A couple of weeks further along, and the charge has now been cancelled. In that regard alone the outcome is acceptable.
In the interim ...
There have been additional demands from CPP/PE in the most glorious and laughable obfuscated prose/legalese
I have pressured PALS
I have chased past correspondence
I have contacted other Execs
I have involved my MP who has now acted
I had primed the local newspaper who was planning a piece this week
- PALS didn't respond until I complained in person after almost 2 silent weeks; then promised to help and a couple of days after that advised that the Hosp had said thye had no authority over the Parking Co. I told them the hosp had told them wrong, explained why and pressed them to go back ... since when I have heard nothing despite chasing them.
- UHCW Trust Estates & Facilities Dir. is yet to respond, though contact was *only* a week ago.
- UHCW CEO/Chief Administrator has never acknowledged/replied-to any of my letters/chases.
- UHCW CEO/Chief Admin reacted immediately to MP letter however by passing it and my correspondence to Estates and Facilities Dir to deal with, who in turn replied to MP with cancellation, who yesterday copied that to me for confirmation received this morning.
Passing thoughts ...
- People who could/should have been dealing with it for the injured party elected not to.
- PALS has good intentions but is useless if they don't have a leaflet on it - will follow the Hosp line on everything else without questioning their words.
- The Trust's Administration is not approach-friendly, in this instance stating "... car parking managed by a Private Finance Initiative Service Provider" and that therefore ".. Trust has no power ... in the processes applied by CPP .." Oh, really?!
- Trust accepted CPP's word that the equip't was not faulty as claimed, not the rather more reliable word of a visitor having been put to considerable inconvenience at 5 a.m.and who went to some length with staff to deal with it instead of buggering off home.
- CPP "have agreed (to cancel) as a gesture of good will." WHAT?! THEIR good will? THEY are willing to let MY failings pass and kindly make allowances? Couldn't be more self-delusionarily wrong!
Sadly, I can guarantee that what is actually important in all of this will not get any attention
- providing an alternative payment method for patients/visitors for when the equipment malfunctions ... at any time not just the wee-hours ... and tell staff ... and put notices up.
- UHCW taking any notice of their culpability in CPP's unlawful breaching of GDPR in accessing keeper details now that it has been brought to their attention. Head In Sand.
All of this comes of course from pulling-up the drawbridge and deny, deny, deny. It is the knee-jerk response of almost all large organisations, but one for which there should be no place in a Hospital Trust that should strongly want to distance itself from uncaring attitudes and irresponsible practises.
Anyone finding this because of a similar issue of their own, my strongest advice is to heed the advice given to you on this forum - it put me straight on to the right path and got rid of some nervous uncertainties which makes all the difference to peace of mind, something that CPP relies on to add pressure for those who aren't aware of what's what.
My thanks again to all who kindly helped.
At the investigation yes, they are seeing if they can build a case.
Like the police interview you before deciding if you are going to be charged. Not everyone is charged as some people have done nothing wrong!
If you tell people what the investigation is about before they go in, a proportion will use that knowledge to prepare really good lies. That's why companies don't do it.
I would have a read up on the ACAS site of guidelines for both investigations and disciplinaries.
So they've back-tracked on their original statement that his insurance has been voided. If it's not been voided and was in force at the time of the accident there is no role for MIB. MIB gets involved if a driver was uninsured at the time of the accident, but 1st Central are now telling you he was insured. In the response you have had from MIB that is what they say, he was not uninsured. Whoever it was who told you that the policy had been voided was, by the sound of it, telling you something that simply wasn't true.
I've never heard of 1st Central but from their website it's clear they are an insurance broker not the actual insurance company https://www.1stcentralinsurance.com/who-we-are As a broker they are acting for their client, the driver, and have no duty to be impartial in considering whose fault it was.
So looks like you have no option now other than to start a small claims court action against the driver.
Don't touch them owe me £500 since January 2019 make excuse after excuse. Seem they always have software problems sending money out. Keep saying they will call back or email nothing been chasing it now for 6 mths the phone staff always have the same banter we will chase it up and get back to you then nothing!