Disabled Ticket supposed letter from Motability.

schoolrun

On a visit to the Metro Centre I parked in a blue badge bay, which I desperately needed as I was with my severely disabled wife and her double amputee uncle. However, I put the old blue badge in the car although the new replacement was in the car.... Stress of having to sort two wheelchairs etc. Anyway, when I came back I had a ticket from UKPCS, and after trawling through forums, decided to ignore it. I am prepared to go to court if necessary as I have a disabled tax disk, which requires that you have the higher rate of motability, and am sickened that given the time the ticket was issued, the so called warden must have seen me struggling! Up to now I have not engaged with these sharks, but today I received a letter from them, but on the envelope and the letter it has my wife's name c/o Motability Finance. Should I continue to ignore it, or is this just the way they try to extort their money from disabled drivers?:(

Stroma

Can I ask is this England or Wales ?

spacey2012

You will not need to go to any court if you follow the advice given how to appeal and use the templates provided.
Someone will be along to direct you what to do, so get a pen and paper ready.

pogofish

Metro Centre is in Newcastle - England.

4consumerrights

Schoolrun:

If you live Scotland just ignore as there is no keeper liability under POFA 2102 and as long as you do not name the driver - nothing can happen.

*************************

However, assuming England or Wales - here's couple of letters I penned yesterday for another person on this thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4822530

Please adapt them to suit your circumstances and the Metro Centre
In your case write as
The Registered Keeper has received the parking when the driver visited the Centre with two disabled people on a vehicle which has a tax exempt disc.

In letter to PPC exactly the MODE THE REGISTERED KEEPER received the NoK and denies liability for the charge etc....
again with two severely disabled people accompanied the driver on the day etc. Send a copy of both blue badges with the appeal.


It really is beginning to sicken me how these parking companies think they can escape their legal liabiliites under the Equality Act and the BPA is also to blame as they too suggest that disabled drivers/passengers must display a blue badge to be exempt.
I am assuming that the letters came in your wife's name c/o motobility finance as she is the disabled registered keeper and exchanges DLA/PIP benefit for a motor allowance.

Stroma

Okay you need to send an appeal on this, if you don't there is a chance that ukcps will initiate a claim, they specialise in the harassment of disabled motorists.

Send this


Dear UKCPS


The keeper is in receipt of your letter addressed to C/o Motability Finance (name), I wish to invoke your appeals process.

The keeper denies all liability to your company due to your breach of the Equality Act 2010, as your letter confirms you know that its Motability vehicle, and you know therefore that someone is disabled in the vehicle, so you have not made a reasonable adjustment required under the Act!

Also as the blue badge scheme does not apply on private land, there is no requirement to display the badge in private car parks. As a courtesy attached is the current badge.

Further points of appeal are as follows

1) not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
2) inadequate signage
3) no authority to issue invoices on this land

I require a complete breakdown on the above to determine if you have any semblance of a contract that could be conferred on the keeper. If you reject this appeal, please forward a popla verification code so we can cost you £27+vat to get this cancelled.

I await your cancellation

Love and kisses

The keeper

schoolrun

Hi there, me too! It came in my wife's name. The letter had a photo of her car and basically said that the 'fine' had now doubled to £60.

Stroma

You are replying to your own thread

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Use the letter Stroma has produced.

Let us know how u get on, the is no need for any further questions until u get a reply as its all explained there......

Dont do nothing otherwise they may try a court claim, follow our advise and you will be fine

Coupon-mad

schoolrun wrote: »

Hi there, me too! It came in my wife's name. The letter had a photo of her car and basically said that the 'fine' had now doubled to £60.

Was the letter yellow and white and headed up Notice to Keeper? The registered keeper needs to reply immediately by post, with copies of the current Blue Badge - and using the above letter or a stronger version to see them off:

Try this version if you want UKCPS to maybe cancel early:



Dear UKCPS,

Re ticket number xxxxxxxxxx

I am the registered keeper of vehicle xxxxxx and am hereby exercising my right under section 22.14 of the BPA Code of Practice to appeal to yourselves and to POPLA if you should reject this challenge. The driver will not be identified so don't waste my time by sending a holding letter asking for the driver, or you will be reported to Steve Clark at the BPA immediately.


