Sharp practice by train company: -
“Cheated” Contactless Passengers Fined - Secret Filming Investigation https://youtu.be/E-c6b8A9pD0
Could this amount to [Conspiracy to] obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception
contrary to s16 Theft Act 1968?
Could a prosecution be brought against the company's directors and /
or the "grippers" levying the fines?
One way would be to hold out one's wallet / purse with the cash projecting and if grippers are filmed taking it then it could be theft.
"notya...@gmail.com" <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote in message news:358c498a-5db0-4cc3-9ce2-6591f0db4ce5n@googlegroups.com...
Sharp practice by train company: -
“Cheated” Contactless Passengers Fined - Secret Filming
Investigation https://youtu.be/E-c6b8A9pD0
Could this amount to [Conspiracy to] obtaining pecuniary advantage
by deception contrary to s16 Theft Act 1968?
Hardly
quote:
16,000 rail travellers to Stansted fined after believing they could
use Oyster card 22nd January 2019
unquote
https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/21443547.16-000-rail-travellers-stansted-fined-believing-use-oyster-card/
Please note the date.
The passengers in question (I assume ) were and are under the mistaken impression that Stansted Airport in Essex is in the TfL Oyster Card
zone. Unless there are maps and other information claiming this to be
the case, then the fault would seem to lie solely with the passengers
Apparently the passengers are "confused" because the destination is
"London Stansted". However the decision to call it London Stansted
when its miles away in Essex and is actually "Stansted Essex" is
purely for the benefit of the airlines and airport all of whom are
private concerns and nothing to do with TfL.
"notya...@gmail.com" <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote in message news:358c498a-5db0-4cc3-9ce2-6591f0db4ce5n@googlegroups.com...
Sharp practice by train company: -
“Cheated” Contactless Passengers Fined - Secret Filming Investigation
https://youtu.be/E-c6b8A9pD0
Could this amount to [Conspiracy to] obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception
contrary to s16 Theft Act 1968?
Hardly
On 11/12/2023 15:39, billy bookcase wrote:
"notya...@gmail.com" <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:358c498a-5db0-4cc3-9ce2-6591f0db4ce5n@googlegroups.com...
Sharp practice by train company: -
"Cheated" Contactless Passengers Fined - Secret Filming Investigation
https://youtu.be/E-c6b8A9pD0
Could this amount to [Conspiracy to] obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception
contrary to s16 Theft Act 1968?
Hardly
But confusing.
You can use contactless as far as Enfield or Cheshunt IIUC, so the gates have to open.
But then, looking at the video, you have first to walk over a red area saying not valid
to Stansted - but at rush hour that could well be obscured by other people's feet; I'd
have hoped for eye-level signage too. So long since I've caught a train there.... the
fares are ludicrous these days.
And yes, "London Stansted" and "London Luton" do seem misnomers :-}
--
Mike Scott
Harlow, England
On 11/12/2023 15:39, billy bookcase wrote:
"notya...@gmail.com" <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:358c498a-5db0-4cc3-9ce2-6591f0db4ce5n@googlegroups.com...
Sharp practice by train company: -
“Cheated” Contactless Passengers Fined - Secret Filming Investigation >>> https://youtu.be/E-c6b8A9pD0
Could this amount to [Conspiracy to] obtaining pecuniary advantage by
deception
contrary to s16 Theft Act 1968?
Hardly
But confusing.
You can use contactless as far as Enfield or Cheshunt IIUC, so the gates
have to open. But then, looking at the video, you have first to walk
over a red area saying not valid to Stansted - but at rush hour that
could well be obscured by other people's feet; I'd have hoped for
eye-level signage too. So long since I've caught a train there.... the
fares are ludicrous these days.
And yes, "London Stansted" and "London Luton" do seem misnomers :-}
Sharp practice by train company: -
“Cheated? Contactless Passengers Fined - Secret Filming Investigation https://youtu.be/E-c6b8A9pD0
Could this amount to [Conspiracy to] obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception contrary to s16 Theft Act 1968?
