UK CPS Ltd

pauletruth

please don't ignore.

your daughter has a disability that falls within the equalities act.

if they chase you after they know a disabled person was using the car they are then breaching the act. send a letter before action to the retail managering agents registered address and the parking shark. demand a number say 2-4 times there invoice paid to a charity of your choice or you will take them to court.

get hard and if needs be take them to court. they could be hurting for a lot more. us disabled need to stand up for ourselves.

charlotte66

Just to update, this morning I received the following letter regarding my appeal. (I have replaced their name with 'We')

REASON FOR ISSUE: On a yellow box section.

We can only address the factual issues of where and how you parked. We will not enter into discussions about the legality of parking on private land or of the landowners right to impose parking conditions on their property. As your appeal has now been rejected for the reasons stated, you may now

1. Pay the parking charge notice within 14 days. Please note that after this time any discounted rate, which may have existed, will not be applicable and the Parking Charge Notice will be £100.

2. Make an appeal to POPLA, The Independent Appeals Service by completing the form or by making your appeal online. If you opt to pay the parking charge you will be unable to appeal to POPLA.

3. If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with Court action against you. Your unique 10 digit reference is...

We provide national parking solutions. We are DVLA and Data Protection registered; SIA approved and members of the Bristish Association (BPA).

What a fuss!

I think the wording implies they enclosed a POPLA form but they didn't. I'll have a look at the POPLA application online and hope it's not too complicated.
Thanks again for the support and advice that I can now refer back to when I fill in the form.

Stroma

Look for a 10 digit code on your letter, it should be there somewhere, they probably don't give an explanation of it. If you are 100% sure it's not there come back for further advice.

In regards to popla, don't appeal by yourself, you need help to do this as you need to take apart their whole basis of ticketing, popla will not take mitigation only (what happened) as a reason to cancel

charlotte66

The code is included in the letter but I didn't want to be identified by it on the forum.

I'm out for the day and will probably spend most of the time wondering what to say in the appeal. Any suggestions would be very much appreciated.

Coupon-mad

charlotte66 wrote: »

The code is included in the letter but I didn't want to be identified by it on the forum.

I'm out for the day and will probably spend most of the time wondering what to say in the appeal. Any suggestions would be very much appreciated.

Why?

Did you forget about my post #7 where I gave you a POPLA appeal template suited to your case? I also gave you a complaint template for the Retail Park!

Do a mixture of this POPLA appeal which I wrote based on my knowledge of the Equality Act 2010, from previous jobs (post #2):

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=79656

and this which caused UKCPS to give up:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=79697&st=0


HTH and let's see your draft before you send it off. And also send off that complaint to the Retail Park Managing Agents (usually easily found on Google).

charlotte66

[FONT=&quot]Coupon-mad, thank you for the links. Your generosity of spirit, time given and expert advice shared, is much appreciated.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I am having trouble posting your link with my POPLA appeal on here. I am told as a new user I cannot post links. However I have enclosed it in my appeal.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Dear POPLA adjudicator,

POPLA appeal re UKCPS ticket number ......[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Ref. No. .......[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

I am writing to appeal against a parking ticket issued when I parked in a Disabled space at Mersey Retail Park. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]SUMMARY OF THE INCIDENT[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
The situation is that I was taking my daughter shopping in Mersey Retail Park. This particular car park offers almost 2,000 free parking spaces and makes for a nice and relaxed atmosphere with plenty of room for everybody. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]My daughter is 48 years-old and suffers from a severe learning disability, cerebral palsy and epilepsy. It was an extremely hot day so I parked in the shade of the Retail Park where there is no through road. The epilepsy can be triggered by excess heat so I was eager to assist her out of the car and into her wheelchair. This particular parking bay also meant that not much traffic would pass, allowing me easy access to lift her wheelchair out of the boot. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]An hour later I returned the car to find a ticket on the windscreen demanding £60 for parking in a disabled bay. Although a Blue Badge is not legally relevant or required in private car parks (and indeed there was no sign in the bay requesting it to be displayed) I enclosed a copy of it by special delivery to UKCPS expecting them to cancel the charge, so the Operator certainly 'knew or should have known' that we had undeniably established the lawful need to use that bay.

However they have rejected the appeal and in doing so UKPC have breached UK disability law. This 'charge' cannot be upheld by POPLA as it breaches the applicable primary law.

[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

Hope you haven't actually sent it yet as we feel that POPLA appeals should have many more points than that. Too easy for UKCPS to rebut if it's short.

The linked examples I gave you had lots of points, all relevant, you just need to copy & paste them into your appeal (you can't link a non-related appeal wording to POPLA, not sure what you mean, you need it in your letter and your letter should be long).

charlotte66

Sorry, my silly fault for not explaining correctly.
I opened the POPLA template, adapted and added it to the above but I was not allowed to post the complete piece on this forum. I have removed the two links and will try again.


