POPLA- Result now in

BASFORDLAD

edward123 wrote: »

Would the PPC think to go straight to court now? No flaffing about with threats of DCs and discounts etc?

Well I've asked hasbeen to go ahead and to make the tea while he's at it:)

Stroma

Okay it's a pathetic decision and one we were expecting.

But for example if the OP is genuinely disabled, and forgot to display the badge or it slipped off the dash to the seat, which is not really an outlandish scenario. By ticketing the vehicle there is not reasonable adjustment if the badge can be seen, and not an adjustment if an appeal is turned down when a badge is produced.

So this goes to popla and its turned down on the same grounds, are popla then breaching the equality act by not recognising that a reasonable adjustment has not been made? Can they then be sued for this breach ?

edward123

BASFORDLAD wrote: »

Well I've asked hasbeen to go ahead and to make the tea while he's at it:)

This is going to be an interesting year!

BASFORDLAD

edward123 wrote: »

This is going to be an interesting year!

Hasbeen knows I won't stand for his rubbish. He may well put a claim in. Do I Care?. I hope he does and I hope he mentions his popla win.

He will be one very busy tea boy.

Oh the stuff sent to popla was sent without predujice and its not a legal body ans has no legal standing.

Stroma

That's good, and as you've fully used the appeals process he can't hide behind there not being any reply etc. can I ask did you say in your appeal that the blue badge scheme is not for private land ?

Guys_Dad

Stroma wrote: »

That's good, and as you've fully used the appeals process he can't hide behind there not being any reply etc. can I ask did you say in your appeal that the blue badge scheme is not for private land ?

Actually, that's not material here. The adjudicator has, effectively, said that the Operator has set out certain terms and conditions and that motorists are deemed to have accepted these when availing themselves of the parking facility.

The Operator, therefore, could designate some parking spaces for the use of, say, 2-door cars and if properly signed, then they could give you a valid ticket if you had a hatchback- at least according to the POPLA adjudicator. (The obvious example of this is the parent & child parking spaces.)

The PPC will use the provision of Disabled spaces for invalids and wicked old BASFORDLAD occupying one to gain the moral high ground and that they were trying to comply with Disability Discrimination by providing these spaces for people who had Blue Badges and that, genuinely your honour, we would cancel any ticket if the driver was clearly disabled. Yeah!

Duty of care for those less fortunate etc means that we have to have a deterrent to stop able-bodied drivers occupying those spaces that are wider and nearer the store specifically for wheelchair users and mobility challenged. Bet that is one of their arguments.

Stroma

But it's about getting the message across as I don't believe popla know what they are doing in regards to this. They ask to show disabled badges to park in disabled bays, that is actually a breach of the equality act 2010 which trumps any terms in a car park. You can be disabled without a disabled badge.

atilla

ripped_off_driver wrote: »

Abyssmal decision by someone who clearly does not have a clue. The dismissal of the VCS case was pure ignorance, the decision there ruled out the very concept of agency which she rested on as the foundation to her decision. She cannot have read the case to make such ignorant pronouncements. Or if she did she has clearly not understood it in any way. This does not read as a decision of someone who knows anything about the finer points of contract law.

Maybe not a surprise but what were we expecting for a BPA funded sham appeal body which only exists to give a figleaf of respectability to a scam industry.

Or, she's only read the BPA interpretation of it.
I can see HMRC, especially those wonderful souls in the VAT sector, paying even closer attention to this 'industry'.

atilla

Stroma wrote: »

But it's about getting the message across as I don't believe popla know what they are doing in regards to this. They ask to show disabled badges to park in disabled bays, that is actually a breach of the equality act 2010 which trumps any terms in a car park. You can be disabled without a disabled badge.

Exactly.
Some people refuse to apply for a blue badge, doesn't mean they don't therefore have a serious disability.
Nor is it incumbent on them to prove said disability to any scammer.

Aaron_Aadvark

Shona_Watson,_POPLA_ASSESSOR wrote: »

The Appellant further submits that under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, parking charges are unfair terms as the contracts are not individually negotiated and causes significant imbalance in the relations of the parties, to the motorist’s detriment. However as the terms and conditions of the contract are clearly displayed and the Appellant is therefore deemed to have been aware of the terms, if the Appellant did not agree he would have had the option to park elsewhere. Therefore the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 are not relevant on this occasion.

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 state

"Unfair Terms in Consumer ContractsRegulations 1999

UnfairTerms

5.—(1) A contractualterm which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if,contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance inthe parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to thedetriment of the consumer.

(2) A term shallalways be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has beendrafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influencethe substance of the term."

5.-(2) refers to terms being "individually negotiated" and not to being displayed as POPLA would like. However POPLA agrees that the term was not individually negotiated as (2) requires.

POPLA therefore falls back on 5.-(1) and is clearly suggesting that the term "You will pay £100 to park on a specific piece of tarmac rather than another specific piece of tarmac and in return we will provide you a piece of tarmac for a short time" is in "good faith" and is not a "significant imbalance of the parties’ rights and obligations."

Would a statutory court, as opposed to a non-statutory organisation conclude this. I doubt this.

ps, the software does not like !!!!ant meaning 'insignificant or unimportant'. Good job the car park was not in S!!!!horpe.