Hospital Complaint For Breach Of Equality Act 2010

Fergie76

Finally got my NtK for 'Parking without displaying valid proof of payment'. The driver was parked in a normal bay displaying a blue badge, as there were no disabled bays available.

I am complaining to the hospital as there is so much wrong with their website. I have drafted a letter, but would like the regulars to quality assure it, to make sure I have it right and not omitting any big points?

The hospital website is here - http://www.nwlh.nhs.uk/patients-visitors/northwick-park-and-st-marks-hospitals/

Thanks in advance:

[FONT=&quot]Good afternoon,[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I wish to make a formal complaint about a breach of the Equality Act 2010 (EA10) and APCOA Parking at Northwick Park and St Marks Hospitals.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I believe you are discriminating therefore breaching the EA10 against disabled patients and visitors. Your website states:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]There are no charges for disabled drivers parking in designated bays at the hospital, whether in the multi-storey car park (enter via the main entrance/A&E/outpatients) or car parks 2-4. Vehicles must display a valid Blue Badge and time recorder, and must park in designated disabled bays.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The usual pay and display charges are payable by disabled drivers when parking in non-designated bays.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Vehicles [/FONT][FONT=&quot]not[/FONT][FONT=&quot] driven by disabled persons, irrespective of whether they display a Blue Badge or time recorder, are not entitled to park in designated blue bays and may be issued with a penalty notice.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]If you require assistance in finding a place to park, please contact the parking office on 020 8869 3803.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]By not allowing free parking in all bays, I feel you are not allowing reasonable adjustment for disabled people as is required by EA10 and are therefore discriminating. Disabled people take longer getting in and out of their cars due to the nature of their conditions and therefore as a consequence maybe charged more for parking than an able bodied person. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You may be interested to know that Medway NHS Trust have been forced to alter their parking charges policy for Blue Badge Holders after a legal case was brought against them by Unity Law - http://www.disabledmotoring.org/campaigns/hospital-parking-charges[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]By stating that only cars driven by the disabled person are entitled to use disabled bays, you are discriminating against disabled people that do not drive and many will not be able to drive due to their disability. Do you really think a disabled person cannot use a disabled bay unless they are actually the driver?

You state that people “not entitled to park in designated blue bays and may be issued with a penalty notice”. Under what authority are you issuing these penalties? Can you please point me to the relevant legislation? As far as I am aware, only Councils and the Police can issue penalties and only Courts can issue fines. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]On your table of charges you state that these penalty charges are £30, why then has the Notice To Keeper from APCOA parking trying to claim £60?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]What I would like to happen as a result of this claim is:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Instruct your agent APCOA to cancel my penalty charge.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Extend free parking to all public parking spaces if a blue badge is displayed.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Update your website to conform with the Law.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I am extremely disappointed that a public body feels that they are above the law and can breach it in this way.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I look forward to hearing from you,[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Regards,[/FONT]

The_Deep

I see no discrimination here. There are a certain number of bays where BB holder can park for free. If they are all occupied then BB holders will have to find a space elsewhere and pay, just as everyone else does. Why is this a problem?

Remember, an empty BB space is barred to other taxpayers.

Fergie76

Only disabled drivers can use disabled bays. How is that not discrimination?

The_Deep

Indeed, it is gross discrimination against the able bodied, but I do not think that is the point the OP is trying to make.

I think that he/she would like to see all the bays reserved for BB holders.

Redx

ignoring the above which I wont comment on, going back to post #1

I would make sure in the letter (good letter by the way) that you emphasise that their discrimination also extends to their use of the BB as a permit , whereas the EA 2010 does not stipulate that any BB is required, just that the landowner has to make reasonable adjustments for these protected persons under the act , whoever they are and however the number they may be

a BB is not relevant on private land and so they are discriminating against those protected people who do not qualify for a BB , so doesnt really matter if anyone displays the BB or not as the landowner has other obligations

plus the BPA CoP tells a ppc not to pursue BB owners once the BB is known about and they have special guidance for the NHS too

sometimes this BB issue tends to sideline the real purpose of the act and its the discrimination by the landowner to provide for the protected persons by limiting it to BB owners or just BB drivers which is just as bad

my family used to ferry my mum to hospital a lot when she had cancer, they are drivers, they do not have a BB , but the passenger did, so yes it discriminates against passengers that have a BB by making it a requirement on the driver, when its not a requirement AT ALL (because the EA 2010 is what is relevant here)

you only have to look at the cases against meadowhall by the blue dragon, trubster, rsclark and others to see how bad this is (I complained to my MP about this recently too)

have a read of these threads and then maybe adapt your letter accordingly

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5048966

so that one and those in my post inside it

dont be sidetracked by retired uncivil servants just add them to your ignore list

Jeremy Hunt also issued guidelines to all health trusts the other week, stating they need to be more accommodating to these people with disabilities etc, never mind BB holders

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Cut-parking-charges-certain-regular-visitors/story-22840053-detail/story.html

and I quote

HEALTH Secretary Jeremy Hunt has told hospital bosses to cut car parking charges for a number of regular visitors. Under the new plans, patients visiting critically ill relatives and disabled people will not be charged.


