SIPs and Blue Badge (Our error)

mcrterry

Hi I have read the stickies and think I have a good case but wanted to just iron out a couple of things.
My wife parked in the disabled bay of a SIPs operated car park in Didsbury when we took my mother for a meal yesterday evening. The signs (and their website) state charges are still enforcable regardless of the badge, something my wife and mother didnt realise and to be honest didnt read the signs displayed. Nothing ventured I think its worth appealing whilst also writing to the Restaurant asking them to cancel it.
The stickies tend to concentrate on over staying but not just not bothering to pay. Am I still on good ground and should I ammend in anyway the excellent Template on the forum?
Thanks in advance

Redx

appeal anyway using the template letter when the NTK arrives

in the meantime complain to the landowner and ask for a cancellation asap

the fact no BB was displayed doesnt change the protected person status of the one it was issued to , its not a requirement for the EA 2010 either so quote that at the landowner , that the EA 2010 is there to protect people even if they didnt have a BB , which in this case they do

the grounds of appeal are listed in that thread, not a gpeol , no contract and poor signage for a start (everybody has the right to appeal)

it should be borne in mind that a BB has no legal standing on private land, but the EA 2010 does, so tell them you would be considering a counter claim under the EA 2010 if the charge isnt cancelled

mcrterry

Thanks very much for this. Sorry to bang on but doesn't the forum say appeal straight away or did I read that wrong? You suggest I actually wait for the NTK?
The land is part of a development of shops and restaurants so rather than a strongly worded letter to the restaurant I intended to basically say look we spent over £100 to return to a parking ticket. We used you as my mum cant walk etc any chance you could see your way clear etc.....
Or am I being a bit niave.

mcrterry

Oh and not that it matters but the blue badge was displayed.

System

Why the equality act? It sounds like the PCN was issued for not having a ticket. Being a protected characteristic does not mean that the normal parking fee can not be levied.

I'm not defending the PPC but the tone appears to be that no ticket was required because of the protected characteristic which is not the case.

Umkomaas

mcrterry wrote: »

Thanks very much for this. Sorry to bang on but doesn't the forum say appeal straight away or did I read that wrong? You suggest I actually wait for the NTK?
The land is part of a development of shops and restaurants so rather than a strongly worded letter to the restaurant I intended to basically say look we spent over £100 to return to a parking ticket. We used you as my mum cant walk etc any chance you could see your way clear etc.....
Or am I being a bit niave.

Naive - in the extreme; you're not dealing with the Benevolent Society here!

Advice is to always await the NtK in the case of a windscreen ticket, other than for a very small number of small PPCs - SIP is not one of these. The NtK gives the Registered Keeper more options than the driver (at whom the windscreen ticket is targeted) under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which amongst other things imposes strict timescales on the PPC for delivery of the NtK. And many PPCs just can't get their NtKs correct in the context of other PoFA-related requirements, so do wait.

But you must complain to the restaurant; if they can't help directly (and you won't know unless you ask) they should be able to give you the name of the landowners, who you should then complain to.

HTH

The_Deep

This thread is about not paying in a P&D car park, it has nothing to do with blue badges, discrimination, Equality Acts, whatsoever.

If you you filled up with petrol at a filling station and drove off without paying would you ask for special treatment because of disability?

mcrterry

Again thanks for replies.
!!!!!! - You are correct no ticket was purchased as my wife and mother (wrongly) thought the BB meant they didnt need to pay, as stated we accept they didnt read the signs stating they did.
Umkomaas. My letter of mercy plea was directed at the restaurant NOT SIP as the stickies have suggested this is pointless.
I will take the advice to wait for the NTK but in the mean time write today to the restaurant.
Thanks again

Umkomaas

The_Deep wrote: »

This thread is about not paying in a P&D car park, it has nothing to do with blue badges, discrimination, Equality Acts, whatsoever.

If you you filled up with petrol at a filling station and drove off without paying would you ask for special treatment because of disability?

I agree TD, but we're talking about a couple quid's worth of 'error', not a hundred pounds worth of rob.

Unlike the fuel thief, I don't think the OP would have any objection to sending his £2 to SIP, but you and I both know it's not the £2 loss they want, it's the £100 wad in the OP's pocket!

In fact the £100 PCN more than likely exceeds any fine a court would impose on the fuel thief, especially if he had a difficult upbringing (or had asked for a celebrity's autograph as a child!).

Redx

mcrterry wrote: »

Again thanks for replies.

Umkomaas. My letter of mercy plea was directed at the restaurant NOT SIP as the stickies have suggested this is pointless.

I will take the advice to wait for the NTK but in the mean time write today to the restaurant.
Thanks again

CORRECT (which is why I answered it as I did)

as far as I am concerned, my reply was in relation to the appeal to the restaurant on the grounds that under the law of the EA2010 they have a duty of obligation towards these people and they may have contracted SIP to patrol their car park and so are responsible for the contract that exists between them (a contract we have not yet seen)

therefore they may have broken the EA 2010 by charging on the disabled bays and nobody who has written in this thread has any evidence to the contrary, so its not theft from the restaurant, its a legal obligation upon them that they may have broken (notice I dont say have broken as we have no contract to read)

as for SIP, I agree the pcn is not a gpeol and maybe £2 is owed as far as the current parking contract may indicate (again we havent seen this contract and its frequently cited as one of the grounds for appeal as in the template letter)

I did not bring up the BB or the disabled parking spaces, the OP did , so I am commenting about what that BB and those disabled spaces may mean and as the subject was brought up I HAVE THE FORUM RIGHT TO COMMENT ABOUT IT so I did (trolls or no trolls)

my point is that we allege wrongdoing by parking companies all the time in these appeals, so I am alleging wrongdoing by the landowner or restaurant in this particular case and asking the OP to mention it in his landowner appeal (not his IAS appeal). I believe the onus is on the landowner to prove no wrongdoing once its alleged, same as a PPC has to do so when its alleged in the initial "soft" appeal and then later at the IAS or in court

a judge may take the view that this is relevant, if it got that far , because I am of the opinion the law is flouted in many cases like these and if people with the BB or disabilities stood up and were counted these companies and businesses wouldnt get away with it like they seem to do

so I see nothing wrong with my replies in light of the opening post as I believe it is relevant and the keeper or driver has not flouted the rules of the restaurant, but the restaurant may have broken the law by not offering free parking to the "protected people" under the EA2010 so I see nothing wrong in alleging it and checking the contract against the law

as for SIPS, they may be breaking the written contract (like excel regularly do with the gala bingo car park in ashton under lyne) or they may not even have clauses that allow for this action on disabled bays, something that would be brought up in an IAS appeal (no contract - no standing) or in court if it went that far

so I stand by what I said, you take the landowner or restaurant to task and insist they prove this charge is legal and conforms to the EA 2010 or they cancel it (same as we do with the PPC)

had it been in a non-disabled parking bay on the same car park, the EA2010 issue may not have arisen , so a different person posting about the standard car park bays would have received the stock answers about not a gpeol, no contract and poor signage etc

4consumerrights

Just be aware SIP is now IPC