Putting the fun back into parking
Click for guide to fighting ParkingEye court claims
Click for help with low-cost appeals and court defences
Sunday, 16 July 2017
Fighting fund set up for UHW staff in parking dispute
A fighting fund has been set up to raise money to appeal the lead case verdict for the University Hospital of Wales parking dispute.
https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/nhsvindigo
I am Sue Prior - i am Taff Ely Parking Action group assistant - we help people with unfair private parking charges.
We need to investigate the plausibility of an appeal against Judgement made on the 14th July 2017
Judgement means that £12.8m (as stated by Wright Hassall instructing solicitor) can and will be enforced.
The full transcript of the 3 day trial is required - approx £3k
We then need to get legal assistance to assess the information and see if there are grounds for appeal
Cardiff and Vale UHB's "Values into Action’ is about translating our values into the tangible behaviours we want to see from each other, and to inspire us to keep improving our patient and staff experience. http://www.cardiffandvaleuhb.wales.nhs.uk/v2a
And yet, as I sit here, pondering over the last 15 months, I find myself questioning how to make sense of the UHB's behaviour and their implicit message to staff over that time. One thing is certain, as healthcare professionals we will not be translating this hypocrisy and turning our back on our patients. But sadly the likelihood is, that as time goes on and the Parking Company vultures circle over their next victims, individuals beaten down and betrayed by their employer will leave their jobs at UHW. Unsuspecting individuals who are tempted into posts in the UHW won't be advised on the nightmare that is parking at UHW nor that a permit does not guarantee a parking space.
You see this isn't about all staff not paying for a parking ticket, it is about being unable to park. Following a long and very stressful 9 months, colleagues at UHW, Cardiff, find themselves at the receiving end of an aggressive battle where private parking company Indigo Park and their solicitors, engineered substantial and costly penalties to staff whose only crime was to park at their place of work. Some colleagues already financially over stretched as a consequence of years of forced austerity are now having to contemplate debt management programmes,
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
There are 1.2 million staff in England
ReplyDelete162,000 staff in Scotland
89,000 staff in Wales
64,000 staff in Northern Ireland. if they all got together they could fund a team of best defence lawyers in the UK...
If they get leave to appeal at next hearing then they dont need any money.
ReplyDeleteThey still need to get expert help, and a full transcript of the three day hearing.
ReplyDeleteThey dont need a transcript, they need the transcript of the judgement which will cost about £100 at most.
DeleteAre most of the staff involved in the parking dispute part of a union - Unison appears to be active at UHW. Would this be an appropriate issue for the union to take on?
ReplyDeleteI see no reason why they can't enlist the help of Unison.
ReplyDeleteHas anyone even discussed this with them at regional level?
Unison were approached right at the start of all this.
DeleteThey were as much use as a fart in a trance.
That would be all 16 unions who were involved in the deal pre april the 1st 2016 refusing to assist any staff as it was classed as a non work related problem
DeleteNon-work related. My mind boggles. I guess all the tickets were connected to going to the pub after the shift ended....
DeletePrankster has properly identified four clear grounds of appeal.
ReplyDeleteInsofar as I am able to, I will assist TEPAG with my own witness statements as to the conduct of witnesses, Indigo, Wright Hasall and Counsel.
I hope that Pranky will be able to blog about one of the witnesses, and how they lied, real soon now.
What is going to happen on 1 Sept?
DeleteHas the judgement been handed down?
Has a non-party costs order been served?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAnd indeed, he now has: http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/the-indigo-matters-continue-who-is.html
DeleteThe judgment was handed down. It was clear that despite the Judge protesting the previous day that she had made no decisions, the judgment was written before the first word was said on day one. Indeed, it didn't deal with at least one point the Defence put forward.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the Judge accepted the PE v Beavis case in one point, then refused to accept it in a further point. She also stated that it can be normal practice for a company, when issuing a new contract, to DESTROY the old one!
As of today, no Non-Party costs order has been served on me, and I have not been found as having behaved unreasonably - I was not before the court on the Friday afternoon, so no order could have been made against me in any case.
As I don't officially know about the hearing on 1 September, having not yet received any court documents or the evidence the Claimant intends to rely upon, I can't answer what will happen.
Edited due to spilling errers.
