Parking Charge, nahh thanks!

ppc_guy

Vax, Using your logic nothing exists in private car parks. The spaces are merely an arrangement of lines, the speed bumps are poorly surfaced hard standings.

Also im sure it has been proven somewhere that simply painting a space for disabled use is not adequate adjustments if the provider knowing allows others to use the area.

give_them_FA

Yes, you could say that the present, highly unsatisfactory, situation arises because there is a total vacuum of any regulation of private car parks generally. And then the passing of well-intentioned but ill-thought-out legislation can complicate the problem further.

Trebor16

Was it a free car park?

Coupon-mad

ppc_guy wrote: »

Vax, Using your logic nothing exists in private car parks. The spaces are merely an arrangement of lines, the speed bumps are poorly surfaced hard standings.

Yep, that's about it. It's not as if PPCs generally have anything to do with building/buying the car park, getting planning permission, maintaining, insuring, cleaning or in any way doing anything remotely useful in the car park. Certainly not 'parking management' of course and definitely nothing that is going to help the occupying service/retailer's customer satisfaction!

ppc_guy wrote: »

Also im sure it has been proven somewhere that simply painting a space for disabled use is not adequate adjustments if the provider knowing allows others to use the area.

You are right, part of providing a reasonable adjustment is ensuring that, on a long term basis under some level of reasonable review, it is made available to those who rightfully need it, and from time to time, assessing whether the provision continues to meet the need.

E.g. if a hospital's disabled bays are always full then my immediate first thought would be that the hospital needs to seriously consider providing more. Of course it is possible that there could be some disabled bay 'abuse' but because that does NOT just mean looking for a Blue Badge, the only way to properly check that would be to have a staff member there reminding approaching drivers that it's for people who have a long-term disability. Not workable and as a disability may not be immediately obvious, not actually a solution - so the answer is simple. Provide enough bays in the first place and clear signs which remind drivers who the spaces are reserved for, make occasional spot checks/surveys perhaps and look at and act upon feedback from your disabled service users.

And it is good practice for a service provider to get feedback from customers and with reference to disabled people that would include questions about the adjustments made and whether they use them or find any difficulties in accessing them.

All well and good. If a service provider could show they did take reasonable steps to check, assess and if possible/needed, improve the provision then they would not be breaching the Equality Act regarding disability IMHO, even if a disabled person tried to sue them upon finding the bays full one day.

But as you and I know, most PPCs do not have a clue what 'those who rightfully need it' actually means when it comes to disabled bay provision. There is nothing about Blue Badges in the Equality Act section about reasonable adjustments, of course not because it's not just about restricting disabled bays to BB holders or those with a noticeable mobility problem, any more than providing larger-font information leaflets can be restricted to people with a particular sight impairment only!

Imagine if a service-provider said to a sight-impaired person, no you can't have a larger-font version of this leaflet because it's only for people with Macular Degeneration (or another specific impairment). They'd soon be sued or outed in the press! But with the disabled bay issue they get away with it because plenty of people believe you have to have a Blue Badge...because the PPCs pretend you do as part of their impersonation of Council authority and because the press have swallowed and spew out this warped version of the situation too.

Half_way

ppc_guy wrote: »

Vax, Using your logic nothing exists in private car parks. The spaces are merely an arrangement of lines, the speed bumps are poorly surfaced hard standings.

Also im sure it has been proven somewhere that simply painting a space for disabled use is not adequate adjustments if the provider knowing allows others to use the area.

going by your username, and a quick guess, do you work for a private parking company?

I have worked in car parks in the past, and i probably will again in the future. Usualy for events such as shows, exhibitions and concerts, as a volunteer rasing money for local charitys. The car parks have generated money in one of two ways - pay on entry, or through a contribution from the event organisers not by fleecing those who your supposed to be helping with unhelpful tickets and unreasonable fees.

White lines ( where available) are exactly what you say, an arangement of lines used to guide people to where they should park, its not the end of the world if someone parks slightly out of a bay if your runing the car park well, this can be worked around.
If someone parks and causes an obstruction, or miss parks in a disabled space ( or any other reserved space, you can either ask them politely to move, or put a polite anouncement out over the PA system asking them to move the vehicle.

A ticket placed on a vehicle for something like obstruction does not magicly make the initial problem ( obstruction) go away, all ti does is create animosity between you ( the car park opperative/supervisor) the public, and the people who allow you to operate (such as the show/event organisers/those who own the land/car park)


one more thing, actions taken by idiotic PPCs who are only in the market to try and fleece people out of their money give those of us who try and run car parks for the benfit of the car aprk user a bad name, I had one case whith a driver and elderly lady with a wheelchair in the back requested a disabled space/area, but they were worried about having to pay another fine, like the one at the supermarket as they didnt have a blue badge !!

marky1989

can ANYONE please give me the link to the legislation which says about private parking companies not being allowed to issue fines

thanks! x

notts_phil

marky1989 wrote: »

can ANYONE please give me the link to the legislation which says about private parking companies not being allowed to issue fines

thanks! x

You need to look at legislation which allows certain bodies to fine people.
Don't your believe us or something.....?

marky1989

no i do, im just writing them a letter telling them to stop harassing me and with a copy of the leg ! x

give_them_FA

It has been established law (civil) for the best part of a century that private companies or individuals cannot issue fines. However, until recently a lot of PPCs tried to pretend their "fines" were genuine contractual obligations... not usually with any success when tested in Court.

However a recent decision- Vehicle Control Services v HM Revenue and Customs- (Upper Tribunal 2012) has established that PPCs cannot form contracts with drivers unless they own the land or have right of possession. Which, aside from National Car Parks, they never do.

So they are stuffed, at least for the time being, until they try and find some way around it.

S

marky1989

i am sending them a letter to tell them kindly to f off! what do you think heres a copy! xx

Dear UKPC.
I am writing this letter to your company to request that you stop harassing me. This is a formal warning, and my next step will be through my solicitor where I will be taking you to court though breach of The Administration of Justice Act 1970, The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999

In case you are unaware of the legislation, I have copied the Administration of Justice Act 1970, it is as follows. .

(1) A person/company commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under a contract.

(d) utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not.

(a) harasses the other with demands for payment which, in respect of their frequency or the manner or occasion of making any such demand, or of any threat or publicity by which any demand is accompanied, are calculated to subject him or members of his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;

The reason in which I believe you to be harassing me is that Only councils, the police, train operators and Transport for London can impose legally enforceable fines or penalties, your company is none of which.
You also fail to compy with the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, again the legislation is as follows:

Unfair Term
5.—(1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.
(2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.
(3) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract.
(4) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was.
(5) Schedule 2 to these Regulations contains an indicative and non-exhaustive list of the terms which may be regarded as unfair.
Also incase you are unware, a recent decision- Vehicle Control Services v HM Revenue and Customs- (Upper Tribunal 2012) has established that PPCs cannot form contracts with drivers unless they own the land or have right of possession. Which you do not.

I am telling you to stop harassing me by sending me unlawful letters demanding money, as you are distressing my partner immensely, as previously stated if you continue you will be quickly contacted by my solicitor. I am refusing to pay you in accordance with the above legislation.