Town and City Parking yet again...

Sirdan

thetriggerhappypwner wrote: »

Well here are the scanned images as promised... IMAGE 1 IMAGE 2 IMAGE 3 IMAGE 4 You might notice that they get more and more aggressive as you go through the letters.

Questions for the OP , I notice in image 1 the offence is described as "disabled bay"

Were you in a disabled bay and why ?
If so why do Town & City think you should not have been ?

mcjordi

ooh i havent had that style of ticket before.. need to get one to add to the collection now

dont worry about them mate.. they are templates.. i think you have now recieved the last letter in the chain--- although correct me if im wrong.. been sometime since ive had a t+c ticket.. my local ppc woman wont give me anymore its not fair :P

mcjordi

Sirdan wrote: »

Questions for the OP , I notice in image 1 the offence is described as "disabled bay"

Were you in a disabled bay and why ?
If so why do Town & City think you should not have been ?

OP you dont have to answer this...

nothing to do with anyone as to why the OP was in a disabled bay....

Sirdan

mcjordi wrote: »

OP you dont have to answer this...

nothing to do with anyone as to why the OP was in a disabled bay....

Of course they don't have to answer but why shouldn't they ?

No one here supports PPCs but there again most of us here do not condone parking in a disabled bay when you don't have any genuine need !

I think whether they choose to answer or not should be the OP's choice, what has it to do with you exactly ..they are an adult surely they can make their own mind up ??

mcjordi

Disabled bay are in a supermarket to comply with the discrimination laws.. theres no obligation to display a blue badge..

OP just ignore the chain mail or file it in the bin/recycling..

Sirdan

mcjordi wrote: »

Disabled bay are in a supermarket to comply with the discrimination laws.. theres no obligation to display a blue badge..

OP just ignore the chain mail or file it in the bin/recycling..

I'm well aware of that.

I still believe that anyone who needlessly parks in a disabled bay should be condemned as much as any PPC.
(For clarity I am NOT saying that is what this OP has done).

Drivers who take the p*** by needlessly parking in disabled bays only strenghthen the PPCs position when they lobby parliament.
If the PPC go to parliament and say" there are people continually taking the "p" by parking in disabled bays when they don't need to ..surely this is wrong ..but as the law stands we can n ot really do anything about it..."
I would wager that most parliamentarians would agree that it is wrong for people to do that and it is also wrong that nothing can be done about it ..."we need to change the law " they will say to the PPCs .

And we know what happens next we end up with "Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms bill" which broadly speaking if enacted in it's current format will allow for penalties in parking contracts AND make the registered keeper liable for the charge even if they were not driving.

Quite simply those who blatantly take the "p" with their parking are only helping the PPCs get the law changed so they have some actual powers whereas currently they don't . (Even though they seem to think they do !!)


The blue badge debate has rumbled on and on here, but it may as well be the "red car" debate.

Surely the landowner can put terms in the contract as they see fit .

i.e. Free parking in these spaces for red cars ..all other cars agree to pay the parking charge of £60.

Why can't they do this and if they can then they can do the same for blue badges ,can't they ?

Where it gets complicated is that by restricting all disabled spaces to blue badge holders they may well breach the Equality Act because you can be defined as disabled under that Act but still not qualify for a blue badge so the landowner would be obliged to have non-blue badge holder disabled spaces as welll...which a minority of people will feel free to abuse ...

Coupon-mad

Basically, yes, a landowner can state a restriction on a sign and call it a contract. And a judge might find that contract to be enforceable.

But equally, if a victim was entitled to park there due to a longterm disability then they can take the PPC and the landowner/retailer to Court under the Equality Act and claim a lot more money back for distress and harassment.

Certainly IMHO this would apply in the case of the Exeter disabled person who was forced to pay Hasbeen at UKCPS a few hundred recently when a judge actually saw the contract as valid.

I do hope that person is planning a breach of Equality Act case, would LOVE to hear the outcome in due course.

thetriggerhappypwner

No I was not in DB at all, I took a photo of where my vehicle was parked and there is nothing that says it was a DB anywhere for well over 20 or 30 feet.

Coupon-mad

thetriggerhappypwner wrote: »

No I was not in DB at all, I took a photo of where my vehicle was parked and there is nothing that says it was a DB anywhere for well over 20 or 30 feet.

So maybe now's the time for those complaint letters I mentioned yesterday.

You already know to ignore the PPC but it would be great to cause them grief wouldn't it?!

thetriggerhappypwner

Possibly, but whats the point in that, they will only twist and distort my words to their advantage like they did on the phone a few weeks back. I demanded proof of my vehicle being "parked in a disabled bay" which should have been a photograph, which was not provided this they have no proof. I however have proof to the contrary showing my vehicle parked in a NON-DISABLED BAY!