickets from hospital staff worth £12,000,000 and a hearing to consider these was held on 12/13/14 July.
There were 7 points of defence.
(i) The validity and enforceability of Notice to Driver (NtD)
(ii) The validity and enforceability of Notice to Keeper (NtK)
(iii) The enforceability of the right to recover parking charges under an agreement between Cardiff and Vale Local University Health Board and Indigo Park Services UK Ltd
(iv) Signage
(v) The source and Provenance of Parking Permits
(vi) Whether a contractual offer was made
(vii) Applicability of, and compliance with, the code of practice
The judgment
DJ Coates controversially found for the claimant on all 7 points. The Prankster was not in court and so is relying on others for an accurate report of her judgment. Full analysis is therefore reserved for the time when the transcript is available.
(i) The validity and enforceability of Notice to Driver (NtD)
Apparently no actual NtDs for the 3 defendants were submitted as evidence; only a pro-forma template circa 2017. Nevertheless, Judge Coates found this complied with POFA.
The Prankster therefore considers this controversial because
a) This NTD was not in force at the time of many of the parking events
b) POFA requires that the NtD contains specific information relating to the actual event. As only a template was provided there is no proof the actual NtDs continued this information and were compliant
c) It is up to the claimant to prove their case, which they clearly have not done
No actual copies of any letter of authority were supplied for the time of all parking events. The Health Board state they destroy the previous letter of authority each year when sending out a new one.
The Prankster therefore considers this controversial because
a) It is a BPA requirement that written authority is kept
b) In ParkingEye v Beavis it was stated that parking companies need to obey the BPA code of practice
c) POPLA regularly uphold appeals if the operator does not produce written authority
d) It is not believable that the board destroys old letters of authority, as they need to keep these in case of legal challenges
(iv) Signage
Judge Coates ruled that it was sufficient that there were numerous signs. It did not matter that the actual costs were hidden in the small print and not detailed.
The Prankster therefore considers this controversial because:
a) ParkingEye v Beavis sets out clear guidelines for signage. In that case, the parking charge was clearly displayed in the largest font. There were no unspecific charges added later
b) ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores clearly sets out that unspecified debt collection charges above the parking charge are not likely to be enforceable
(v) The source and Provenance of Parking Permits
Judge Coates ruled the parking contract was made at the time of parking, and not when the permits was issued.
The Prankster therefore considers this controversial because:
(vi) Whether a contractual offer was made
Judge Coates ruled the signage did make a contractual offer.
Rather like the 'hawkeye' system, The Prankster considers this 'umpire's call'. In The Prankster's opinion the signage is confusing, and makes no contractual offer, and therefore is either void for uncertainty or creates a trespass, not a contractual breach. However, The Prankster accepts some judges will call it one way, and other judges another.
was not
(vii) Applicability of, and compliance with, the code of practice
Judge Coates ruled that compliance did not matter
The Prankster therefore considers this controversial because
a) In ParkingEye v Beavis it was stated that parking companies need to obey the BPA code of practice
Costs
Wright Hassall asked for £47k in costs. The judge ruled that it was unreasonable for the defence to bring up 2 of the points (Authority (iii) and Permits (v)) as she considered these as unwinnable. She therefore awarded 2/7th of £47k under the unreasonableness rule (27.14(2)g, or nominally £28,000.
She ruled that it be split between the 3 defendants. She further ruled it be split between the 90+ other cases waiting on the result of this won, as they had benefitted from not having to go to a hearing.
The actual cost will be determined in a costs hearing on 1st September.
The Future
This now leaves some hospital staff facing life-changing amounts of money for those on hospital pay. Not just the 3 in the hearing, but many of the outstanding 100,000 tickets.
For the reasons above The Prankster considers the judgment to be incorrect.
But what does he know?
The Prankster therefore calls on the legal brains of Wales to offer themselves pro-bono or at an affordable rate to help with an appeal and resolve the plight of these unfortunate hospital staff.
Please get in touch with The Prankster at prankster@parking-prankster.com if you are willing to help. The Prankster will then out you in touch with the people co-ordinating any appeal.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Although issuing 10,000 permits for 1,000 spaces seems on the face of it a perfectly reasonable strategy, in practice it has not worked well. For some reason far more staff attempt to park than there are spaces for, leading to chaos and a bumper payday for parking contractor Indigo. Offsite parking can be up to a 45 minute walk away.
Tickets start at £20 and are then increased to £120 by artificially bumping them between debt collectors ZZPS and Wright Hassall.
There are currently 100,000 unpaid tickets from hospital staff worth £12,000,000 and a hearing to consider these was held on 12/13/14 July.
There were 7 points of defence.
(i) The validity and enforceability of Notice to Driver (NtD)
(ii) The validity and enforceability of Notice to Keeper (NtK)
(iii) The enforceability of the right to recover parking charges under an agreement between Cardiff and Vale Local University Health Board and Indigo Park Services UK Ltd
(iv) Signage
(v) The source and Provenance of Parking Permits
(vi) Whether a contractual offer was made
(vii) Applicability of, and compliance with, the code of practice
The judgment
DJ Coates controversially found for the claimant on all 7 points. The Prankster was not in court and so is relying on others for an accurate report of her judgment. Full analysis is therefore reserved for the time when the transcript is available.
(i) The validity and enforceability of Notice to Driver (NtD)
Apparently no actual NtDs for the 3 defendants were submitted as evidence; only a pro-forma template circa 2017. Nevertheless, Judge Coates found this complied with POFA.
