VCS reject appeal

esmerobbo

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps/svpw?url=https:%2F%2Fmaps.google.co.uk%2Fmaps%3Fq%3Dpadley%2Broad%2Bswansea%26ie%3DUTF8%26hq%3D%26hnear%3DPadley%2BRd,%2BSt%2BThomas,%2BSwansea%2BSA1%2B8AN,%2BUnited%2BKingdom%26ll%3D51.620872,-3.928188%26spn%3D0.012083,0.033023%26t%3Dh%26z%3D14%26vpsrc%3D0%26layer%3Dc%26cbll%3D51.620488,-3.928188%26panoid%3Do6U3lgfMcvlXXTBxh2BK6w%26cbp%3D12,45,,0,0%26output%3Dembed&hl=en&gl=uk


Looks like another private estate. If you spin around you can see a VCS sign on the lampost!

Stroma

Try this from coupon , just edit it to your circumstances, they are breaching the Equality Act 2010 with you

Dear POPLA adjudicator,

POPLA appeal re UKPC charge (POPLA code xxxxxxxxxx)

I am writing on as the driver of this car (already admitted) who is not liable for the parking charge for several reasons, not least that to uphold it would constitute disability discrimination. In addition, the vehicle was not improperly parked and the parking 'charge' notice was nothing but a penalty and exceeded the appropriate amount.

SUMMARY OF MY LEGAL RIGHT TO USE THE DISABLED PARKING BAY
The situation is that I went to collect an injured relative from hospital and collected a ticket from the machine as I drove in, which was duly validated by the Hospital (see copy attached).

I am 80 years old and unable to walk any distance due to a recent knee replacement operation; I have a genuine long-term chronic mobility problem but no Blue Badge at present. I appealed against the Parking Charge but UKPC have rejected it and in doing so they have breached UK disability law. This 'charge' cannot be upheld by POPLA as it breaches the applicable primary law. UKPC have cited in their reply an early POPLA case from over 6 months ago which is (in my view) flawed, where the adjudicator found that a contractual term could actually break the Equality Act 2010 (EA). I say that is not the case legally and in any case, POPLA cannot consider that other POPLA case because it sets no precedent, nor was it a decision made in court.

Each case is separate and this is a different case in a different car park so POPLA must consider these facts:


BREACH OF STATUTE, NAMELY THE EQUALITY ACT 2010 AND THE EHRC 'CODE OF PRACTICE ON SERVICES, PUBLIC FUNCTIONS AND ASSOCIATIONS' (Chapter 5 Indirect Discrimination) WHICH BECAME LAW ON 6TH APRIL 2011

The Operator and Hospital are service-providers who are relying on unenforceable terms 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 disabled bay. 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 might choose to mention the Badge on their signs but they cannot legally rely on it in isolation as the only indicator of disability need.

The EA takes precedence over any 'contractual' terms and a blanket term to display a Blue Badge is specifically an 'unenforceable term' as defined in the EA. It is an example of a blanket policy which seeks to limit the provision of the disabled bays to 'badge-display only' and thereby causes disadvantage to other people who have certain protected characteristics (which I do, on disability grounds).

''EQUALITY ACT 2010
142(1) Unenforceable terms
A term of a contract is unenforceable against a person in so far as it constitutes, promotes or provides for treatment of that or another person that is of a description prohibited by this Act.
144(1) A term of a contract is unenforceable by a person in whose favour it would operate in so far as it purports to exclude or limit a provision of or made under this Act.

29 Provision of services
(1) A person (a “service-provider”) concerned with the provision of a service to the public or a section of the public (for payment or not) must not discriminate against a person requiring the service by not providing the person with the service.

(2) A service-provider (A) must not, in providing the service, discriminate against a person (B)—
(a)as to the terms on which A provides the service to B;
(b)by terminating the provision of the service to B;
©by subjecting B to any other detriment.

(3) A service-provider must not, in relation to the provision of the service, harass—
(a)a person requiring the service, or
(b)a person to whom the service-provider provides the service.

(4) A service-provider must not victimise a person requiring the service by not providing the person with the service.

(5) A service-provider (A) must not, in providing the service, victimise a person (B)—
(a)as to the terms on which A provides the service to B; ''


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 term unlawfully limits the disabled bay provision and UKPC have subjected me to 'detriment' and harassment.