[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Dear POPLA adjudicator,

POPLA appeal re UKCPS ticket number ......[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Ref. No. .......[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

I am writing to appeal against a parking ticket issued when I parked in a Disabled space at Mersey Retail Park. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]SUMMARY OF THE INCIDENT[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
The situation is that I was taking my daughter shopping in Mersey Retail Park. This particular car park offers almost 2,000 free parking spaces and makes for a nice and relaxed atmosphere with plenty of room for everybody. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]My daughter is 48 years-old and suffers from a severe learning disability, cerebral palsy and epilepsy. It was an extremely hot day so I parked in the shade of the Retail Park where there is no through road. The epilepsy can be triggered by excess heat so I was eager to assist her out of the car and into her wheelchair. This particular parking bay also meant that not much traffic would pass, allowing me easy access to lift her wheelchair out of the boot. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]An hour later I returned the car to find a ticket on the windscreen demanding £60 for parking in a disabled bay. Although a Blue Badge is not legally relevant or required in private car parks (and indeed there was no sign in the bay requesting it to be displayed) I enclosed a copy of it by special delivery to UKCPS expecting them to cancel the charge, so the Operator certainly 'knew or should have known' that we had undeniably established the lawful need to use that bay.

However they have rejected the appeal and in doing so UKPC have breached UK disability law. This 'charge' cannot be upheld by POPLA as it breaches the applicable primary law.


EQUALITY ACT 2010 - BREACH OF DISABILITY LAW OCCURRED AS SOON AS THE OPERATOR KNEW ABOUT THE DISABILITY
The Operator is relying on unenforceable terms and conditions on a sign in this car park, which purport to create an inflexible contractual term 'requiring' disabled people to display a Council (on-street only) Blue Badge in order to use a private disabled bay. UKPC seems to be under the erroneous impression that they can 'charge' a disabled person who correctly and legally uses a disabled bay in good faith, just because they may have fallen foul of this arbitrary and unjustified 'requirement'.

In fact, the Blue Badge scheme does not even lawfully apply in private car parks - as is shown in the Blue Badge booklet and on the Government website. Companies such as UKPC may well mention the Badge on their signs but they cannot rely on it in isolation as the only indicator of disability need. The Equality Act 2010 (the Act) takes precedence over any 'contractual' terms & conditions and I specifically draw this current disability law to the attention of the POPLA adjudicators.

It is a fact that my relative has 'Protected Characteristics' under the Act which extends to him the unequivocal right to use any 'reasonable adjustment' provided by any landholder/client/operator when visiting a customer-facing environment, including car parks. In short, the Act says that protected people and their carers can legally use any disability provision applicable to them, unharassed, and in the case of a disabled bay this would be with or without a Blue Badge (the Act has nothing to say about permits and badges of course because the legal right is established by need).

Any term that UKPC may have on their signs to the effect 'Blue Badges only' is null and void if the effect is to deny a disabled person the statutory right to use a reasonable adjustment without penalty.

This continued attempt to pursue this 'charge' under these circumstances is unlawful harassment of, and direct discrimination against, a known disabled person who has clearly and reasonably established to UKPC that they are protected by the Equality Act 2010.

UKPC are guilty of direct discrimination - as defined in the Act - which can be shown by comparing the core terms that UKPC apply to visitors using broadly similar (in terms of enhanced position and design) 'Parent and Child' Bays in car parks where they operate, with the comparatively onerous terms imposed on disabled people trying to use disabled bays. In the case of the former bays, drivers can simply park in the bays if they have a child with them. No permit or badge is needed, no proof that they are a 'parent' is needed at all. Able-bodied visitors using these bays are not charged as long as the operator can see some (undefined) evidence of a child being with the driver. Even just the fact it is a family-sized car with car seats is sufficient to allow those bays to be used unharassed - certainly there is no requirement for any permit or badge to be displayed.

Therefore, UKPC are guilty of direct discrimination against legally-protected disabled people using the disabled bays, because they are treated less favourably than other visitors using comparable bays.

UKPC has an ongoing legal duty to observe and comply with the Act and to make regular operational adjustments to identify, consider and avoid any potential adverse repercussions affecting disabled people's legal rights. UKPC has failed in their legal duty and is guilty of discrimination against my relative from the moment that they 'knew or should have known' about the disability (i.e. if not observed from the disabled tax disc or by the employee seeing my daughter in person that day, then they certainly knew when they received the appeal). As explained in the Equality Act, the moment of 'knowledge of disability' is the point when potential discrimination can occur.