Could a prosecution be brought against the company's directors and / or the "grippers" levying the fines?
One way would be to hold out one's wallet / purse with the cash projecting and if grippers are filmed taking it then it could be theft.
On Monday 11 December 2023 at 21:13:25 UTC, billy bookcase wrote:
"Mike Scott" <usen...@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:ul7c9j$37kc6$1...@dont-email.me...
On 11/12/2023 15:39, billy bookcase wrote:Indeed.
"notya...@gmail.com" <notya...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:358c498a-5db0-4cc3...@googlegroups.com...
Sharp practice by train company: -
"Cheated" Contactless Passengers Fined - Secret Filming Investigation
https://youtu.be/E-c6b8A9pD0
Could this amount to [Conspiracy to] obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception
contrary to s16 Theft Act 1968?
Hardly
But confusing.
But if they weren't allowed to confuse passengers and issue them with punitive
fines, Greater Anglia like all the other train operators wouldn't be able to make
so much profit. As the Regulator, in theory at least, keeps a close watch on >> the fares they can charge.
In addition, one of the easiest ways of confusing the passengers is by closing
ticket offices, cutting down on staff generally and making everything as
complicated as possible; so it's a win-win all round for the train operators.
But all perfectly legal, it must be stressed.
Well proving GA set out to defraud could be difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt,
but is it lawful - how about a civil case where [under
the Statute of Frauds 1625] the actions of the parties (GA by allowing
past the barriers) mean they can benefit from their duplicitous behaviour?
But if they weren't allowed to confuse passengers and issue them with punitive
fines, Greater Anglia like all the other train operators wouldn't be able to make
so much profit. As the Regulator, in theory at least, keeps a close watch on the fares they can charge.
Sharp practice by train company: -
“Cheated” Contactless Passengers Fined - Secret Filming Investigation https://youtu.be/E-c6b8A9pD0
Could this amount to [Conspiracy to] obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception contrary to s16 Theft Act 1968?
Could a prosecution be brought against the company's directors and / or the "grippers" levying the fines?
One way would be to hold out one's wallet / purse with the cash projecting and if grippers are filmed taking it then it could be theft.
"notya...@gmail.com" <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote in message news:358c498a-5db0-4cc3-9ce2-6591f0db4ce5n@googlegroups.com...
Sharp practice by train company: -
“Cheated” Contactless Passengers Fined - Secret Filming Investigation
https://youtu.be/E-c6b8A9pD0
The passengers in question (I assume ) were and are under the mistaken impression that Stansted Airport in Essex is in the TfL Oyster Card zone. Unless there are maps and other information claiming this to be the case, then the fault would seem to lie solely with the passengers
Even more incomprehensible is "London Southend". And don't forget
"London Luton".
On 11/12/2023 20:21, billy bookcase wrote:
But if they weren't allowed to confuse passengers and issue them with punitive
fines, Greater Anglia like all the other train operators wouldn't be able to make
so much profit. As the Regulator, in theory at least, keeps a close watch on >> the fares they can charge.
It has been pointed out in this thread that it isnt confusing, there are numerous signs
and announcements that Oyster tickets are not valid. How much else can the Train
Operating Company do to inform the ignorant?
As for 'make so much profit', where have you been for the last 5 years?, they do not
make any profit, they are subsidised by a large amount from central Government.
However if as you claim the Transport UK Group and Mitsui & Co are running Greater Anglia at a loss, as did presumably that other great philanthropist Richard Branson, then I stand corrected. And can only applaud their public spirit. .
On Tuesday 12 December 2023 at 09:05:29 UTC, billy bookcase wrote:
"notya...@gmail.com" <notya...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b972540a-2aa1-44a9...@googlegroups.com...
SNIP
Make that "impossible to prove" under any circumstances.
Well proving GA set out to defraud could be difficult to prove beyond
reasonable doubt,
Not if their board decided to do it as a money raising scam.
Allowing passengers past the barriers in any station, by basically
eliminating staff, also makes it that much easier for dishonest
passengers to avoid paying entirely.