The unenforceable term requiring all disabled people in those bays to show a Blue Badge may be the result of an ill-conceived attempt to ostensibly comply with the EA in order to convince the Hospital that UKPC follow it. Indeed, it appears to be based on private parking industry-wide misconceptions about disability law. But as it specifically says in the EA, ignorance of disability law is no defence for breach and I say that UKPC have shown no regard for the EA nor for the EHRC Statutory 'Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations'.

This parking charge issued as a result of an unenforceable term has created indirect disability discrimination and as such, it is a breach of the EA. It is also a breach of the statutory EHRC Statutory 'Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations' (Chapter 5 Indirect Discrimination) which became law on 6 April 2011:

''5.4 What does the Act say?
Indirect discrimination may occur when a service provider applies an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice which puts persons sharing a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage.''


OTHER POINTS OF APPEAL AGAINST THIS CHARGE

UNCLEAR AND NON-COMPLIANT SIGNAGE
It is a specific requirement of the BPA Code of Practice paragraph B(18.9) that there must be very clear terms & conditions signage at a height where a disabled driver could have read them when actually parking in a disabled bay - indeed without even needing to get out of the car.

But in fact no such signs with full terms are visible at these disabled bays, only the discriminatory/misleading 'Blue Badge only' sign. I say that the signs in that car park do not comply with the BPA Code of Practice requirements and fail to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach (as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011).

CONTRACT WITH LANDOWNER - NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE AND NO STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE TICKETS
UKPC do not own this car park and are acting merely as agents for the Hospital. UKPC has not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to offer parking spaces, allege breach of contract or enforce parking charges (as evidenced in the Higher Court findings in VCS v HMRC 2012). UKPC has no proprietary interest or assignment of title of the land in question.

I require UKPC to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated contract with the landowner (not just a signed slip of paper from someone at the Hospital) because even if one exists, I say it does not specifically enable UKPC to pursue parking charges in the courts. This would not be 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'.

UKPC have not shown a breakdown of their alleged 'loss' - which cannot include their operational day-to-day running costs. No claim for loss for a 'breach of terms' can possibly apply to a disabled driver needing and using a 'reasonable adjustment' provision which is directly already provided by the Hospital. Since I obtained a ticket and duly had it validated in the Hospital, there can have been no loss arising from this incident and the only elements of a contract I agreed to were between myself and the Hospital alone. This parking space cannot somehow have been offered again - on more restrictive limited and discriminatory terms - by a mere agent, 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. This was the case in several compelling and comparable Court decisions such as UKCPS v Murphy April 2012 (a case involving a disabled bay and no Blue Badge, where the 'Parking Charge' was found to be a penalty). Also 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.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
I ask that this appeal be allowed and respectfully request POPLA consider the disability protection aspects of the EA 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 EA and the EHRC Code of Practice I have referred to is statutory 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).

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 EA is unequivocal.


Signed: {your name}

Dated:

mc303m

jeanraffio wrote: »

AIRPORT: YES OR NO?

Sorry, but you need to answer questions and not expect a spoon fed letter. We're trying to help but but you need to listen up and do some of the work yourself...

so sorry, no it was not an airport

mc303m

esmerobbo wrote: »

Looks like another private estate. If you spin around you can see a VCS sign on the lampost!

this is an old google map I will try to post the pics tomorrow
thank you

Coupon-mad

mc303m wrote: »

is there a template I can read?
thank you

I gave you 23 templates in the link. Choose your favourite version and make a draft from it.

mc303m

but if I cant appeal on medical grounds what grounds do I appeal on?
thank you

Stroma

Try reading for goodness sake, I gave you a template in post 13 that covers most things! Adapt it to your needs and use the link that coupon gave. Once you have an adapted appeal post it up so we can advise on any changes if needed

We are not going to spoon feed everything for you!

mc303m

@ storma i'm not looking to be spoon fed, just what I am appealing against 1 DONT KNOW THE LAWS

Stroma

Post 3 says what to use, post 13 from other points of appeal down. You have a breach of the equality act, add that. And so on, the important thing is that you understand what you are writing and not copying and pasting without any research.

Coupon-mad

mc303m wrote: »

@ storma i'm not looking to be spoon fed, just what i am appealing against 1 dont know the laws

Nor do any of the newbies here. But google is your friend and we have given you nearly 25 examples to copy from...all other posters come up with a draft by copying.