The Unions are stating that this is not a work related matter. In the terms and conditions of the defendants, are there any references to parking? This was the case at another Trust. A city solicitor, who is very well versed in Private Parking, was asked for advise on the matter. He spoke to one of the medics who was in fact searching for a solicitor to take up their cases.After being given all the primary facts and information he concluded that the PPC involved were operating at the behest of the Trust and following their instructions. However, because the parking did form part of their terms and conditions of their contract of employment, it was an employment issue. The consideration in this was that unlike going shopping and being issued with a ticket for overstaying. it had more far reaching implications in that it could potentially affect their career? This was a major factor for every Medic. The group were made aware of the solicitors assessment and recommendation. It also got back to the trust concerned. This had a considerable effect on the situation. Indeed, staff were then offered individual consultation appointments and a good number of these tickets were cancelled as a result. My point is, most solicitors will look at a case/s to assess if there is a potential case to either defend or action in some other capacity. This solicitor gave his service on this free of charge. As a senior partner in a large city centre practise he obviously could not have considered taking the case without being informed fully of the facts? Was a competent ,experienced solicitor ever consulted in these 3 cases? Was the possibility of it coming under employment legislation also not considered? Knowing what was at stake, just the financial costs of the accumulation of tickets, would indicate that Indigo would not be sending an inexperienced representative? Regardless of any good intent, of John Wilkie's previous results, saying it was David and Goliath is somewhat of an understatement. The conduct of the PPC surely comes as no surprise to anyone? A simple reason this woman is untraceable? She uses this name as her name of choice for work? Most likely for her personal safety considering the line of work she is in?
ReplyDeleteIt's now 30 October. There has reportedly been an unsuccessful appeal, and this matter is apparently to come to court again to determine costs liabilities.
ReplyDeleteWhy, you might ask, am I using Weasel Words like "Reportedly" and "apparently"? Well, it's very simple - despite the allegations, accusations and falsehoods stated about me by Ryan Hocking, and the clear orders of the court to Wright Hassall to secure service of the order(s) upon me, I have received not a single document in relation to this matter since leaving the Court at lunchtime on that Friday. Nothing from Indigo, nothing from Wright Hassall and nothing from the court.
So, despite providing WH with my address for service by email that day, providing my business card and address to the court on a previous occasion, and despite a set aside application being made by me on 1 August, stating I had not seen any order(s), neither the Claimant or the Court has served a single document on me. Nor has the court responded to, or even acknowledged my set-aside application, despite this being emailed to court on 1 August.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/h8jzcqyvmxbkurl/Set%20Aside%20application%20-%20C4AU4R8M.pdf?dl=0
It is clear to me, in hindsight, that this matter was never going to be successful. A solicitors firm known for deception, a debt collector fielding a lying, fake witness, other witnesses prepared, and prepped by the Claimant to lie on the stand and rely on notes provided on the day, and a judge who was previously employed by this very NHS Trust means that there was no equality of arms.
The conduct of the claimant, in filing and serving documents late, appealing the level of trial, and threatening over £80,000 costs of the matter was pursued, proved the Claimant was always gunning for "Unreasonable conduct" - I have witness statements to this extent from people present at the appeal.
Unfortunately for Indigo, the facts of the case have now come out. It has been admitted that the Defence was not well handled by the people involved, and it has also been admitted that the "controlling mind" behind the 78 defences filed and conduct of the proceedings was not me - I was Lay Rep for a single defendant, and had no part in conducting the proceedings, my place is, and always has been as an advocate on the day, and only dealing with ancillary matters before the hearing such as skeleton, applications on the day etc. I was taking my instructions from a third party who I (and both Barry Beavis and the court) understood to represent all 78 defendants...
As a result, until the court starts complying with its own rules, and investigates why I have received nothing whatsoever about this matter since leaving court, I will not take part in the proceedings. Fairly simply, if I am not being served documents, I cannot know of the proceedings.
I will, however, be referring this entire matter to the SRA, the Bar Standards Board, and the Judicial Conduct Office.
It is curious to note, however, that ZZPS have apparently moved house, to Bacchus House, Station Road, Addlestone, despite their website still claiming they are at May Court, a place at which they have never had offices or staff.
So dDoes Kristina Kealy work at Addlestone - well, a Tracing Agent will, very soon, be able to tell us.