[The Prankster previously blogged that tickets were issued from April 2017. This is incorrect, and the actual date was April 2016. The Prankster apologises and the article has now been adjusted]
Judgment on Indigo's claim for parking against doctors and nurses at the University Hospital of Wales is expected today at Cardiff at 11:00.
The hearing is for 3 lead cases, with another 90-odd claims depending on the result. In the 3 day hearing, Indigo stated there were another 100,000 tickets riding on this result, with a value of £12 million.
All tickets were issued since April 2016, which means that Indigo are looking to make around £750,000 million a month from charges in the hospital car park. Most of these charges are against hospital staff.
Indigo initially issue the tickets at £20, and then bump them around debt collectors to artificially raise them to £120.
Prankster Note
Any car park which is issuing £750,000 million worth of charges a month is by definition badly managed and not fit for purpose. The Prankster believes the hospital management should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for letting this situation get to the current stage.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Putting the fun back into parking
Click for guide to fighting ParkingEye court claims
Click for help with low-cost appeals and court defences
Obv it's £100k not 100k tickets???
ReplyDelete100k tickets in three months is approx 1000 tickets a day..is that likely???
Just going by what their guy said in court. Perhaps he got it wrong?
Deletemust be £100k.
DeleteSeems like the distinction in between being trampled by an elephant, or by a herd of elephants.
Delete100,000 across the last year at the site. each potentially valued at £128 now £12.8million!
DeleteI foresee long waiting times at that hospital in the forthcoming weeks.
ReplyDeleteare you sure you meant april 2017 , and not say 2016 or earlier ? it just seems strange that there is a court case within 2 or 3 months , whereas 14 or 15 months seems more likely ? possibly a typo ? but thanks for the heads up, be an interesting read when complete , even though its a disgraceful state of affairs to try to punish health workers and patients in this way
ReplyDeletehttp://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/indigo-cash-in-on-medical-staff-at.html
ReplyDeleteYes tickets since 2016 April not 2017 - that would make a dire situation even worse!
ReplyDeleteabsolute devastating loss for the defendants and all other staff affected here -
Must say Barrister and Legal Rep were decent chaps just on the other side!
what a flipping mess - and it has been said yes that there are 100,000 tickets to be collected - this was not mentioned in court however and, i personally am struggling to comprehend that this could be possible. If it is and they are all against this proposed 2% of staff then we are talking mass bankruptcies here also as many collections due and staff owing more than their salaries annually.
Personally makes me sick - i believe i will refuse to attend now appointments there unless i am guaranteed a disabled bay for my two visually impaired children to attend consultant appointments.
Health Board despicable they issue permits like sweets - 9,000 permits for 1,360 spaces - they need to stop taking those drugs and wise up.
Setting staff up to fail like this is bad - they do not deserve the staff they have.
One nurse stated - well its only money; at least i am not one of the patients receiving terminal news, i'm alive and i love my job.
sorry to say the bosses are utter chumps and undeserving of such dedicated staff - they are not paid enough
I would consider action against the Trust for issuing permits knowingly above the facility to honour the use of them.
ReplyDeletePromissory estoppel
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/promissory_estoppel.asp
wont work , many many councils issue 3 or 4 times the permits for residents parking , I think the wording is "permit to park , but we cannot guarantee a space"
DeleteBut councils are protected in this, the trust isn't. Given the sums involved and the complete incompittance and setting up a private company to make circa £9M profit out of their own staff I'd say it's well worth a shot if it goes against the defendants.
DeleteWhat was the result?
ReplyDeleteWas anything decided?
Q.
see Susan Priors post above , the defendants lost , Indigo won the test case
DeleteWould there be anything in everyone clubbing together and agreeing to not pay them? Similar to everyone not paying the poll tax. Following every ticket up would take ages
ReplyDeletethey would just let the justice system collect the monies via wage deductions etc
Deleteand I use the word "justice" very tongue in cheek
DeleteIs there any possibility of grounds for an appeal. After all, this was still at County Court small claims level.
ReplyDeleteThe thing that seems manifestly unjust. Having won a ruling that the case should remain in small claims, rather than be transferred to fast track. The judge made that ruling in order to allow the case to be used as a test case while protecting the three defendants from costs associated with defending a fasttrack claim. Despite this, thanks to the judge deciding that a lay representative acted unreasonably, they are facing costs of £26,000.
ReplyDeleteConsidering how often the PPC's act unreasonably, by ignoring court proceedures, and escape with nothing but a slap on the wrist, that appears to be a massive double standard at work.
Can someone explain why costs were awarded?
ReplyDeleteAccording to Bargepole posting on MSE, "Full costs of £26,000 awarded to the claimants due to a finding of unreasonable behaviour by one of the lay reps."
ReplyDeleteTotal and utter carnage (his words)
Who was the lay rep and what did they do??
ReplyDeleteThis was John Wilkie he submitted no evidence. And basically fighting on points that they say were unwinnable that is unreasonable in itself.
ReplyDeleteA lot was said by witnesses of the claimants that is believed to not be true. However cross examination was hard work. Not as smooth as it could have been.
And as we now know a much bigger case than we believed with the data collected early November and December
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteActually, Sue, I wasn't conducting Mr Dadswell's case, I only acted as his Lay rep. Mr Dadswell was provided with, and submitted, all of the relevant evidence before his March hearing; this documentation was provided by a Bargepole, well known of this parish.
DeleteAdditionally, didn't the same Bargepole write both of Mr Beavis's clients skeletons, and didn't he and Mr Beavis decide not to have his clients give evidence?
There seems to be some sort of myth that I was involved in all 78 cases - I wasn't, my company was involved in one for which I was asked, by you, to Ley rep, I was a lay rep for another that was adjourned, and I assisted with a set aside in a third. But that was it - I didn't write any of the documents, I didn't conduct the case, I merely represented one of the clients.
Also, for the record, if I hadn't asked Mr Dadswell to sack me, I would have had to excuse myself as my interest in being joined as a party for costs is in clear conflict to Mr Dadswell's interest. Despite this, my company has refuded Mr Dadswell's fees, and we have ourselves paid out over £750 in expenses to support TEPAG and our customer.
However, as my conduct has not been determined by the court as having been unreasonable, as this is not being heard until 1 September, it's a bit premature for anyone to be accusing me of anything, including a barrister in open court reciting the lies of ZZPS.
It is worth noting that consideration is being made as to whether at least one witness will be reported for perjury - can anyone guess who?
Publicly, I will say this - if I am found liable in Unreasonable Conduct, I will absorb the entire costs bill personally. I will also, having been joined, be appealing the judgment on four grounds, including one of the points which the Judge says was argued unreasonably.