And GA to penalise bona fide Oyster Card travellers.
Excess fare them by all means, but £100 penalty - it's just a scam.
On Tuesday 12 December 2023 at 09:05:29 UTC, billy bookcase wrote:
"notya...@gmail.com" <notya...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b972540a-2aa1-44a9...@googlegroups.com...
SNIP
Make that "impossible to prove" under any circumstances.
Well proving GA set out to defraud could be difficult to prove beyond
reasonable doubt,
Not if their board decided to do it as a money raising scam.
but is it lawful - how about a civil case where [undereliminating staff, also makes it that much easier for dishonest
the Statute of Frauds 1625] the actions of the parties (GA by allowing
past the barriers) mean they can benefit from their duplicitous behaviour? >> Allowing passengers past the barriers in any station, by basically
passengers to avoid paying entirely.
And GA to penalise bona fide Oyster Card travellers.
Excess fare them by all means, but £100 penalty - it's just a scam.
"notya...@gmail.com" <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote in message news:38857fcf-afb9-43fa-8d02-4c024e200451n@googlegroups.com...
On Tuesday 12 December 2023 at 09:05:29 UTC, billy bookcase wrote:
"notya...@gmail.com" <notya...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b972540a-2aa1-44a9...@googlegroups.com...
SNIP
Make that "impossible to prove" under any circumstances.
Well proving GA set out to defraud could be difficult to prove beyond
reasonable doubt,
Not if their board decided to do it as a money raising scam.
And made sure it was recorded in the minutes. They may even have
video'd the meeting and left copies lying around. You never know,
do you ?
Allowing passengers past the barriers in any station, by basically
eliminating staff, also makes it that much easier for dishonest
passengers to avoid paying entirely.
And GA to penalise bona fide Oyster Card travellers.
Excess fare them by all means, but ÂŁ100 penalty - it's just a scam.
It's still Ł20 less than a bone fide NHS patient was fined for parking
in a hospital car park.
quote:
A mum said she was fined more than Ł100 and threatened by bailiffs after parking in a “free” NHS car park. Lisa Griffiths said she parked at St David’s Hospital in the Canton area of Cardiff on April 1, where she had emergency dental treatment.
:unquote
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/nhs-patient-fined-120-using-28236634
And that was a "mum" !
How many of your lot were "mums", on their way to Stansted for emergency dental treatment ?
bb
On 12 Dec 2023 at 19:25:58 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"notya...@gmail.com" <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:38857fcf-afb9-43fa-8d02-4c024e200451n@googlegroups.com...
On Tuesday 12 December 2023 at 09:05:29 UTC, billy bookcase wrote:
"notya...@gmail.com" <notya...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b972540a-2aa1-44a9...@googlegroups.com...
SNIP
Make that "impossible to prove" under any circumstances.
Well proving GA set out to defraud could be difficult to prove beyond >>>>> reasonable doubt,
Not if their board decided to do it as a money raising scam.
And made sure it was recorded in the minutes. They may even have
video'd the meeting and left copies lying around. You never know,
do you ?
Allowing passengers past the barriers in any station, by basically
eliminating staff, also makes it that much easier for dishonest
passengers to avoid paying entirely.
And GA to penalise bona fide Oyster Card travellers.
Excess fare them by all means, but L100 penalty - it's just a scam.
It's still L20 less than a bone fide NHS patient was fined for parking
in a hospital car park.
quote:
A mum said she was fined more than L100 and threatened by bailiffs after
parking in a "free" NHS car park. Lisa Griffiths said she parked at St
David's Hospital in the Canton area of Cardiff on April 1, where she had
emergency dental treatment.
:unquote
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/nhs-patient-fined-120-using-28236634
And that was a "mum" !
How many of your lot were "mums", on their way to Stansted for emergency
dental treatment ?
bb
The charge was 40 and she failed to pay it while she unsuccessfully appealed,
and indeed once the debt collectors were called in. My sympathy is limited.
