PCM Meadowhall Blue badge expired

zzzLazyDaisy

The reason that blue badge cases are not easy to spot on the POPLA decisions thread is because they often win on other grounds - eg genuine pre-estimate of loss - as we would never advise anyone to rely on just one ground of appeal.

hth

Daisy

Coupon-mad

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

The reason that blue badge cases are not easy to spot on the POPLA decisions thread is because they often win on other grounds - eg genuine pre-estimate of loss - as we would never advise anyone to rely on just one ground of appeal.

hth

Daisy

That is the case exactly. If this OP read backwards from the most recent POPLA decisions (Not just read the summary in the posts 1 and 2), and just kept skim-reading each one he would find Blue Badge cases but they would have been won on another appeal point (e.g. no loss).

rsclark

Coupon-mad wrote: »

That is the case exactly. If this OP read backwards from the most recent POPLA decisions (Not just read the summary in the posts 1 and 2), and just kept skim-reading each one he would find Blue Badge cases but they would have been won on another appeal point (e.g. no loss).

Thanks. i think i understand now. But, are you saying that in that thread there has not been a successful blue badge case that has won on the Equalities Act alone? If they always rely on the "no loss" then how do we know how robust the equalities Act claim is? Which is what i was trying to originally get at. Trubster drafted my POPLA appeal (which has been lodged) and no mention has been made of "no loss" - it only appears to be going down the Equality Act breach route. In post #42 Daisy suggested we should never rely on just one ground od appeal, but it would appear that this is what i have done. Have i made a mistake? Or are we using this as a test to see if the Equality Act breach works as a stand alone claim (in the event Meadowhall don't arrange for it to be cancelled beforehand)?

Coupon-mad

rsclark wrote: »

Thanks. i think i understand now. But, are you saying that in that thread there has not been a successful blue badge case that has won on the Equalities Act alone? If they always rely on the "no loss" then how do we know how robust the equalities Act claim is? Which is what i was trying to originally get at. Trubster drafted my POPLA appeal (which has been lodged) and no mention has been made of "no loss" - it only appears to be going down the Equality Act breach route. In post #42 Daisy suggested we should never rely on just one ground od appeal, but it would appear that this is what i have done. Have i made a mistake? Or are we using this as a test to see if the Equality Act breach works as a stand alone claim (in the event Meadowhall don't arrange for it to be cancelled beforehand)?

Ask trubster to double check the intention of the POPLA appeal (I think I saw it in a pm from trubster and thought it had other points of appeal?).

But no, NONE have been won on Equality Act 2010 breach alone because no-one has tried it in isolation (except people who have worded it badly). I am sure trubster will have worded it well.

I have written loads that include it (worded well, I hope) but never have POPLA chosen to find on that point. I always include other winning points which are easier for POPLA to decide on.

Personally I think when argued properly, the Equality Act should be a slam-dunk win at POPLA but only if you literally spell out the law and how contractual policies, signage and charges become wholly unenforceable if they cause indirect discrimination.

There is nothing to stop you sending a quick couple of extra paragraphs to POPLA in the post, quoting the 10 digit code, as 'extra evidence for the appeal submitted on xx/xx/13'. But do discuss this with trubster.

Remember that Grunwald winning on Court is the most compelling recent decision (and he had lost at POPLA because he worded a basic honest appeal that went over the heads of the assessors because the words 'Equality Act' and 'discrimination' were not used).

rsclark

FTAO Daisy. I have been trying to PM but your message box is full. Are you able to make space for a message, or send me an email address so i can ask you something off-thread.
TIA

update: now been able to send

rsclark

FTAO Coupon-mad. I have been trying to PM you also. Are you able to send me an email address so i can ask you something off-thread as i dont want to say too much in case someone is reading the thread!!!.
TIA

zzzLazyDaisy

rsclark wrote: »

FTAO Daisy. I have been trying to PM but your message box is full. Are you able to make space for a message, or send me an email address so i can ask you something off-thread.
TIA

update: now been able to send

Just replying as a matter of courtesy to say that I am restricting PMs for personal reasons and I am not the best person to help on this particular issue - Coupon-mad and trubster have far more experience than I have on the Equality Act points.

Daisy

rsclark

update:
On 16th October I sent 6 LBAs to Meadowhall, PCM, landowners etc, giving 14 days to quash the charge, give an apology, and compensate me. 3 weeks later and no response at all. After the recent case with trubster, I expected Meadowhall to get the charge cancelled, so am very surprised not to hear anything (unless these things happen slowly and things are progressing). Anyway, the LBAs have been sent, so this can sit on the back burner for a while.

I have since received copy of PCMs defence and they obviously think they have a good chance of winning at POPLA so they are unlikely to back down.

So I had a choice - take the probable easy win with GPEoL, or force POPLA to make a judgement based solely on EA. Since POPLA seem to have continued to avoid commenting on EA/blue badges, it seemed too good an opportunity to turn down. I hope it doesn't come back and bite me on the @rse, but I have decided to pursue the single EA issue.

I read somewhere that PCM haven't taken many people to court over the last year (4 I believe), although I understand they are new kids on the block so may be getting their systems and processes sorted first. So hopefully, a loss at POPLA won't necessarily end up in court. However, after a few months digesting all this information, I might be ready for the fight.

I cannot really take any credit for what I have done. Without the brilliant guidance from Trubster and Coupon-Mad I would have probably folded and paid the discounted £57 at the outset to make the problem go away. I will not post the PCM defence or my POPLA appeal before it is heard, unless C-M says it is OK to do so.

Coupon-mad

So I had a choice - take the probable easy win with GPEoL, or force POPLA to make a judgement based solely on EA. Since POPLA seem to have continued to avoid commenting on EA/blue badges, it seemed too good an opportunity to turn down. I hope it doesn't come back and bite me on the @rse, but I have decided to pursue the single EA issue.

:T

Well done for having the guts to stick ONLY with the Equality Act breach issue for POPLA. I can tell the other forum members that it's been written as clearly as it could be for POPLA and will be a true test of that appeal point.

No need to post any more detail except if you get an update to the LBAs or the POPLA decision. Remember trubster originally lost at POPLA and look at his example in the end! However, in your case now I think we've given your POPLA appeal the best shot we can to make them (POPLA assessors) wake up and smell the coffee about their own and PPCs' duties under the EA.

Umkomaas

What's the betting there's a panicky phone call from POPLA to PCM (VCS-style) asking them to cancel the charge to avoid them opening up Pandora's box.