PCM Sheffield Meadowhall

Coupon-mad

You can openly show your draft POPLA appeal here if you want help to fine-tune it. The scumbags will see it soon enough when POPLA contact them - and if you've worded it like trubster's version you should be OK. You could try sending a pm to trubster on pepipoo to ask him if you could possibly be told his case number so you can cite the decision in his case as a compelling POPLA decision 'precedent' (same car park, same PPC, same alleged contravention and same sort of appeal wording).

Fantabulous

Reference xxxxxxx


Further to my appeal which was turned down by PCM Meadowhall I wish to make an appeal.
First of all, I was not improperly parked: I was parked in a bay marked with a wheelchair symbol, this normally means disabled persons. I was in the vehicle myself, on my own, having been registered disabled by DLA since September 2006. I have the Highest Rate of Mobility and the Lowest Rate of Care.

I pointed out in my appeal to PCM that I am the disabled driver of the vehicle, that the vehicle is a motability vehicle and that ‘disabled’ is clearly marked on the VED. VED attached.

The parking charge (ticket) exceeded the appropriate amount. This invoice is for an extortionate charge and bears no relation to any form of "Genuine losses" (IF the vehicle was parked improperly) - in a free car park, the loss would be £0.00.

I am not liable for the parking charge since no contravention occurred and PCM has no legal right to enforce tickets on Meadowhall's land.
As I have stated, I was parked in a disabled persons parking space, I put the Blue Badge on the dashboard but it had fallen off.

Following my appeal to PCM their response was that I am unable to prove disability after the event.

The VED on display clearly in the vehicle stated the vehicle is registered in the "Disabled" class of VED and is exempt from payment - This should have clearly let the person who issued the ticket know that there was a disabled person in the vehicle, before clamping was banned the vehicle would also be protected against any form of wheel clamping on private land as it is marked as a disabled persons vehicle.

The Equality Act 2010 requires "reasonable adjustments" to be made for those who meet the definition of disability that it contains.

The amount is dressed up as a parking charge but is an unlawful penalty, as is shown by PCM's own evidence calling it a 'fine'. No private company/individual can lawfully fine another.

The amount is an unlawful penalty also for the reason that the signs (as shown in PCM's own evidence) show that any 'charge' is for a BREACH OF CONTRACT 'failing to comply with t&c’s. The amount claimed is not covered by trespass (parking is allowed there and the passenger was disabled). Nor was it a contractual amount to pay in order to park there. PCM say it is a 'fine for a breach' so clearly it is not covered by contractual law and neither is it compliant with the BPA Code of Practice as it is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss (there can be no loss for a genuine disabled person using the reasonable adjustment they are entitled to under the Equality Act 2010).

The Contravention Code and the signage is unfair and unlawful in that the wording about 'Blue Badges/disabled badges' tries to create an alleged contractual term which breaches the Equality Act 2010. Like most private parking companies, PCM wrongly assume and suggest that disabled people have to have a Blue Badge to use this bay - this is simply not so. Ignorance of the law is no defence for creating an unfair and unlawful term - and a contractual term is null and void if it tries to circumvent the law of the land. Quite simply, a disabled bay on private land is there as a 'reasonable adjustment' for any disabled visitor who has need of that particular bay as a result of their 'protected characteristic'. I have shown PCM that my son has such a 'protected characteristic' and indeed the staff member issuing the ticket saw the note and the tax disc which was more than enough to advise of the need. PCM's staff should hae been adequately trained in the Equality Act 2010 and should know that a person can use such a bay unharassed if they meet the definition of disability within the Act. Indeed the Blue badge scheme is an irrelevant on-street Council scheme only and cannot lawfully be the only identifier of a disabled visitor's needs when in a private car park.

The fact that PCM are continuing to pursue this fake PCN when they 'knew or should have known' from the information on the day and then in my appeal, that the car was being used by a qualifying disability is harrassment. I reserve the right to take PCM and Meadowhall and the landholder to Court over this matter once this harassment has finally ceased, because they are jointly and severally liable to pay damages to myself over this illegal and protracted vendetta.

Fantabulous

(Will be Sent To – Parking Control Management (UK) Limited, Meadowhall Centre Limited, The British Land Company PLC, Norges Bank Investment Management and Smith Young Partnership Sheffield)

LETTER BEFORE ACTION – DO NOT IGNORE

Dear Sir(s),

I am writing to you to bring a very serious matter to your attention, Whilst I was in Meadowhall Shopping Centre on 1st June 2013. I am in receipt of is in the higher rate of the Care and Mobility rate of Disability Living Allowance. When I returned to the vehicle I noticed a yellow packet stuck to the windscreen with a speculative invoice inside it from Parking Control Management (PCM), this alleges that I owe £95 to them for not displaying a blue badge. The blue badge was placed but had fallen off the dashboard.