On Tuesday 12 December 2023 at 22:28:54 UTC, billy bookcase wrote:
"notya...@gmail.com" <notya...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:38857fcf-afb9-43fa...@googlegroups.com...
On Tuesday 12 December 2023 at 09:05:29 UTC, billy bookcase wrote:And made sure it was recorded in the minutes. They may even have
"notya...@gmail.com" <notya...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b972540a-2aa1-44a9...@googlegroups.com...
SNIP
Make that "impossible to prove" under any circumstances.
Well proving GA set out to defraud could be difficult to prove beyond >> >> > reasonable doubt,
Not if their board decided to do it as a money raising scam.
video'd the meeting and left copies lying around. You never know,
do you ?
Well a score of ticket inspectors and security guards didn't all just
turn up at > Stanstead on a whim, someone decided to engage that many
and have them there when Stanstead express arrives.
Sure if dishonest people are deliberately avoiding fares or grossly negligent,
but if hundreds make the same "mistake" then is it them or the TOC?
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:kts76aFb3d7U1@mid.individual.net...
On 12 Dec 2023 at 19:25:58 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>
"notya...@gmail.com" <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:38857fcf-afb9-43fa-8d02-4c024e200451n@googlegroups.com...
On Tuesday 12 December 2023 at 09:05:29 UTC, billy bookcase wrote:
"notya...@gmail.com" <notya...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b972540a-2aa1-44a9...@googlegroups.com...
SNIP
Make that "impossible to prove" under any circumstances.
Well proving GA set out to defraud could be difficult to prove beyond >>>>>> reasonable doubt,
Not if their board decided to do it as a money raising scam.
And made sure it was recorded in the minutes. They may even have
video'd the meeting and left copies lying around. You never know,
do you ?
Allowing passengers past the barriers in any station, by basically
eliminating staff, also makes it that much easier for dishonest
passengers to avoid paying entirely.
And GA to penalise bona fide Oyster Card travellers.
Excess fare them by all means, but ĀL100 penalty - it's just a scam.
It's still L20 less than a bone fide NHS patient was fined for parking
in a hospital car park.
quote:
A mum said she was fined more than L100 and threatened by bailiffs after >>> parking in a "free" NHS car park. Lisa Griffiths said she parked at St
David's Hospital in the Canton area of Cardiff on April 1, where she had >>> emergency dental treatment.
:unquote
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/nhs-patient-fined-120-using-28236634
And that was a "mum" !
How many of your lot were "mums", on their way to Stansted for emergency >>> dental treatment ?
bb
The charge was £40 and she failed to pay it while she unsuccessfully appealed,
quote:
How long can I park for?
Patient and visitor car parks allow two hours free parking. You must register your vehicle details on arrival or prior to departure at one of the touch screen parking terminals that are located in the Main Reception area or the Children's Centre Reception area.
unquote:
https://cavuhb.nhs.wales/hospitals-and-health-centres/our-hospitals/st-davids-hospital/
So parking is free for up top two hours.
quote:
She said: "I went for an emergency dental appointment at St David's Hospital. It has one of those little machines where you put your registration number in which I did - I know I did because I phoned my other half to check it was
our number before I put it in.
unquote:
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/nhs-patient-fined-120-using-28236634
So that unlike in the case of fines levied on railways, or parking fines generally, in this case there is simply no possibility whatsoever of any intention on the part of Ms Griffiths to deceive, or defraud anybody. At worst she is being penalised for nothing more than making an honest
mistake; as a result of which, nobody suffered in any way.
(As Ms Griffiths was entitled to two hours free parking she wasn't
depriving anyone else of that parking space)
In the past one might have imagined the primary purpose of hospitals
and the like would be to offer a service to the public,
Now it would seem, their secondary purpose is as profit centres to gouge money
out of their own patients; as a result of innocent mistakes resulting from over-complex parking arrangements
and indeed once the debt collectors were called in. My sympathy is limited. >>
bb
Intention does not come in to parking fees. If she stayed beyond the two hours
or entered her information incorrectly it does not matter what her intention was.
