Parking in Disabled Bay

Carrie-Ann

I have read and inwardly digested all of the above posts with advice on what to do in my situation. I am with Guys Dad in that I want to get this ridiculous demand for money cancelled. And for that I thank all of you guys that have given me good advice on how to do it.
However, I do agree with The Deep that this problem will not go away and could happen over and over so I will certainly take it up with the Landlord for the site and with my local Councillor who does not seem to have enough to keep her occupied at the moment!!!
But thanks again. it is lovely to know there is someone to turn to when these things happen:A

Coupon-mad

So have you now found 'How to win at POPLA' in the NEWBIES thread? DO NOT write to POPLA about what happened, nothing about permits or badges, or you'll lose. Our POPLA appeal wording wins so adapt a POPLA appeal template form the NEWBIES thread at the top of the forum.

speakmanpaul

hi everyone
i have parked my car in a disabled bay at a supermarket and i forgot to display my disabled badge.
when i returned to my car i had a civil parking notice on it, but the registration on the notice was wrong (one letter wrong).
do i need to pay this notice?
thanks

trisontana

speakmanpaul wrote: »

hi everyone
i have parked my car in a disabled bay at a supermarket and i forgot to display my disabled badge.
when i returned to my car i had a civil parking notice on it, but the registration on the notice was wrong (one letter wrong).
do i need to pay this notice?
thanks

Please start your own thread instead of tagging on to this one.

Mojisola

speakmanpaul wrote: »

hi everyone
i have parked my car in a disabled bay at a supermarket and i forgot to display my disabled badge.
when i returned to my car i had a civil parking notice on it, but the registration on the notice was wrong (one letter wrong).
do i need to pay this notice?
thanks

Start a new thread on this board - http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=163

Lots of good advice to be had from the other posters.

Carrie-Ann

"So have you now found 'How to win at POPLA' in the NEWBIES thread? DO NOT write to POPLA about what happened, nothing about permits or badges, or you'll lose. Our POPLA appeal wording wins so adapt a POPLA appeal template form the NEWBIES thread at the top of the forum." This is a quote from Coupon Mad but I do not know how to show as a quote........


Apologies if I am not doing this correctly. I am a little stressed now that I have received the expected letter from Premier Park denying my appeal.


I have literally spent hours reading various posts from people in a similar position to myself and am now overwhelmed with information.


I started to read the POPLA Decisions and all the ones appealing against a ticket for parking in a Disabled Space without displaying a "Blue Badge" seem to have been refused by POPLA.


Can anyone help with knowing what AND WHAT NOT to say in my POPLA appeal please?

Guys_Dad

Oh Carrie

Surely after all this time you must have read c-m's NEWBIES thread, the POPLA DECISIONS thread and countless other threads asking for their POPLA appeal to be checked?

And all the advice on here to forget the details and just concentrate on the winning points?

Come on! Just use a template appeal, post it up for checking.

ezerscrooge

Here's a POPLA template for you. Change the £xxx for the actual charge they are trying to sting you with. Copy it then post it on the SME board.

Rgds,

Ezer.

[FONT=&quot]Car Reg : xxxxx[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Location: : xxxxxx[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Date of PCN issue : xxxxxx [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]PCN Number : xxxxxx[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]POPLA Verification Code: xxxxx[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Dear POPLA Assessor,[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I am the registered Keeper of the above vehicle and I'm writing this to appeal a charge sent to me by Premier Park[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds: [/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]Unlawful penalty clause[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]No authority to levy charges[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]Breach of the Equality Act 2010[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The demand for a payment of £xxx is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner. The Premier Park signs states that a PCN would be issued for a “failure to comply” with the terms of parking, which indicates that the parking charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Accordingly, the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Premier Park has not provided any evidence as to how and why the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Therefore the parking charge is punitive and an unenforceable penalty charge. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
The BPA Code of Practice states:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer.“[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]and [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable. “[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I put Premier Park to strict proof that that their charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss. To date Premier Park have refused to provide me with a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the “charge” was calculated in the form of documented, specific evidence applicable to this car park and this alleged incident. I am aware from Court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that the cost of running the business For example, were no breach to have occurred then the cost of parking enforcement (for example, erecting signage, wages, uniforms, office costs) would still have been the same and, therefore, may not be included in this pre-estimate of loss.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Unlawful penalty clause - revenue for Premier Park[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]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, as was found in the case of Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008) also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), in Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012).[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]3. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]No authority to levy charges[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]A parking management company will need to have the proper legal authorisation to contract with the consumer on the landowner’s behalf and enforce for breach of contract.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Premier Park must produce evidence to demonstrate that it is the landowner, or a contract that it has the authority of the landowner to issue charge notices at this location. I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles Premier Park to levy these charges and to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts and therefore has no authority to issue charge notices.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
I put Premier Park to strict proof to POPLA that they have the necessary legal authorisation at this location and I demand that the Premier Park produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and Premier Park. Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between Premier Park and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that Premier Park can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It has also been widely reported that some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory on behalf of the landowner has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. I require, if such a witness statement is submitted, that it is accompanied by a letter, on landowner’s headed notepaper, and signed by a director or equivalent of the landowner, confirming that the signatory is, indeed, authorised to act on behalf of the landowner, has read and the relevant terms of the contract and is qualified to attest to the full limit of authority of the parking company[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Breach of the Equality Act 2010[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Premier Park have been made fully aware of the drivers disability but have failed to take this into account when considering the appeal. I cite 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. I draw your attention to the following terms in the Act;[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]142 Unenforceable terms[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](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.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]144 Contracting out[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](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.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]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. The driver has a 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 Premier Park may have on their 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.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed. This concludes my appeal.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Kind regards[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

