Excel Parking ticket for disabled bay -can I get my money back?

taffy056

Yes cases like yours should open the floodgates to other people doing the same, one success can lead on to others. I wish you success in this, and us on here will gladly offer any assisstance we can.

Coupon-mad

Nicola, please re-read what I said about the Equality Act 2010, I used to be a disability advice manager so I have some relevant background experience. There is no 'DDA' any more, the Equality Act is the - newer, shinier and better - overarching legislation they have breached and it gives you the added option of suing for harassment (which the DDA did not include IIRC).

To appear well informed, please stop talking about the 'DDA' when you phone/write.

Also I am really not convinced at all that it's not Sainsbury's that should be in the frame here. I believe Supermarkets rarely 'own' their car parks, they most often seem to rent them, or lease them from the local authority. So I wasn't expecting that they owned this land - I WAS expecting that they possibly contracted the PPC though. Sainsburys commonly contract a PPC to 'police' their 'disabled bays' so I do still suspect their hand in this.

I suppose it may be different here as there's more than one shop on site but don't count on it. You could always name several companies as responsible, plus the PPC, send NBA's to all of them - and let the innocent ones prove their innocence.

robredz

I'm with Coupon-mad here, DDA is demised defunct, as dead as the Norwegian Blue parrot nailed to the perch. I used the Equalities Act to resolve an issue with non use of Blue badge on private land, and if they persist they are guilty of Direct discrimination, AND also possibly Criminal Harassment, but Sainsbury's aren't the target here, you need to find out who is the site Managing Agent, it will be someone like Savills, or another corporate property company.

They are who you sue, for failure of their contractor, to make the reasonable adjustment of permitting you to park, as Blue Badge is irrelevant on private land THE PPC, for whom they are 100 liable as they are acting as THEIR agent, vicarious liability you see, of the joint and several variety. The PPC collects CCJ's like confetti, the Managing Agent won't be so happy to get one, with the ultimate threat of a bailiff or HCEO going in to snatch the office furniture.

They cannot use a defence of they didn't know, as your futile appeal letter informed them you were covered by the provisions in the EA 2010, so as soon as they started demanding payment after their rejection of your appeal, they are guilty. They have effectively hung themselves out to dry.

treeboa

personally i would be not worried that using the media could lose you compensation, as long as you get the `fine` and any costs back, the bigger picture is the scam gets broadcast via the media and people that to date may be as yet blissfully unaware of the scam and never caught by it yet, or recently caught by it suddenly become aware and realise they are not obliged to pay anything, thats going to put more of a dent in the scammers pockets than a small compensation claim, i have a few fliers in my glovebox pointing to this forum and the reason why, after seeing a few people get the scam posted on thier screens i have been putting the flier were the driver returning to thier vehicle can see it or if i see the driver been handing them the flier, its chicken feed to the damage you can do to the pond life, if you do get offered an out of court settlement make sure it does not also come with a none disclosure agreement before you accept it

JimmyTheWig

Honest question rather than making a point...

If it went to court, could the other side demonstrate that the OP didn't need the reasonable adjustment here? If the OP is able to push themselves quite far, might they be able to claim that they haven't breached the Equalities Act (and, in fact, were following the act by keeping the space free for someone who did need a reasonable adjustment)?

I'm not saying that the OP should have got a ticket. They shouldn't have. I'm not saying that they shouldn't push for a refund. They should do. But are we 100% sure about the outcome if it went to court? Could be costly for the OP if the other side come up with something that we hadn't thought about.

give_them_FA

Don't think so, Jimmy. The fact she has a disabled tax disc would create the presumption she was entitled to use a disabled space.

I can see where you are coming from, but it is perfectly plain they are in the wrong, it isn't going to go to the House of Lords, the only question will be how much they will settle it for.

Nothing wrong with stating the facts to the press, this isn't a case that would be tried by a jury; but of course there shouldn't be any publicity after the proceedings are issued.

Coupon-mad

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Honest question rather than making a point...

If it went to court, could the other side demonstrate that the OP didn't need the reasonable adjustment here? If the OP is able to push themselves quite far, might they be able to claim that they haven't breached the Equalities Act (and, in fact, were following the act by keeping the space free for someone who did need a reasonable adjustment)?

It's a good question and would certainly be valid if the OP had a disability which was covered by the Act but which would not have caused her to need to use a disabled bay. An easy example I often cite is stammering (clearly covered by the law as a disability, but a parking bay reasonable adjustment would obviously not be needed!).

But not in this case, absolutely not.

A service provider can only 'get away with' not providing a reasonable adjustment if they can show that their actions were (that word again) 'reasonable'. No judge is going to think it's reasonable to harass a genuine, long-term disabled person who was seen to be in a wheelchair and who has also written to the company to explain that she is disabled.

This case is cut and dried IMHO, disability discrimination including harassment, causing distress and financial loss to the OP.

vax2002

Can I ask that you contact your local newspaper about this, they will be all over it.

taffy056

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Honest question rather than making a point...

If it went to court, could the other side demonstrate that the OP didn't need the reasonable adjustment here? If the OP is able to push themselves quite far, might they be able to claim that they haven't breached the Equalities Act (and, in fact, were following the act by keeping the space free for someone who did need a reasonable adjustment)?

I'm not saying that the OP should have got a ticket. They shouldn't have. I'm not saying that they shouldn't push for a refund. They should do. But are we 100% sure about the outcome if it went to court? Could be costly for the OP if the other side come up with something that we hadn't thought about.

As coupon said a very good question, but as the OP was in a wheelchair and has a disabled tax disc , plus she has told them that she is disabled, so obviously a reasonable adjustment has not been made. I really hope the OP takes this further as she has been discriminated against.