In Wales at least the only reason for parking enforcement is entitled and selfish people who will otherwise use the Hospital car park instead of paying for appropriate parking while they work or shop. People feel so entitled to dump their car anywhere at anyone's expense rather than pay for parking that they will simply lie if caught
and this makes it difficult to be fair to
people like this lady who may well have simply made a mistake; or even been a victim of an undetected computer error.
But all the commuters
and shoppers
will lie about why they parked so excuses can't be taken at face value.
Hospital parking is generally free in Wales and enforcement is only necessary where the hospital is near to places of work or shops; it is not done to make money, but of course it does cost money to enforce rules.
"notya...@gmail.com" <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1f99a004-b6c9-4a15-b557-68bde2acfe6fn@googlegroups.com...
On Tuesday 12 December 2023 at 22:28:54 UTC, billy bookcase wrote:
"notya...@gmail.com" <notya...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:38857fcf-afb9-43fa...@googlegroups.com...
On Tuesday 12 December 2023 at 09:05:29 UTC, billy bookcase wrote:And made sure it was recorded in the minutes. They may even have
"notya...@gmail.com" <notya...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b972540a-2aa1-44a9...@googlegroups.com...
SNIP
Make that "impossible to prove" under any circumstances.
Well proving GA set out to defraud could be difficult to prove beyond >>>>>> reasonable doubt,
Not if their board decided to do it as a money raising scam.
video'd the meeting and left copies lying around. You never know,
do you ?
Well a score of ticket inspectors and security guards didn't all just
turn up at > Stanstead on a whim, someone decided to engage that many
and have them there when Stanstead express arrives.
Presumably because the Stansted Express carries a higher proportion of
fare dodgers. Tourists returning home whose money has run out, perhaps.
Who'd maybe already got in plenty of practice on the Tube.
Sure if dishonest people are deliberately avoiding fares or grossly negligent,
but if hundreds make the same "mistake" then is it them or the TOC?
But what possible evidence do you have, that these hundreds who made the
same "mistake", weren't simply dishonest people who got caught ?
Sharp practice by train company: -
“Cheated” Contactless Passengers Fined - Secret Filming Investigation https://youtu.be/E-c6b8A9pD0
Could this amount to [Conspiracy to] obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception contrary to s16 Theft Act 1968?
Could a prosecution be brought against the company's directors and / or the "grippers" levying the fines?
One way would be to hold out one's wallet / purse with the cash .
projecting and if grippers are filmed taking it then it could be
theft.
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:ktu6iaFp45oU1@mid.individual.net...
snippage
Intention does not come in to parking fees. If she stayed beyond the two hours
or entered her information incorrectly it does not matter what her intention >> was.
Parking "fees" result from contractual arrangements between various private parking providers and motorists. There is no requirement that failure to comply with any such conditions as may be imposed, should necessarily constitute an absolute offence; as indeed applies to parking "fines".
Although quite obviously, it would be to the advantage of the private parking provider were this wrongly assumed to be the case.
In Wales at least the only reason for parking enforcement is entitled and
selfish people who will otherwise use the Hospital car park instead of paying
for appropriate parking while they work or shop. People feel so entitled to >> dump their car anywhere at anyone's expense rather than pay for parking that >> they will simply lie if caught
The only reason ?
So then please explain why a *two hour* time limit is imposed even on *genuine
NHS appointees *. Are they expected to run to and from their appointments
in the hospital, presumably safe in the knowledge that there can't possibly be anyone waiting, and that all appointees are seen on time ?
If the only objective is to discourage entitled and selfish people then why are
*any restrictions* placed on genuine NHS appointees at all ? Is it to be imagined
that having possibly waited months for their appointment, the lucky patients will then take the opportunity of free parking to do a bit of local shopping afterwards ?
and this makes it difficult to be fair to
people like this lady who may well have simply made a mistake; or even been a
victim of an undetected computer error.
Up until fairly recently anyway, in the park and ride car parks around Oxford when you keyed your number in on the terminal, the front of your vehicle was shown on a monitor making it impossible to key in the wrong number.