EQUALITY ACT 2010 AND BREACH OF UTCCR 1999
For the avoidance of doubt, the passengers both have severe disabilities and I attach a copy of one of the Blue Badges for you to swiftly cancel this harassment.

As you are aware, the Blue Badge scheme does not even lawfully apply in private car parks. Companies such as UKCPS may well mention the Badge on your signs, ostensibly to pay lip-service to disability law and to make it easy for you to issue tickets for any transgression you might invent, but you cannot rely on it in isolation as the only indicator of disability need. And you are certainly wholly unjustified to harass a disabled group of visitors for the spurious reason that you seem to think that, suddenly, a disability disappears if a Blue Badge is not the renewed version (a copy of which is attached, because as keeper I am keen to resolve the issue have better things to do than enter into protracted correspondence with a firm like UKCPS).

Your terms on your signs are expressly unenforceable and if you disagree then I will show POPLA that is the case, along with exposing the flaws in your Notice to Keeper, the non-compliance of your signage at the disabled bays at this site and the fact you have clearly made no loss.

Where there is a current disabled tax disc then it is an indicator that the car is used by someone whose restricted mobility qualifies for higher rate disability benefit. In our case the presence of the tax disc and the Blue Badge and the sight of the disabled passengers being helped from the car would also have caused UKPCS to know about the disability. Your operative swooped to issue a ticket immediately, so he must have seen the two wheelchair users struggling to vacate the car and the driver place a Blue Badge in good faith. Your operative needs re-training in the Equality Act 2010.

Here is the law and how your signage terms are affected by it:

EQUALITY ACT 2010
142 Unenforceable terms
(1) 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 Contracting out
(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.

This is not a case of mitigating circumstances, this is primary disability law which takes precedence and which grants unequivocal rights which cannot be removed, nor restricted to certain groups, nor unilaterally changed or charged for on a whim, for your profit.

One passenger is a double amputee and the other severely disabled. Both have 'Protected Characteristics' under the Act (whether they have ingrowing toenails or not, UKCPS). They have the legal right to use any 'reasonable adjustment' provided by any landholder/client/operator when visiting a customer-facing environment, including car parks.

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

EQUALITY ACT 2010
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;
(c) 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;
(b) by terminating the provision of the service to B;
(c) by subjecting B to any other detriment.

As a company, UKCPS has specifically breached your legal duties (and the on-site operative has breached his individual duties) under the 'EHRC Equality Act Code of Practice for Service Providers' which has been law since 2011. 'Service Provider' is a term loosely associated with UKCPS and certainly applies to your landowner/occupier client in this car park, who will be hearing about this matter from me, if you do not cancel this ticket within 10 days.

I know that UKCPS do not own this car park and you are acting merely as agents for the owner/occupier. If you fund this POPLA appeal you will be required among your evidence, to produce your contract or site agreement with the landowner and I will require UKCPS to demonstrate how your contract and ownership status differs from that in the cases VCS v Ibbotson, Case No 1SE09849 (16/5/2012), ParkingEye v Sharma, Case No. 3QT62646 (23/10/2013) and ParkingEye v Gardam, Case No: 3QT60598 (14/11/2013).

I will also cite in my POPLA appeal, your own case UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012 finding that your charge was a penalty) and Excel v Greenwood, Case Number 3QT60496 (4/10/2013) which was about a forgotten Blue Badge, where the Judge found that the Excel should have made reasonable adjustments once they knew about the disability.

In your office in Leeds when you saw the DVLA data and printed out a Notice to Keeper, you certainly already knew about the disability need - take a look at the address you sent the Notice to Keeper to which shows it as a 'Motability vehicle'. And so did your operative on site know about the disability so the breach is complete. Harassment is also a specific breach of the Equality Act as well, so choose your reply carefully as I am keeping all your letters safe in case they are needed in court and at POPLA if you send me a code instead of cancelling. I would of course appeal this if I have to, at POPLA stage but if so, take formal note that I will charge for my time at £18 per hour and I reserve the right to claim against you after the event, since the remedy for Equality Act 2010 breach is monetary damages with far more legal backing than your Notice.


Yours,

REGISTERED KEEPER'S NAME (do not sign with anything more than a squiggle)

Umkomaas

Another C-m stunner. :T

@Schoolrun, C-m is the business in all things private parking, but even more so in relation to the Equality Act 2010. This is the finest advice for your particular circumstances that you will get anywhere on any parking forum.