The Prankster therefore considers this controversial because
a) This NTD was not in force at the time of many of the parking events
b) POFA requires that the NtD contains specific information relating to the actual event. As only a template was provided there is no proof the actual NtDs continued this information and were compliant
c) It is up to the claimant to prove their case, which they clearly have not done
(ii) The validity and enforceability of Notice to Keeper (NtK)
Judge Coates ruled that the NtK could contain a charge different from that on the signage and the notice to driver. She ruled that because David Metcalf of the BPA had held out the NtDs issued by ZZPS to be a 'best practice' example, then they must be correct and she did not need to consider the matter further. She further ruled that in any case a keeper could be held to have agreed to a parking contract without visiting the site, if their partner had visited the site many times and could reasonably have expected to inform them of the contract in casual conversation.
The Prankster therefore considers this controversial because
a) POFA 2012 rules that the parking charge must be the on the signage [2, 3(b)(i)]
b) POFA 2012 rules that the parking charge on the NtD must be on the signage [7(2)(c). 2, 3(b)(i)]
c) POFA 2012 rules that the charge on the NTK must be the same as that on the NTD [8(2)(c), (2)(c). 2, 3(b)(i)]
d) POFA rules that the keeper is only liable for the charges set out on the signage and NtD [4(5), 8(2)c,2)(c). 2, 3(b)(i)]
e) POFA requires that the NtK contains specific information relating to the actual event and repeated from the NtD. As only a template NtD was provided there is no proof the actual NtDs continued this information and were compliant
h) The BPA is not a competent body to authorise NtKs. It is a members club for the parking industry. Additionally, no evidence as to David Metcalf's competence in this matter was served, and he was not billed as an expert witness. It was therefore not appropriate to take his unsubstantiated report as proof the NtK template was valid
a) POFA 2012 rules that the parking charge must be the on the signage [2, 3(b)(i)]
b) POFA 2012 rules that the parking charge on the NtD must be on the signage [7(2)(c). 2, 3(b)(i)]
c) POFA 2012 rules that the charge on the NTK must be the same as that on the NTD [8(2)(c), (2)(c). 2, 3(b)(i)]
d) POFA rules that the keeper is only liable for the charges set out on the signage and NtD [4(5), 8(2)c,2)(c). 2, 3(b)(i)]
e) POFA requires that the NtK contains specific information relating to the actual event and repeated from the NtD. As only a template NtD was provided there is no proof the actual NtDs continued this information and were compliant
f) It is up to the claimant to prove their case, which they clearly have not done
g) The Prankster has heard of accepting a contract by performance. he has never heard of accepting a contract by means of casual conversationh) The BPA is not a competent body to authorise NtKs. It is a members club for the parking industry. Additionally, no evidence as to David Metcalf's competence in this matter was served, and he was not billed as an expert witness. It was therefore not appropriate to take his unsubstantiated report as proof the NtK template was valid
(iii) The enforceability of the right to recover parking charges under an agreement between Cardiff and Vale Local University Health Board and Indigo Park Services UK Ltd
No actual copies of any letter of authority were supplied for the time of all parking events. The Health Board state they destroy the previous letter of authority each year when sending out a new one.
The Prankster therefore considers this controversial because
a) It is a BPA requirement that written authority is kept
b) In ParkingEye v Beavis it was stated that parking companies need to obey the BPA code of practice
c) POPLA regularly uphold appeals if the operator does not produce written authority
d) It is not believable that the board destroys old letters of authority, as they need to keep these in case of legal challenges
(iv) Signage
Judge Coates ruled that it was sufficient that there were numerous signs. It did not matter that the actual costs were hidden in the small print and not detailed.
The Prankster therefore considers this controversial because:
a) ParkingEye v Beavis sets out clear guidelines for signage. In that case, the parking charge was clearly displayed in the largest font. There were no unspecific charges added later
b) ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores clearly sets out that unspecified debt collection charges above the parking charge are not likely to be enforceable
(v) The source and Provenance of Parking Permits
Judge Coates ruled the parking contract was made at the time of parking, and not when the permits was issued.
The Prankster therefore considers this controversial because:
a) This is directly analogous to residential parking. Primacy of contract therefore applies and a third party cannot unilaterally change the terms of the contract
b) As the staff pay the health board for permits and they are issued by the health board, this contract should be the one in force
(vi) Whether a contractual offer was made
Judge Coates ruled the signage did make a contractual offer.
Rather like the 'hawkeye' system, The Prankster considers this 'umpire's call'. In The Prankster's opinion the signage is confusing, and makes no contractual offer, and therefore is either void for uncertainty or creates a trespass, not a contractual breach. However, The Prankster accepts some judges will call it one way, and other judges another.
was not
(vii) Applicability of, and compliance with, the code of practice
Judge Coates ruled that compliance did not matter
The Prankster therefore considers this controversial because
a) In ParkingEye v Beavis it was stated that parking companies need to obey the BPA code of practice
Costs
Wright Hassall asked for £47k in costs. The judge ruled that it was unreasonable for the defence to bring up 2 of the points (Authority (iii) and Permits (v)) as she considered these as unwinnable. She therefore awarded 2/7th of £47k under the unreasonableness rule (27.14(2)g, or nominally £28,000.
She ruled that it be split between the 3 defendants. She further ruled it be split between the 90+ other cases waiting on the result of this won, as they had benefitted from not having to go to a hearing.
The actual cost will be determined in a costs hearing on 1st September.
The Future
This now leaves some hospital staff facing life-changing amounts of money for those on hospital pay. Not just the 3 in the hearing, but many of the outstanding 100,000 tickets.
For the reasons above The Prankster considers the judgment to be incorrect.
But what does he know?
The Prankster therefore calls on the legal brains of Wales to offer themselves pro-bono or at an affordable rate to help with an appeal and resolve the plight of these unfortunate hospital staff.
Please get in touch with The Prankster at prankster@parking-prankster.com if you are willing to help. The Prankster will then out you in touch with the people co-ordinating any appeal.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster