Disabled parking

widaja

Yesterday around noon I needed to park in a station car park run by NCP. It's a very long linear site and according to their information there are 466 spaces, 30 of which are premier bays (located mainly adjacent to the station entrance) and 4 disabled bays. I counted only 3, all of which were in use, whereas 8 premier bays had not been taken up and were empty. I am registered disabled and have difficulty walking any distance, needing to sit and rest at regular intervals. All available regular spaces were at the furthest end of the car park and I could not manage the very long walk. I paid the parking fee online via Ringo, parked in a vacant premier bay and clearly displayed my blue badge, genuinely believing this would be ok. Apparently not, and I returned to a £75 penalty notice on my windshield which pointed out I had breached the terms and conditions and should have read the signage. I wasn't looking for signage and have no idea where it is located (granted, that is probably down to me). I have appealed and raised the issue of the insignificant number of disabled bays but...does anyone fancy my chances of being successful?

Redx

yes you can be successful , but not on the grounds you have given above , the BB system does not apply on private land , but the EA 2010 act DOES ! (read your blue booklet to see where you are allowed to park using the BB)

as for what you did , you parked in a premier park bay which is reserved for those holding premier parking , so just as you would not like non-disabled users to park in a "BB" bay , neither do they as they pay extra for it

I would assume that the BB spaces are there to comply with the EA 2010 act , for people like yourself (and me)

but you broke their "rules" so received the charge

its not a penalty , or a fine for that matter , its a parking charge notice and its their charges that you dispute , all explained in the newbies sticky thread at the top of the forum , but generally you would dispute it on not a gpeol , no contract , poor signage , and not compliant with POFA 2012 if the land is not within the act (not relevant land)

appeal as RK, do not name the driver , or imply who it is

as I said , all explained in that NEWBIES thread

Stroma

Well as you have paid already, there is no possible loss to NCP, so they cannot realistically take you to court for their made up rules. I would appeal now using the appeal wording in the sticky thread, the reason why is that NCP try and circumvent your right to appeal by not sending a NtK. Just send it via the post office with a free proof of postage.

Dee140157

I read your post differently from others and understand that you have already appealed. If this is the case, you will probably get it rejected. If so come back read the thread mentioned and ask for help appealing to POPLA in the way that will win.

Coupon-mad

widaja wrote: »

Yesterday around noon I needed to park in a station car park run by NCP. It's a very long linear site and according to their information there are 466 spaces, 30 of which are premier bays (located mainly adjacent to the station entrance) and 4 disabled bays. I counted only 3, all of which were in use, whereas 8 premier bays had not been taken up and were empty.

I am registered disabled and have difficulty walking any distance, needing to sit and rest at regular intervals. All available regular spaces were at the furthest end of the car park and I could not manage the very long walk.

I paid the parking fee online via Ringo, parked in a vacant premier bay and clearly displayed my blue badge, genuinely believing this would be ok. Apparently not, and I returned to a £75 penalty notice on my windshield which pointed out I had breached the terms and conditions and should have read the signage. I wasn't looking for signage and have no idea where it is located (granted, that is probably down to me). I have appealed...

:wave: Welcome to the parking forum board.

Please do start at square one and don't pass 'go' until you've read the 'PRIVATE PARKING TICKET? NEWBIES PLEASE READ THIS FIRST!' thread right up near the top, which tells you about the acronyms like 'POPLA' and 'no GPEOL' which will help you to win at second stage appeal:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=163

We have 100% record of wins at POPLA stage, for over a year now.

does anyone fancy my chances of being successful?

100% you will win IF you use our examples of POPLA appeals in post #3 of the NEWBIES sticky thread. You would lose if you send the same appeal you have described, to POPLA, so don't!

widaja

Firstly, my apologies for not following forum etiquette and thanks for the replies - this is all new to me I'm afraid & I'm not sure quite what to do or where to find things. My son has composed the following for me & I would appreciate any guidance on whether it is acceptable as it stands or if changes/additions are necessary -

APPEAL RE: NCP Parking Contravention Charge Notice **********
******* Station ******2014, VEHICLE REG: *******
I am the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle above and I am appealing against the parking charge above, not least that to uphold it would constitute disability discrimination. I believe I am not liable for the parking ‘charge’ on the grounds stated below; I would ask that all points are taken into consideration;

[Should I outline scenario and include photographs?]

1. No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers.
!
NCP have no legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in their own name nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves. They do not own this car park and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and 'ticket' vehicles on site, merely acting as agents for the Train Operator. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that they are entitled or assigned any title/rights to demand money from me.
I require NCP to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention in this car park. In order to refute this it will not be sufficient for the Operator merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with any landholder). In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner otherwise there is no authority.

1. The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss.

I would contest the parking charge as not being a GPEOL on the following points:

i. In their letter dated ***** 2014 rejecting my initial appeal NCP state that they cannot accept copies (or originals) of permits provided at a later date as valid entitlement to park. I would contend that in refusing to do so, NCP are not taking the requisite steps to prove that a loss has occurred and therefore, sufficient basis for the issue of this parking charge.

ii. There is no loss flowing from this parking event given I paid for parking via the RingGo service, and the car park has a nil charge for Blue Badge holders, of which I am one. This Operator cannot demonstrate any initial quantifiable loss. The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be potentially enforceable. Where there is an initial loss directly caused by the presence of a vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to pay a tariff) this loss will be obvious. An initial loss is fundamental to a parking charge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by the driver's alleged breach. Heads of cost such as normal operational costs and tax-deductible back office functions, debt collection, etc. cannot possibly flow as a direct consequence of this parking event. The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, and would have had many of the same business overheads even if no vehicles breached any terms at all.

1. The signage at the car park was not compliant with the British Parking Association standards and there was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver.

As the driver I can confirm that there was no offer, consideration or acceptance flowing between this Operator and myself which could have created any contract for me to pay this extortionate sum over and above the correct tariff already paid. Indeed, the fee for Blue Badge holders is nil, so my presence has in no way impacted the Operator’s costs or revenues.

I submit that this signage failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice section 18 and appendix B.
The signage containing full terms and conditions is incorrectly located, after the disabled and premier bays at ****** Station. In addition, the font size on the signage is impossible to read from a driving position and therefore failed to properly warn/inform the driver that an additional punitive charge would apply, notwithstanding the lack of signage surrounding the disabled spaces and the facility to pay the correct tariff via their mobile phone based RingGo service. Any alleged contract (denied in this case) could only be formed at the entrance to the premises, prior to parking. It is not formed after the vehicle has already been parked, such as when the driver walks away and past a sign when entering the station platform area, as this is too late. In breach of Appendix B (Mandatory Entrance Signs) NCP have no signage with full terms which could be readable at eye level, for a driver in moving traffic on arrival. Indeed, it is possible to park without even passing the full terms.

1. The parking company in contravention of the Equality Act 2010

****** train station car park has 463 spaces, with just 4 disabled bays. 3 of these bays are located 30 metres away from the station entrance, with 30 ‘premier’ bays just beyond and prior to the main entrance to the car park, with a single disabled bay approximately 100m away. The main terms and conditions are situated approximately 80 metres away along a single track road from the station building and a clearly defined entrance – after the 30 premier bays and 3 disabled spaces. On the day of the alleged infringement the nearest regular car parking space was approximately 300m from the station entrance.

The BPA Code of Practice states:

16.1 The Equality Act 2010 says that providers of services to the public must make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to remove barriers which may discriminate against disabled people.

16.5 If your landowner provides a concession that allows parking for disabled people, if a vehicle displays a valid Blue Badge you must not issue it with parking charge notices.

Locating the full terms and conditions at a point where it is unreasonable to expect an individual who suffers from walking difficulties to see them, with no signage placed in the dedicated disabled area is a clear contravention of 16.1 above.

The Equality Act states:

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.

By enforcing a ‘contract’ (in dispute) due to inadequate provision and signage - and would necessitate a disabled person parking 300m from the station entrance - would prohibit an individual such as myself from utilising the railway services as is my legal right to do so. Therefore the terms as claimed by the Operator has created indirect disability discrimination and are therefore unenforceable.

