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.

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.

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, 


  1. There are 1.2 million staff in England
    162,000 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...

  2. If they get leave to appeal at next hearing then they dont need any money.

  3. They still need to get expert help, and a full transcript of the three day hearing.

    1. They dont need a transcript, they need the transcript of the judgement which will cost about £100 at most.

  4. Are 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?

  5. I see no reason why they can't enlist the help of Unison.
    Has anyone even discussed this with them at regional level?

    1. Unison were approached right at the start of all this.

      They were as much use as a fart in a trance.

    2. 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

    3. Non-work related. My mind boggles. I guess all the tickets were connected to going to the pub after the shift ended....

  6. Prankster has properly identified four clear grounds of appeal.

    Insofar 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.

    1. What is going to happen on 1 Sept?
      Has the judgement been handed down?
      Has a non-party costs order been served?

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. And indeed, he now has:

  7. The 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.

    Also, 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.