Can't blame a guy for trying i suppose...

I see where you are coming from, but i only examined the bay in more detail after i had gotten the ticekt. Who looks at the size and shapes of the lines in that much detail..? They see white lines in the shape of a parking space on the ground and park... What i'm trying to say/ask is that a parking ticket can not be enforced if the parking space in question is incorrectly marked, which is what this one is...

Having sat last night and read some of the regs, yes, your quite right i do mean a CPZ (was just naming the zone from what the sign said which is 'Controlled Zone'). However on having read the regs in more detail and from what i 'think' i'm understanding of the regs; for the provision of parking controls for cars on roads, there are effectively two types of bay marking which can be identified by the end markings and the type of line that runs along the road parallel to the kerb. These two types are to diagrams 1028 and diagram 1032 in the Regulations. The primary difference between the two bays are: 1. A 1028 series bay can only be used when there is a sign on a pole telling you what restriction applies, otherwise the bay itself is unlawful (the location of the pole relates to whether the restriction is in a Controlled Parking Zone or not). 2. A 1032 bay can be used with or without a sign on a pole, when no sign is present the bay is uncontrolled, that is - free parking. The bay i was parked in had (as the photos show) the end markings of 1032 and side markings of 1028.4. As far as i can see there is no provision for mixing the two regs, which would could surely make this bay non-valid??? Also with regards to the lines, in all cases the fixed measurements are variable in accordance with Regulation 12, table 2 but the variable measurements cannot be exceeded beyond either dimension, which in this bay it was. In the case of diagram 1032 bay markings, the variations differ slightly, but again, there is a limit to the variations allowed. So unless i am totally reading this wrong, all roads for the CPZ must be marked and all entry points signed, when they are not, there is no CPZ meeting the requirements of the legislation, and with a defective CPZ the controls within it fall back to the wording of the Traffic Regulation Order and each road marking will stand on its own, which again leads me back to the fact that the bay is not set out to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002. Am i just seriously confusing myself here (probably)?

On 04/06/2012at 10:24 I was issued a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN), At the time in question I had gone for change to pay, and it being a bankholiday took a few minutes to get to the hospital shop to get change; I wasunable to pay by phone having lost my mobile the previous weekend. Whilst I acceptthe ‘gone for change excuse’ is not a significant defence in itself andprobably one heard repeatedly, I was less than five minutes beforereturning to the car and would ask if any clemency could be provided on thisbasis? An additional concern I have isthat the Parking Control Zone (PCZ) is not valid due to incomplete signage. Ibelieve to be a PCZ all roads mustbe provided with parking places or be marked with road markings to 1017, 1018.11019 or 1020.1 (single yellow lines, double yellow lines, single kerb markingsor double kerb markings) and that there should be entry plates at every point to the zone. A quick walkaround the zone shows that the signage is incomplete at more than one point,meaning that the enforceable stage of the PCZ is questionable. Thirdly, I had a question aboutthe markings of the bay in question. The Traffic Signs Regulations and GeneralDirections (TSRGD) lay out the precise method of marking bays on the road and Iam not sure which of this Regulations this bay is supposed to be compliant withas it appears to be in line with 1028 and 1032 and appears the bay meetsneither of these standards entirely. The ends of the bay are clearly marked asif for individual bays to standard 1032, but the sides or the bay are marked asstandard 1028. Additionally, whenmeasured, the markings do not seem to comply with the measurements proscribedwithin the TSRGD, however as I am not able to determine the actual regulationthe bays are supposed to be compliant with I may be in error. I have included asketch below with the measurements of the TSRGD and the measurements I took ofthe bay, and have highlighted which lines may not be to code.

Doesn't that nice pink paper make you have warm thoughts

Got this today and another one just like it in the same envelope... It's regarding an unpaid invoice (a.k.a. fine) from last year in a hospital carpark Its 'scary ' pink paper but I'm guessing the advice is the same as always... ignore? Couple of questions though... Anyone have any idea how many of these I will receive as they are starting to be bothersome... and just out of curiosity (I have no intention of paying) it says I have to pay in seven days... was that seven days from issue or recepit because darn it... surley unfair to only give 1 week's work of ignoring this document before I get to ignore the next one... Although they do state that there will be no further reference...