I started to read the POPLA Decisions and all the ones appealing against a ticket for parking in a Disabled Space without displaying a "Blue Badge" seem to have been refused by POPLA.

That's a bit slow, you simply need to click on 'How to win at POPLA' in the NEWBIES thread which is the sticky thread of FAQs at the top of this forum. At the top all the time when you click back one click to page one, off this thread (my signature below actually tells you how...).

Carrie-Ann

I have been working on my POPLA appeal all day on and off and wonder if someone (Coupon-Mad?) would cast an experienced eye over it before I print it and post it off. I have tried to use the "best bits" from previous posters although mainly C-M









[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]PO Box 70748[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]London[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]EC1P 1SN[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Dear POPLA adjudicator,

POPLA appeal re Premier Park charge (POPLA code 6661124365)[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]I am writing as the registered keeper of vehicle reg xxxx xxx 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.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]1)Breach of Statute, namely the Equality Act 2010[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]The Operator and Exeter City Council 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 Premier Park 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. In this instance the driver had taken the badge with them when a passenger in another car. Only one Blue Badge is supplied and it cannot be on more than one car at the same time.[/FONT]





[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]2[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]) Proprietary Interest[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]As the Registered Keeper, I[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] do not believe that [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Premier Park[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Premier [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Park any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Premier Park[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]'s lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]I[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and therefore has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Premier Park[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]. The driver expects [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Premier Park[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] to prove that they are not in breach of section 7.1 of the BPA code.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]I[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] require [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Premier Park[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] 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 [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Council[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]) because even if one exists, I say it does not specifically enable [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Premier Park[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] to pursue parking charges in the courts. This would not be compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice.
[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]3)No breach of contract and no Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss
Premier Park 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'. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]
4) The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss'. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]The £60, rising to £100,charge asked for, far exceeds the cost to the landowner who would have received £0.00 from any vehicles parked as the car park is free to use.
In the appeal Premier Park did not address this issue, and have not stated why they feel a £60 rising to £100 charge is an appropriate pre-estimate of loss.
For this charge to be justified a full breakdown of the costs Premier Park has suffered as a result of the car being parked at the car park is required and should add up to at least £60. Normal expenditure the company incurs to carry on their business (e.g. provision of parking, parking enforcement or signage erection) should not be included in the breakdown, as these operational costs would have been suffered irrespective of the car being parked at that car park.
Premier Park 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 Council. [/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]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).[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]The BPA Ltd (seeking advice on behalf of all AOS members, including UKPC) was warned about such charges being unenforceable by the Office of Fair Trading in 2013. The information that the Office of Fair Trading gave to the BPA Ltd on parking charges expressed the view that a parking charge will not automatically be recoverable, simply because it is stated to be a parking charge. It cannot be used to create a loss where none exists. It will not be recoverable if the court finds that it is being imposed as a penalty. If a parking charge is imposed for breach under a contract, in order for it to be recoverable as liquidated damages, the court will need to be satisfied of a number of matters, including that it represents a genuine pre-estimate of the loss incurred and that it meets the requirements of applicable consumer protection legislation, for example the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The OFT also expressed the view that the court will also need to be satisfied about who the consumer was contracting with and that this is the party bringing proceedings.
This transparently punitive charge by Premier Park 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 without harassment 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 firmly believe that failure to do so could even leave POPLA exposed to a claim for disability discrimination because POPLA are also a service provider (with the same legal duties under the EA) and the Act is unequivocal.[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]
[/FONT]