The purposes being obviously to actually help people; rather than to take every possible opportunity to screw them
But all the commuters
Commuters are easily deterred. Just set a six hour maximum stay
and shoppers
will lie about why they parked so excuses can't be taken at face value.
All the hospital needs to do is remove all the barriers but leave the cameras.
Then issue all car driving appointees and genuine visitors with a ticket. Which
they subsequently feed into a slot they've been told about. located a few yards
in front of the camera.
All of which the hospitals could manage themselves, But then why bother ?
When they can employ some notorious car park operator to do all their dirty work for them, make a bit of dosh on top, and then blame it all on Tory cuts.
As I said car parks as profit centres.I believe the Cardiff hospitals do not profit from the arrangement, except in the sense that some parking is available for patients as a result of the enforcement.
If they are actually telling the truth I don't beieve this does happen.
Hospital parking is generally free in Wales and enforcement is only necessary
where the hospital is near to places of work or shops; it is not done to make
money, but of course it does cost money to enforce rules.
But if its truly effective then among the only people who would end up paying any
"fees" at all would be patients who had no choice,.
Those whose appointments took longer than the allotted two hours or who simply
couldn't run to and from the car park fast enough;
or couldn't distinguish
the "O"s from the "0"'s in their licence plates.
"Fine Them!"*
All of which is entirely different from Oyster Card holders; caught out at there in Stansted, Essex
Which was my original point
bb
* Armstrong and Miller "Kill Them !".
On 13/12/2023 14:04, billy bookcase wrote:
"notya...@gmail.com" <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1f99a004-b6c9-4a15-b557-68bde2acfe6fn@googlegroups.com...
On Tuesday 12 December 2023 at 22:28:54 UTC, billy bookcase wrote:
"notya...@gmail.com" <notya...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:38857fcf-afb9-43fa...@googlegroups.com...
On Tuesday 12 December 2023 at 09:05:29 UTC, billy bookcase wrote:And made sure it was recorded in the minutes. They may even have
"notya...@gmail.com" <notya...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b972540a-2aa1-44a9...@googlegroups.com...
SNIP
Make that "impossible to prove" under any circumstances.
Well proving GA set out to defraud could be difficult to prove beyond >>>>>>> reasonable doubt,
Not if their board decided to do it as a money raising scam.
video'd the meeting and left copies lying around. You never know,
do you ?
Well a score of ticket inspectors and security guards didn't all just
turn up at > Stanstead on a whim, someone decided to engage that many
and have them there when Stanstead express arrives.
Presumably because the Stansted Express carries a higher proportion of
fare dodgers. Tourists returning home whose money has run out, perhaps.
Who'd maybe already got in plenty of practice on the Tube.
Sure if dishonest people are deliberately avoiding fares or grossly negligent,
but if hundreds make the same "mistake" then is it them or the TOC?
But what possible evidence do you have, that these hundreds who made the
same "mistake", weren't simply dishonest people who got caught ?
Are they dishonest?? Having tapped in at the barrier but, I assume, not being registered as having tapped out at Stanstead what will they be charged? Possibly a max
fare on top of the penalty.
On 14 Dec 2023 at 11:58:03 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:ktu6iaFp45oU1@mid.individual.net...
snippage
Intention does not come in to parking fees. If she stayed beyond the two hours
or entered her information incorrectly it does not matter what her intention
was.
Parking "fees" result from contractual arrangements between various private >> parking providers and motorists. There is no requirement that failure to
comply with any such conditions as may be imposed, should necessarily
constitute an absolute offence; as indeed applies to parking "fines".
Quite so. And if people are sure the parking company breached the contract and
they didn't then the civil courts are available.
Although quite obviously, it would be to the advantage of the private parking
provider were this wrongly assumed to be the case.
In Wales at least the only reason for parking enforcement is entitled and >>> selfish people who will otherwise use the Hospital car park instead of paying
for appropriate parking while they work or shop. People feel so entitled to >>> dump their car anywhere at anyone's expense rather than pay for parking that
they will simply lie if caught
The only reason ?