Thanks HB... will contact my union and see what they say8-)

As I said I did write to the manager who oversaw the parking operations (he went off sick with stress BTW when the car park section was being re-organised) to raise a grievance. I never heard back but did keep a copy of the origional letter. I will however raise the grievance again in the form of "i raised this earlier but did not receive a reply" manner and see what happens. Thanks for the additional information... I will also contact my union and get their advice.

Youve just hit the nail on the head. I am arguing a technicality because in order to get acess to what is now designated staff parking (the new Multi-story (MSCP)) you had to re-apply for a parking permit and holding an old permit was no guarantee of receiving a new permit. However AT NO POINT in the application system of the new permits did anyone i know of receive notificaiton that the old permits were voided in any way. An oversight? Perhaps. Was the voiding of the old permits implied? Also perhaps. Many of my colleagues buckled and applied for new permits and threw away their old ones. Those who, like me, objected to pay to park now park on the roads, competing with other patients and visitors who object to paying making local residents unhappy and causing traffic problems that the local council is now reviewing in a transport plan. Despite my suggestion that people visit this site and read about PCNs to inform them, they have all pretty much backed down and park on the road, and like I said earlier, the vast majority of the time so do I because I dont want to provoke more of an issue that it already is... I only park in the A&E carpark if there is nowhere in the roads around the hospital to park and i run the risk of being late if i spend more time finding somewhere to park... even under the old system if there was somewhere to park on the road near the hospital I parked off-site as the A&E carpark is not that large and was often full and I dont want to take up a space that a patient might need. You could certainly argue that as the staff parking permits only allow access to the MSCP and that all but one other car-park on the site is now barrier controlled, the removal of the old system was inherrent because the old permits were display on dash types and they dont get you into a barrier car park. However A&E staff used to be permitted to park near the A&E and this car park is now the only non-barrier car park (they couldnt install barriers because it would affect the ability of people and ambulances to rapidly access the A&E).

I think we will have to disagree philosophically here... One of the primary arguments for charging is not to free up parking for non-staff, if it to make money for the hospital. In wales etc the parking spaces allocated for staff are usully the ones furthest from the hospital and I have no issue with the hospital limiting where staff can park and I agree that priority must be given to patients. under our old system where you could park was limited to two car-parks. staff parking outside of this space were parking contrary to trust policy and could have faced discplinary action. So many people are now parking on the roads around the hospital to avoid paying (they also charge disabled blue badge holders to park and WILL ticket them if unpaid btw) that the roads are becoming gridlocked. The barrier car-parks now have spaces at most times, and i have seen disabled drivers getting out of their cars and into wheelchairs to be pushed across the road to get into the hospital. It was so bad the other day with gridlock that it took more than 5 minutes to get an emergency ambulance into the emergency department because the roads were blocked with people looking for places to park. The trust supposedley introduced staff parking to encourage us to get to hospital some other way than by car, and to pay for a new multi-story parking facility. I work shifts and there is often no bus service to get me to work on time so I have to drive. And as regards the new MSCP... they built in on the cheap and last years snow and ice broke up the tarmac on the top two floors which have now been closed for re-surfacing less than a year from opening so there are even more people who have paid from their monthly salary for a parking permit they cant use. Meep... im starting to sound like i should be standing on a soap box for this

No, I have received no written communicaiton from the hosptial invalidating the old permit.

