UKPC charge, embarrassed

Coupon-mad

Irnbru wrote: »

Not paid anything at all. Dont want to really.

Have you checked where your letter is already posted on the link given by taffy?

All the letter-chains are already there and you should be at the stage of just laughing at them and playing PPC snap with each matching letter by now!

Irnbru_3

Yes, its there. Commencing laughing stage.

FATBALLZ

Irnbru wrote: »

Got a letter today saying my appeal had failed basically, as I was parked in a disabled bay with no badge showing, making me feel bad as there are 8.5 million disabled people in this country etc, and have photo evidence of the vehicle (not included), shall I ignore it or do they have a case in the small claims regarding disability bays?

Well if it makes you feel better, there is no way there are 8.5 million disabled people in the country (that would be 1 in 7 people).

Coupon-mad

FATBALLZ wrote: »

Well if it makes you feel better, there is no way there are 8.5 million disabled people in the country (that would be 1 in 7 people).

Hmmm...could be if you count all elderly infirm (the majority of the very elderly), all those with hearing/sight/speech impairment, all with any mental illness, all with any chronic conditions that affect daily life, such as any cancer, diabetes, ME, Crohn's disease, IBS, heart/lung or other organ problems, epilepsy, asthma, etc. Plus those with any mobility issue, plus back injury/pain which is a very common chronic condition, neuralgia, arthritis, rheumatism, eczema and other chronic skin conditions...

You'd be surprised - all of those conditions could be counted as 'disabled' if you were looking at the strict definition under disability laws.

All count as protected disabled under the terms of the Equality Act 2010 although not all would need or want to use a disabled bay of course! For example, someone with a stammer would not need to use a special parking bay but could be counted in any figures of protected disability under the Act if you were looking at a wide-ranging area of disability - such as for employment law purposes.

Anyhoo, the main point for this forum is that Blue Badge/walking aid doesn't come into the equation on private land - it's about need and eligibility when using a private 'disabled bay'. Nothing else - and the disability may not be visible (cancer or severe asthma for instance).

taffy056

FATBALLZ wrote: »

Well if it makes you feel better, there is no way there are 8.5 million disabled people in the country (that would be 1 in 7 people).

Actually the figure is higher according to this link

http://www.dlf.org.uk/content/key-facts

hammer68

good morning all

i was issued with a charge by ukpc in November for the offence of leaving a retail site. After mistakenly contacting them to tell them to stick their charge through no evidence i have had the appeal letter dismissed the second reminder letter( in beg red ink) and am now waithing for my debt recovery letter (excitedly) even though its nearly a week late as my 14 days from the final reminder has now lapsed.their evidence:rotfl:is a picture of my car parked in a parking bay with a ticket on it, as they cannot take pictures of anyone due to the human righs act i think.so if any one does have a ticket please take the advice of every one on here like i have, it does get a bit nervy when courts and bailiffs are mentioned but just read through the threads and advice.

question- when their :rotfl:evidence is only a pic of a car windsreen on their paperwork (which may i say never has any contact name) why does it never show the registration of the offending vehicle???

HO87

hammer68 wrote: »

good morning all

i was issued with a charge by ukpc in November for the offence of leaving a retail site. After mistakenly contacting them to tell them to stick their charge through no evidence i have had the appeal letter dismissed the second reminder letter( in beg red ink) and am now waithing for my debt recovery letter (excitedly) even though its nearly a week late as my 14 days from the final reminder has now lapsed.their evidence:rotfl:is a picture of my car parked in a parking bay with a ticket on it, as they cannot take pictures of anyone due to the human righs act i think.so if any one does have a ticket please take the advice of every one on here like i have, it does get a bit nervy when courts and bailiffs are mentioned but just read through the threads and advice.

question- when their :rotfl:evidence is only a pic of a car windsreen on their paperwork (which may i say never has any contact name) why does it never show the registration of the offending vehicle???

You've got it! Their photographs are self-serving and are being used to mimic local authority tickets and for no other reason that I can see. :T

Sirdan

cannot take pictures of anyone due to the human righs act i think.

You think wrong, in a public place you have no "right" to expect such a degree of privacy , so in theory they could take your pic if they chose to.

robredz

Sirdan wrote: »

You think wrong, in a public place you have no "right" to expect such a degree of privacy , so in theory they could take your pic if they chose to.

Quite right Sirdan, or the MEt wouldn't have paid compensation to the young photographer they roughed up when the said it was illegal to take photos of a parade, or all the photographers who have been hassled illegaly by various security muppets, plod, and PCSOs whilst taking photos in the street, check out here for info on issues

http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-and-the-law.html

However as a Shopping mall or precinct is Private Land, I think you may need permission to take a photo, but some muppets take it to extremes where the security guard got uppity with the father who was photographing his OWN child on a ride, but somewhere on some notice you are warned that CCTV is in operation.

Sirdan

robredz wrote: »

Quite right Sirdan, or the MEt wouldn't have paid compensation to the young photographer they roughed up when the said it was illegal to take photos of a parade, or all the photographers who have been hassled illegaly by various security muppets, plod, and PCSOs whilst taking photos in the street, check out here for info on issues

http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-and-the-law.html

However as a Shopping mall or precinct is Private Land, I think you may need permission to take a photo, but some muppets take it to extremes where the security guard got uppity with the father who was photographing his OWN child on a ride, but somewhere on some notice you are warned that CCTV is in operation.

Indeed you may need permission from the private land "owner/operator/occupier" however if such private land is defined as a public place i.e. a place to which the public are granted access (even if conditionally i.e by payment) then you would not be breaching the human rights of any person you took a photo of , you would merely be breaking the rules of the owner/operator/occupier.

The Human Rights Act legislates for Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) , the right to "respect for private and family life" ...this does not extend to being photographed in a public place.