Patientline Share Discussion Threads

[scribbler101] 22/4/2007 15:07

It is very easy to make me drink.

[jonc] 22/4/2007 14:22

lol.

You can take a horse to water.......

[scribbler101] 22/4/2007 14:17

jonc - there is no doubt that the present arrangements for motorway services ARE a restraint of trade at each individual location. that was the main reason for allowing the original ~30 mile spacing to be halved, so that you have linear competition. And the authorities put up signs showing the distances for the next few services to help you choose. In France they also show fuel prices.

If I ruled the country, Tesco etc would be allowed to set up stores with motorway access. That would cut prices!

Just as mobiles will cut PTL prices.

[jonc] 21/4/2007 22:10

jock,

I would go along with that but you have changed the argument. The argument was over restraint of trade.

[richardbees] 21/4/2007 21:56

Sorry JonC

.......but I think jockblue's analogy applies here....

(I dread the idea of going to hospital now if there's going to be constant ringtones!)

[jockblue] 21/4/2007 21:15

JonC

Perhaps a better analogy would be a motorway service station trying to ban people from eating their own food in the car park.

[scribbler101] 20/4/2007 16:45

tp3 - At 16:30 the closing auction started so deals stopped getting matched. But there was no auction transaction, so the buy must have been pulled before 16:35

[thipan03] 20/4/2007 16:32

why bid and offer are same at 3.75p.

[scribbler101] 20/4/2007 15:28

Motorway service areas would be far better value if they were not allowed to enforce monopolies - but that is what the DoT has allowed. But even they do not try to stop you eating your own food.

Also, there is no Offburger, but there is an Offcom; which has made it very clear that it does not approve of stopping use of mobiles in hospitals unless there is a GENUINE safety reason.

I feel sorry for PTL; which has obviously been screwed by the NHS. But it must take astonishing stupidity to come out on that side - most suppliers screw the NHS. Doctors especially!

[jonc] 20/4/2007 14:03

It CANNOT bind third parties. And it CANNOT have an illegal purpose, such as to infringe someone's right to make phone calls as they choose.


I refer you back to the motorway service station example.

The contract there is between the DofT and the operator. It does bind third parties in as much you would not be able to open a burger bar in the carpark. It is also accepted that motorway service stations charge premium prices due to their obligation to open 24 hours a day. Very similar to PTLs obligation to provide services to all hospital beds with the exception of high dependency units.

I am afraid you are wrong.

[scribbler101] 20/4/2007 01:25

buddy - what I do not understand is the expectation that the small change in TV charges will increase take-up enough even to maintain income, let alone increase it.

The EU has recently intervened to reduce mobile phone charges for roaming. The climate of opinion is against high phone charges.

Patientline delenda est.

[scribbler101] 20/4/2007 01:22

JonC - You say "A contract IS a contract".

Indeed. But it is between the PARTIES thereto. It CANNOT bind third parties. And it CANNOT have an illegal purpose, such as to infringe someone's right to make phone calls as they choose.

And if a contract contravenes competition law it fails anyway. If Shell, Esso, Tesco, and Sainsburys enter into a contract to fix the price of petrol it is still illegal and unenforcible.

For Patientlinre and NHS to agree to ban mobile use in order to force use of the ptl system is probably illegal (as in directors/NHS bosses to jail) and almost certainly unenforcible.

[buddyol2] 19/4/2007 12:18

Guys, I think patient's use of TV is being ignored due to everyone focusing on the mobile phone issue.

My mum was in hospital about 6 mths ago, she didn't use the phone , only the TV. PTL have now reduced the costs of TV and increase the use of the phone. I hope now more patients will use the TV which is a reasonable price. You will get some who will use both phone and TV. Obviously the phone provides higher income for PTL.

[jonc] 19/4/2007 09:57

Well my view is that they have raised outgoing call charges to force the issue.

A contract IS a contract whatever you say.