''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.''

On 10th April 2013, a POPLA assessor, Shona Watson, erroneously decided in that case, that an Operator's terms & conditions could circumvent the Equality Act 2010. Mr Greenwood subsequently faced Excel in Court on 4th October 2013, and in 3QT60496 the judge decided that the Operator had a legal duty to make a 'reasonable adjustment' for a genuine disabled person.

The Operator's case was lost in court, showing that POPLA was wrong to allow t&cs over disability law - and my case is the same as Excel v Greenwood.

15 (1) A person (A) discriminates against a disabled person (B) if—

(a) A treats B unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of B's disability, and (b) A cannot show that the treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

I therefore additionally request the Operator responds to 15 (1) (b) to substantiate what legitimate aim is being met by the issuance of a punitive invoice and how this is proportionate, given there is no formal contract between Operator and driver.

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 general right of access to railway stations.

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.

Coupon-mad

That looks very good to me, covers all the bases even though we know POPLA won't give a hoot about the Equality Act (shockingly) I firmly believe the point should be put under their noses every time anyway. And personally I don't even mind the derogatory term 'fake PCN' being in a POPLA appeal - I would, because I tell it like it is!!

The numbering needs to be amended so it reads 1,2, 3, rather than every point being number 1 but maybe that's a formatting error from Word. You can put it right before plonking it in the appeal box for POPLA, by saving the final draft to Notepad first and making sure the formatting & numbering is clear.

Tick 3 out of 4 appeal reason boxes online (not 'stolen car') and submit it to POPLA.

widaja

Hi everyone, thank you all for your help and advice earlier - a bit of an update.

I have appealed to POPLA, and NCP have sent me an evidence check list where they have stated the following:-

Re: parking in premier bay whilst displaying a blue badge referring to paragraph 9a of their terms and conditions regarding quote ' It is important to the effective management of the car park...that you do not park within a bay designated for a specific purpose when you are not entitled to do so'.

NCP have provided photos of signage and my car, however, the photographs provided show the signage at the entrance to the car park which contains the terms and conditions in a ridiculously small font. To confirm, there is no way I could see this from a driving position and I paid for my parking via Ringo.

Other photos are correct, but not what I am appealing against (thanks to you guys).

Summary:-

- NCP have provided POPLA with photographic evidence, including of signage that's clearly impossible to read from a driving position.

- NCP have not responded to GPEOL or proof of authority to issue tickets. Only quoting "effective management of car park".

- They have not taken into account difficulties I might face reading signage as a Blue Badge holder. Or that someone could pay for parking via mobile without being able to view Ts & Cs.

Question:-

Can I/Do I need to write to POPLA again pointing out the holes in their evidence or should I trust POPLA to reach a decision in my favour based on the letter posted on the forum previously?

I presume the latter, but just in case thought I'd check.

Thank you all once again.

Dee140157

Oh point put as many holes as you can.
Write in a word document and call it Evidence Rebuttal. Include your PCN number and POPLA code.
Then upload as further evidence to popla
If there are lots of double checking of appeals by various people in the office then this recent positive decision on the POPLA decision thread is good to mention..

The Operator has produced a breakdown of costs that they incur in managing the site and breaches of the terms and conditions of parking, however, there appear to be multiple layers of unnecessary checks and balances included in their costs, which do not necessarily flow from the Appellant’s breach.

The_Deep

Was there a facility available to buy premium parking, if so then why did you not? After all, none us can travel first class for free if standard class is full.

widaja

I can happily advise that my appeal to POPLA against the NCP parking charge has been upheld! Only one submission was allowed, that being quote: 'That the parking charge amount is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. As the Appellant has raised the issue of the charge not being a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the onus is on the Operator to prove that it is. The Operator has not addressed the loss that was caused by the Appellant's breach of the terms and conditions of parking. I have looked at all of the evidence and have allowed this appeal on the basis that the Operator has failed to prove that the parking charge amount is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.' Needless to say, I shall be more attentive in future and give them no excuse. Thank you for the sound advice which enabled us to put the appeal together. :-)