Asking store manager to cancel

Meh_meh

True to form you lot are right (Again)!

The refusal has just landed - where to now (I need to sort this afternoon as I'm away until next Tuesday)

Help please???

Dee140157

Go back to the Newbie thread post 3, click on how to win at POPLA and chose one of the MET threads (the second one I think). This will give you the basis for the appeal.
In the meanwhile I will search for some words from Coupon-Mad regarding the disability issue.

But don't panic. You can always sort this next week. You have 28 days to reply.

Dee140157

As well as the MET appeal you can also refer to EA2010. I have copied this from another appeal and you could use some of the information in this to apply to,your own situation. You may need to reword it.

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

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.

Dee140157

By the way when you say you failed with asking the manager, do you mean you haven't done it or he/she refused to do anything.
If you haven't done it, the it is not too late.

Meh_meh

They refused - and referred me back to the company! If I have 28 days to appeal toPOPLA - I'll leave it until next week to sort!

Meh_meh

Oh and thanks Dee - you're a star

Coupon-mad

Meh_meh wrote: »

Oh and thanks Dee - you're a star

Yes, she is - but you do realise that's not the winning points in the POPLA appeal, merely the icing on the cake about the Equality Act (which POPLA will ignore)? We have good reason to suggest it is shoved under POPLA Assessors' noses when applicable, but don't miss the fact you just need to copy a MET POPLA appeal (not exactly difficult to find on the forum even just by putting 'MET POPLA' into the 'search this forum' facility next to 'forum tools' above the sticky threads on page one.

No idea how posters who have already posted and have gone to the NEWBIES thread and read it and found the template first appeal, miss the 'How to win at POPLA' part and post frantically just because they get a POPLA code. Of course you did, that's the next stage!

Please don't tell us you've submitted merely the EA paragraphs as a POPLA appeal...if you have you have got more work to do to sort it. Hope not - hope you decided to wait till next week before reading the POPLA templates for a MET case?

Dee140157

Not really a star, just good at copying and pasting! these are Coupon-Mad's words.

So yes, to echo C-M put a version of these words into a MET POPLA appeal.

We keep hoping one day a POPLA assessor will rule based on these and not the usual GPEOL or that we get a No show from the PPC.

I would personally recommend that you put the EA2010 under their nose by making it the first point in your appeal, rather than the last. They will probably ski, read over and rule on a different point, but you never know!

Umkomaas

Dee140157 wrote: »

Not really a star, just good at copying and pasting! these are Coupon-Mad's words.

So yes, to echo C-M put a version of these words into a MET POPLA appeal.

We keep hoping one day a POPLA assessor will rule based on these and not the usual GPEOL or that we get a No show from the PPC.

I would personally recommend that you put the EA2010 under their nose by making it the first point in your appeal, rather than the last. They will probably ski, read over and rule on a different point, but you never know!

I really think it is time to attempt to force POPLA's hand in dealing with the EA and parking issues.

Whilst newbies in the main won't be confident enough to attempt the single appeal point, I see no harm in following the proposal I made in a previous thread:

Perhaps we should be penning appeals in the order we want Assessors to deal with them - with EA (where appropriate) being number one and GPEOL the final appeal point.

'Please deal with this appeal precisely in the order it is drafted. Should any appeal point be passed over, you are confirming that that particular point of appeal has NOT been upheld'.

Meh_meh

I'm back in the land of the living - I have set tomorrow aside to sort this out!