Aintree Hospital / Trethowans Lose In Court

trisontana

More taxpayer's money down the drain:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=83946&st=0

I won. The judge agreed that the charges were a penalty/fine and that it wasn't enforceable. The fact that didn't answer my request for a breakdown of their costs helped as did my arguement that the costs of cameras, employing staff etc were part of normal costs of running a car park.

They wanted to appeal on the basis that this case would "open the floodgates" and that it would be chaos for the carpark. The judge basically said no and mentioned that there had been numerous cases like this and the floodgates hadn't opened. I had to bite my tongue to stop my from laughing at that.

waamo

The fact that didn't answer my request for a breakdown of their costs helped as did my arguement that the costs of cameras, employing staff etc were part of normal costs of running a car park.

They have admitted before they don't know the cost as it falls under normal day to day costs.

See this FOI : https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/parking_tickets_16#incoming-236562

Redx

thank you for linking this

having read it, and having AS myself for over 25 years I can confirm it is a protected characteristic under the EA 2010 and previously under the DDA 1995 too so I have no doubt that they are in breach seeing as he can and should use a disabled bay , BB or no BB (I have a BB and letters stating my problem is "indefinite" as there is no known cure )

Coupon-mad

Redx wrote: »

thank you for linking this

having read it, and having AS myself for over 25 years I can confirm it is a protected characteristic under the EA 2010 and previously under the DDA 1995 too so I have no doubt that they are in breach seeing as he can and should use a disabled bay , BB or no BB (I have a BB and letters stating my problem is "indefinite" as there is no known cure )

Definitely a protected characteristic, yes.

Doesn't look like this was addressed by the Judge though nor the fact that Blue Badges (or red flags, tattoos on the forehead with details of the person's medical condition, shoe size, favourite breakfast cereal and PIN number or any other 'identifiers') are not needed.

4consumerrights

Shocking that the Equality Act does not seem to even get a look in where parking charges are concerned.....


Good result for the OP in this case - they mentioned penalty and fine themselves quite a lot in their paperwork by all accounts.

They did seem a little confused for what the alleged breach was stating:

"The claimants claim is liquidated damages for a breach of contract following the defendents vehicle being in breach of the claimants terms and conditions whilst parked on the claimants private property. the breach was for parking on double yellow lines, not in a marked bay, on a pavement, resulting in obstruction or inconvenience to others,

They can't even make their mind up the specific breach they brought the claim under.. three separate possible parking breaches...

esmerobbo

It would be interesting to see what Trethowans are quoting on their requests for keeper details. Aintree or Trethowans are not on the BPA AOS.

bazster

Landowners don't have to be in the AOS, that rule only applies to parking companies (except when it doesn't i.e. Proserve).

And since they are doing windscreen tickets they don't have a problem with the PoFA timescales when doing paper applications.