Hi again. You are starting to make some scary sense... and im not liking it The terms and conditions state that there is limited free space... this was always on a first come, first served basis, so there was no guarantee of being able to park; though when there was space you could park for free This is what has supposedly been 'removed' by the hospital, but again there is no guarantee that having paid for your subsidised parking pass that there will actually be space in which to park, so you could be paying for a parking space you could never use. I do have a permit which was issued under the 'old' system that has been displeyd in my windscreen every time i have parked in the carpark. As such I have not paid for a parking ticket as this pass was never removed, the new ones are tickets to access certain car parks which are now barrier controlled (not all of them have barriers, some are walk and pay at machines) so i don't physically have access to these parking spaces anyway. As I said, i wrote to the employer addressing my issues and they never contacted me back, not even to say that my old permit was revoked... as such my old permit is still valid because it has never actually been withdrawn. And as regards to the comment about prescriptions being free in wales and scotland giving you the right to steal drugs... where did that come from? If you attend a doctor and get given a prescription you can collect for free it is because you have an identified medical need... Stealing the drugs because you want it is not right... and yes i dont believe you should have to pay prescription charges, dental charges, and other charges that the NHS has imposed over the last few decades, though I am a realist in that this does generate much needed capital to spend on more expensive drugs... With regards to charging for car parks, this is just a money making scheme... one local trust made well over £1million from their car parks a couple of years ago... thats just making money to spend on non-clinical stuff. Looking at their finacial records, this money was spent on a car for the chief exec, fact finding missions to other trusts across the country... not one penny on the patients... Now i sound a little crazy:oops: Anyway... Im off to work and fingers crossed I can find a space on the road to park!

Maybe i should clarify my position a little more (something I did in a previous thread) Indeed the land owner (the hospital) does have a right to charge which I have not disputed. I HAVE disputed their right to charge me (the employee) as i have writen evidence that there is free parking for staff (this is also in the public domain as it is on the terms and conditions of employment on the trust website. That my old (free) parking permit was also never revoked is also on my side. I would say that I have written a complaint letter to my employer stating that the removal of free parking for staff consitiutes a change in employee rights according to the terms and conditions and as such should have been negotiated with staff and not imposed. I received NO response back at all... As in not even a 'thanks for your letter' reply. The T&C on the trust website still state limited free parking for staff... so whenever i cannot find anywhere on the road near the hospital to park (which i do 9 out of 10 times), i will continue to park in the car park till i receive some sort of reply from my employer. It is unfortunate that the Parking company has been caught in the cross fire.

As far as I am aware they don't know my name, they do however know where I work and which department. As I said this is a hospital car park and the parking team are actually dual trained as they also do security for the trust, so them getting my name could only involve a phone call.

On the 14/1/11 at 13.50 i had just pulled into a space and turned off the engine when two of the parking attendants come over to my car and want to talk to me... Now my car is fairly distictive (97 Camaro) and I have been issued with several PCNs at this car park as it is my place of work. I have so far ingored all of them, however these two quite large men said they wanted me to know that they are "taking note of who is driving the vehicle and do I understand the implications of that?" Now at this point i fully wind down my window and look at these guys. Im faily large myself at 6'2", but if I was a lady, or even a smaller guy their behaviour could easily be interpreted as intimidatory as there are two of them and they are dressed mostly in black but with white shirts barely visible under their windbreaker style jackets. My response was "Yes I understand that you have noteed who has parked this car and the implications of those actions. I do wish to protest that by having two of you approach me in this manner that it could be alluded to intimadatory tactics which are contrary to the British Parking Association code of conduct, as well as criminal law and the Human Rights Act." The guy that had spoken looked a little taken aback and just repeated to ask "am i aware of the implications that they know who was driving the vehilce?" So I just said "yes". At which point for the first time ever in this car park I actually went to buy a ticket... Yes I know that it is technically private ground so they have every right to charge for parking, however I am on a crusade against the hospital because they just started charging staff to park last year; the terms and conditions of employment on the trust website STILL include the claim of limited free parking for staff; At no point was i told that my old parking permit that allowed me to park for free was withdrawn from use; and parking at NHS sites in Scotland and Wales and NI is free, thefore charing me to park for living in England is a form of discrimination for living in a certain area.