Yes, because the general Welsh policy is for hospital parking to be free, unless it becomes so unavailable to genuine patients that enforcement is necessary.
So then please explain why a *two hour* time limit is imposed even on *genuine
NHS appointees *. Are they expected to run to and from their appointments
in the hospital, presumably safe in the knowledge that there can't possibly >> be anyone waiting, and that all appointees are seen on time ?
I believe there is a scheme for hospital departments to issue a form to say the patient had to stay longer.
If the only objective is to discourage entitled and selfish people then why are
*any restrictions* placed on genuine NHS appointees at all ? Is it to be
imagined
that having possibly waited months for their appointment, the lucky patients >> will then take the opportunity of free parking to do a bit of local shopping >> afterwards ?
Yes. People do the same to supermarket free parking.
and this makes it difficult to be fair to
people like this lady who may well have simply made a mistake; or even been a
victim of an undetected computer error.
Up until fairly recently anyway, in the park and ride car parks around Oxford
when you keyed your number in on the terminal, the front of your vehicle was >> shown on a monitor making it impossible to key in the wrong number.
The purposes being obviously to actually help people; rather than to take
every possible opportunity to screw them
But all the commuters
Commuters are easily deterred. Just set a six hour maximum stay
and shoppers
will lie about why they parked so excuses can't be taken at face value.
All the hospital needs to do is remove all the barriers but leave the cameras.
Then issue all car driving appointees and genuine visitors with a ticket. Which
they subsequently feed into a slot they've been told about. located a few
yards
in front of the camera.
All of which the hospitals could manage themselves, But then why bother ?
That is fine for the people who obey the rules, tell the truth, and pay any fees without the need for debt collectors.
When they can employ some notorious car park operator to do all their dirty >> work for them, make a bit of dosh on top, and then blame it all on Tory cuts.
They are needed to deal with the drivers who do none of the above. Otherwise many people would simply ignore the above. Do you want NHS money spent on the staff to enforce these rules?
I believe the Cardiff hospitals do not profit from the arrangement, except in the sense that some parking is available for patients as a result of the enforcement.
As I said car parks as profit centres.
If they are actually telling the truth I don't beieve this does happen.
Hospital parking is generally free in Wales and enforcement is only necessary
where the hospital is near to places of work or shops; it is not done to make
money, but of course it does cost money to enforce rules.
But if its truly effective then among the only people who would end up paying
any
"fees" at all would be patients who had no choice,.
Those whose appointments took longer than the allotted two hours or who simply
couldn't run to and from the car park fast enough;
or couldn't distinguish
the "O"s from the "0"'s in their licence plates.
I like the Oxford system. But if you've got 1000 people lying about entering the correct number, how do you deal fairly with the two or three who are not lying? Genuine question.
"Fine Them!"*
All of which is entirely different from Oyster Card holders; caught out at >> there in Stansted, Essex
Which was my original point
Seems pretty similar to me.
So then please explain why a *two hour* time limit is imposed even on *genuine
NHS appointees *. Are they expected to run to and from their appointments
in the hospital, presumably safe in the knowledge that there can't possibly >> be anyone waiting, and that all appointees are seen on time ?
I believe there is a scheme for hospital departments to issue a form to say >the patient had to stay longer.
But what possible evidence do you have, that these hundreds who made the >>> same "mistake", weren't simply dishonest people who got caught ?
Are they dishonest?? Having tapped in at the barrier but, I assume, not being
registered as having tapped out at Stanstead what will they be charged? Possibly a max
fare on top of the penalty.
Apparently they were challenged by onboard inspectors
Possibly some of them hadn't realised that claiming they were getting off at >Tottenham Hale (the only outbound station on the line in the Oyster zone)
While others, having checked that both Harlow Town and Bishops Stortford
were *not* in the Oyster Zone, somehow concluded that Stansted, which was >right at the end of the line, *was*.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 38:20:52 |
| Calls: | 6,708 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,241 |
| Messages: | 5,353,573 |