This invoice was appealed immediately on the grounds that a blue badge has no legal standing on Private land and pointing out that I left a note clearly stating there was a disabled driver and to refer to the vehicles tax disc which shows the vehicle is registered in the Disabled Taxation Class. PCM rejected this appeal completely ignoring my points highlighted and is still pursuing me for the invoice, this is now with the ‘Independent’ appeals process (POPLA).

Meadowhall Shopping Centre, PCM and the landowner or its agents are all bound by the Equality Act 2010 which has clearly been breached here by PCM demanding that a vehicle parked in a disabled space must be displaying a blue badge, this is unfair and illegal as not all disabled people have blue badges. I have attached all correspondence and evidence supplied by PCM.

To Summarise, PCM are acting illegally due to their reliance on the irrelevant (Council on-street only) Blue Badge scheme, have not acted reasonably and have breached the Equality Act 2010 as well as the BPA Code of Practice. Therefore PCM, Meadowhall and the Landowner/agents are jointly and severally liable to pay damages which I will pursue once the POPLA decision is made, unless PCM, Meadowhall and/or the landowner/agents now immediately cancel the ticket, issue a written apology, provide written confirmation that no more tickets will be issued if the vehicle is parked in Meadowhall’s car park in the future and offer a significant settlement in respect of stress and injury caused to myself.

However if this is not forthcoming within 14 days. The ensuing Small Claim will reflect the seriousness of this breach of the Equality act and the harassment and distress caused, and would be in the region of £1000 or such sum as the judge feels is appropriate, plus costs and Court fees.

I also reserve the right to publish any or all details of this matter in the press.

Yours Faithfully

Guys_Dad

You are in danger of losing your POPLA appeal with this appeal as it stands.

If you look at the POPLA DECISIONS sticky in the forum, you will see that they rejected an appeal very similar in circumstances to yours. (Post #54)

You need to add some of the standard generic appeal points asking them to prove they have the right to charge you, that the loss needs to be a genuine estimate - get them to show this - that although the disc had fallen off the dashboard it was visible on the passenger's seat and the conditions do not specify where the blue badge should be displayed.

You have alluded to these points, but have not specifically challenged the PPC to show POPLA the answers to your points.
You really need to add these to cover all points and don't just rely on the fact that you had a right to park there.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Tell them you believe PCM have no legal contract to issue invoices and that you wish to see it

Coupon-mad

Yep, it's a good start for POPLA but I'm glad you posted it because you do need some more in the POPLA appeal. We really want you to be certain to win this appeal so you can then pursue the managing agent like a pepipoo poster did...

See the example POPLA appeals and information I recently posted about in post #15 here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4657151

Cite other cases as you will see quoted in those examples of POPLA appeals, such as Excel v Martin Cutts, already mentioned in the links you will see on that thread.

You certainly need to mention any BPA Code of Practice breaches; there must be loads if you compare their ticket and letters and timelines with the CoP on the BPA website! And always include an allegation that there are non-compliant signs (or lack of signs) there. Including no sign at the entrance and no sign with full t&cs at the disabled bay itself where a person can see it without getting out of the car.

And definitely the 'no contract with the landowner which complies with the BPA CoP and which gives PCM the legal status to pursue charges for alleged breach of contract.' You will see the full paragraph in the other POPLA appeal examples.

Oh yes, and look for the standard paragraphs in those other POPLA appeals challenging the PPC to show the amount was a 'genuine pre-estimate of loss'.

Don't forget the case law and the allegation that it is a penalty; see the links I gave including a case another PPC called UKCPS lost in Court over 'not displaying a Blue Badge' (cite it).

Fantabulous

Thanks for all your help.

Will make a start on this again in the morning when I am wide awake.

Incidentally, the signs at Meadowhall are TINY - as small as the parking notices we get on a lamppost and are way up the walls

Coupon-mad

Fantabulous wrote: »

Thanks for all your help.

Will make a start on this again in the morning when I am wide awake.

Incidentally, the signs at Meadowhall are TINY - as small as the parking notices we get on a lamppost and are way up the walls

Nice point, one of lots that will win this POPLA appeal for you. We'd be happy to fine tune it again when you have added the usual stuff suggested.

spacey2012

Did you place the badge on top of the speedometer area ?
It is extremely easy to dislodge and yes they do do it.
Get a able bodied friend to press down on the front wing a few times, you will soon see how the badge got from the dash to the seat.

Fantabulous

I am back.

Have been very ill.

Latest news is that PCM have sold my 'debt' to a debt collection agency whom are threatening to take me to Court.

I am getting 40/50 phone calls per day from the debt collections agency.

May aswell just have paid the parking fine in the first place.