In this case, direct discrimination against my relative, personally, can be demonstrated at the point when UKPC refused the appeal enclosing the Blue Badge. But the overarching breach - potentially affecting all disabled visitors - is that UKPC and their client in this car park have failed at the outset to make this particular 'reasonable adjustment' provision fully accessible to those who lawfully qualify to use it (Blue Badge or not). POPLA adjudicators should note that disabled bays provided by Councils on-street - relying on a statutory Blue Badge scheme - are not directly comparable with disabled bays provided on private land.



OTHER POINTS AGAINST AND IN RELATION TO THIS CHARGE (but I require the above to be considered by POPLA as my main and primary point)


CONTRACT WITH THE LANDOWNER - NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE AND NO LEGAL STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE TICKETS
UKPC do not own this car park and are acting merely as agents for the owner/occupier. In their Notices and in the rejection letter, UKPC has not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from the driver, since they do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. I do not believe that the Operator has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed to allege a breach of contract (as evidenced in the Higher Court findings in VCS v HMRC 2012). I would require POPLA to check whether UKPC have provided a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed & dated site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier (not just a signed slip of paper saying it exists) and check that it specifically enables this Operator to pursue parking charges in the courts, and whether that contract is compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice.


NO BREACH OF CONTRACT AND NO GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS
UKPC are clearly attempting to enforce this charge under paragraph B 19.5 of the BPA Code of Practice and must be required to validate this argument by providing POPLA with a detailed financial appraisal which evidences the genuine pre-estimated amount of loss or damages in this particular car park for this particular 'contravention'. Since my relative paid the amount applicable to park - no disabled concession - there can have been no loss arising from this incident. Neither can UKPC lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs in any 'loss' claimed. I contend there can be no loss shown whatsoever; no pre-estimate (prior to starting to 'charge for breaches' at this site) has been prepared or considered in advance. No claim for loss for a 'breach of terms' can possibly apply to a disabled driver using a 'reasonable adjustment' provision which is directly already offered by the owner/occupier in accordance with the Act, and not somehow offered again - on more restrictive terms - by UKPC.


UNLAWFUL PENALTY CHARGE
Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged, this 'charge' can only be an unlawful attempt at dressing up a penalty to impersonate a parking ticket, as was found in the case of Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008) also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011) and in Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011). This transparently punitive charge by UKPC is therefore unenforceable in law.



SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
I ask that this appeal be allowed and respectfully request POPLA consider the disability protection aspects of the Equality Act 2010 in all future cases whether or not the appellant knows to raise it as an issue, as I have done here. A disabled person does not have to raise the Equality Act by name to be protected by its provisions and POPLA has stated that it will consider all applicable laws when making their decisions. The Act is primary disability legislation which renders any parking contract term null and void if the effect is to deny a protected motorist or passenger their rights (whether it be the right to use a disabled bay unharassed or the right to be allowed an extension on any arbitrary time limit for their visit). If I may, I request that this issue is now raised with the Tribunal Manager and the BPA and DVLA and is considered for inclusion in the POPLA Annual Report and in training of adjudicators, because when researching this appeal I found that on at least one occasion recently (Excel v Greenwood) a POPLA adjudicator has failed to consider the Act - which is unlawful in any private parking case involving a need arising from a person's 'protected characteristics'.

POPLA must surely now order the Operator to cancel this fake PCN. I believe that failure to do so could even leave POPLA exposed to a claim for disability discrimination because the facts of this case and the effect of the Act is unequivocal.


Signed:

Date[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

Just having a quick look, noticed you have left a lot of UKPC rather than UKCPS (so you need to change them all)!

And see my recent comments in this thread where I have encouraged a poster to add in lots of legal stuff against the charge to show it's a penalty (adds more to your heading 'UNLAWFUL PENALTY CHARGE' and works well for POPLA IMHO because the decisions are made by law graduates who - we hope - will lap up the case law:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4632455

And just a heads-up not to try to fit it all into the appeal box online for POPLA as a long appeal won't fit. Attach it as a PDF instead once you are ready.

charlotte66

Oops, will correct to UKCPS.

Do I need to add the piece below to 'UNLAWFUL PENALTY CHARGE'? I couldn't find anything on the link. I probably need to start again in the morning.

[FONT=&quot]"I do appreciate that the 'requirement' to show a Blue Badge may indeed have been added as a result of an ill-conceived attempt to comply with the Act; indeed it appears to be based on private parking industry-wide misconceptions about disability law. And POPLA may like to take note that UKPC's Disabled Bay Parking Policy on their website used to be compliant with disability law."

Thanks again for all your help and advice - couldn't have done it without the help of this forum.
[/FONT]