[nmf777] 19/4/2007 09:52

I think people may be paying to much attention to legal/contractual details here. the way I see it, mobile phones are so common and so widely used that in the absence of some compelling reason not to use them (e.g. safety), then the hopsital's 'customers' will simply demand the right to use them. if that presents the hospital in question with some legal difficulty, they will have to sort it. In 'sorting it' I don't expect a particularly favourable outcome for PTL - I can see the arguments even now ...... "these contracts were drawn up when the best available info pointed to safety issues. this is no longer the case blah blah blah". don't think PTL have the stomach (or the wallet) for all that stuff.

[jonc] 19/4/2007 08:58

jock,

Certain hospitals are "reviewing" whether or not to relax the rules. They need to check their contract with PTL before so doing.

Relaxing the rules will be a prima facie breach of contract.

[jockblue] 19/4/2007 08:54

JayWood - I get the point, but it's not the NHS that is likely to break the rules, but the "customers" and visitors to their premises.....difficult to prove that the NHS has deliberately allowed this to happen as opposed to merely not being able to police it effectively.

[jaywood] 19/4/2007 07:44

Wrong Scribbler - Right JonC

The company I worked for had exclusive contracts with NHS and we could kick up if we found a rivals product in the place

[jonc] 19/4/2007 07:06

Signing an exclusive contract with a supplier is not a restraint of trade. It is fact standard commercial practice.

For a better analogy try setting up a burger bar in the car park of a motorway service station and see how long you last.

[scribbler101] 19/4/2007 00:31

"Is it legally acceptable for hospitals to ban use of some electronic gadgets?"

For good reason; such as safety; YES.

To give preference to one supplier of telephone services over another - NO.

And (jailbird) recent reports say mobiles do NOT interfere with equipment.

To put this in context; if Patientline has a sister company; hotelguestline; it would obviuosly be a restraint of trade for them to ban you from using a mobile in a hotel room.

[devbod] 18/4/2007 16:31

> I don't see anyone challenging this in law

Not yet. The only ones who might do so are PTL or one of their competitors and it has to be a last resort, not good business to prosecute your customers. The fact that you are aware that prohibited use of mobiles is not enforced only confirms that knowledge of the breach of contract is widespread. The point about the employees is that it would be easy for PTL to find hospital staff willing to say so in court.

> A contractual agreement to ban mobile use is probably an illegal
> restraint on trade so unenforcible anyway

An interesting point and possibly correct. Is it legally acceptable for hospitals to ban use of some electronic gadgets? My guess would be yes but wouldnt like the fate of my company to hang on it. All comes down to the 'remedies' in the contract, hopefully from PTLs perspective this is covered.

[scribbler101] 18/4/2007 14:23

A contractual agreement to ban mobile use is probably an illegal restraint on trade so unenforcible anyway.

[nmf777] 18/4/2007 14:13

disagree devbod. in my local hospital mobile use is officially prohibited, but staff on the ground actually allow them to be used quite freely. this has been the case for some time and I don't see anyone challenging this in law. I really don't know what you mean by "there are always enough disgruntled employees in such a large organisation to discourage any unwritten policy changes". That might be the case where unwritten policy changes are adversely affecting the employees, but the business of giving tacit approval for mobile use is actually the opposite of this - it actually helps the employees as they aren't constantly farting around directing people on how to use and pay for the PTL kit. It also makes everyone feel better as the whole PTL thing is so widely disliked that anything that deprives them of business is seen as a bonus.

[devbod] 18/4/2007 13:57

The NHS is a massive employer and there are always enough disgruntled employees in such a large organisation to discourage any unwritten policy changes. Regardless, such relaxing of rules would become 'common knowledge'/newsworthy quite quickly and would be deemed a breach of contract in law.

> Cant see PTL having the money to go through with that somehow.

There would be no option. PTL's survival and 20m ish a year net cash inflow depends on it. Neither PTL or their bankers would give up on all that and forgive such a clear breach of contract.