The guidance also says hospital trusts should waive fines when an overstay is out of a patient's or visitor's control.

Trusts across Bristol insist they are already in line with a number of the recommendations.

James Rimmer, chief operating officer at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust said: "The Trust already follows many of the principles outlined in the new Department of Health parking guidelines. Our parking charges are in line with the general cost of parking in Bristol city centre, and patients who regularly spend a lot of time in hospital, and their visitors, can buy a parking ticket for up to a week at a discounted rate.

All disabled car parking on site is free, and if disabled bays are full, disabled drivers are able to park free of charge in any of our parking spaces, as long as they display their blue badge.

its not perfect as they are still relying on the BB as some sort of permit that any protected person under the EA 2010 has (which a lot of them dont) and it refers to drivers when its clear quite a lot dont actually drive but are passengers

Weasel_Watcher

The_Deep wrote: »

Indeed, it is gross discrimination against the able bodied, but I do not think that is the point the OP is trying to make.

I think that he/she would like to see all the bays reserved for BB holders.

Read again "disabled drivers", rather than disabled drivers and/or disabled passengers. I don't think you quite understand the point here.

Fergie76

Redx wrote: »

I would make sure in the letter (good letter by the way) that you emphasise that their discrimination also extends to their use of the BB as a permit , whereas the EA 2010 does not stipulate that any BB is required, just that the landowner has to make reasonable adjustments for these protected persons under the act , whoever they are and however the number they may be

a BB is not relevant on private land and so they are discriminating against those protected people who do not qualify for a BB , so doesnt really matter if anyone displays the BB or not as the landowner has other obligations

Thanks and whilst I agree about the need (or lack of) to displaying the BB under the EA10, I don't want to give them room to manoeuvre or duck out answering the question in hand. I will mention it though and quote Jeremy Hunt from the article you have posted.

As I am wanting them to extend free parking to all parking spaces displaying the blue badge (I know not required or relevant on private land), without extending free parking to everyone (although I think they should), they need some form of proof of entitlement. And as the driver was displaying the BB, I think I will concentrate more on the other points.

Redx wrote: »

plus the BPA CoP tells a ppc not to pursue BB owners once the BB is known about and they have special guidance for the NHS too

Funnily enough, the registered keeper had a NTK at the same site for the same reason last year. I complained to the BPA then about the issue of ticketing a car displaying the BB and this being in contradiction of their AOS COP and they were not interested. This was their reply last year:

Fergie76 wrote: »

Thank you for your e-mail.

BPA – xxxxx.

Please be aware that this is not in breach of our Code of Practice. However, we will contact the operator again in regards to the free parking only if parked within a disabled bay.

Once we receive a reply, we will be in touch.

Kind regards,

AOS Investigations Team

Redx wrote: »

my family used to ferry my mum to hospital a lot when she had cancer, they are drivers, they do not have a BB , but the passenger did, so yes it discrminates against passengers that have a BB by making it a requirement on the driver, when its not a requirement AT ALL (because the EA 2010 is what is relevant here)

This is the case here too. The registered keeper of the car does not drive, but is the BB holder.

Redx

no problem m8

just cherry pick the info from what I have said and do as you see fit , clearly the signage is worse at your hospital compared to the ones in Bristol, but in my opinion there is a lot of work to be done nationwide on this, but if more people did as you did we may actually see compliance within the next few years , although I think it will take a few MCOL`s before action is taken pro-actively rather than a knee jerk response as it seems now

good luck and let us know how you get on

Coupon-mad

The_Deep wrote: »

I see no discrimination here.

Why does that reply not surprise me!

One main point is that those unlucky disabled people who find their 'free' bays are full have to use a normal bay and pay the same as able bodied people. That is discrimination - maybe these links below will help to explain the legal position in the EA 2010 - it's another link where Councils were threatened with Legal action and were forced to change their charging policy:

http://www.disabilitynow.org.uk/article/norwich-blue-badge-victory

''...I don’t believe that charging disabled and non-disabled people the same is “equal”. In fact, I would argue that to charge Blue Badge holders the same to park as non-disabled people is in fact discriminatory. This is because the majority of disabled people take longer to get around the shops, and therefore end up paying more to park.''

More here:

http://www.wake-smith.co.uk/?pageid=20JANUARY_2011.xml

''Norwich City Council has now decided to reintroduce reduced rates for disabled drivers with every one hour paid for entitling the Blue Badge holder to an additional hour free.''

The_Deep

Why does that reply not surprise me!

My stance CM is that either everyone should pay for parking, or no-one should. The point of BBs is not to save the holder money, but to give him/her the best parking spots.

Why should a Bentley driving BB holder get free parking, when this poor chap has to pay?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/man-without-any-feet-denied-4131087

As I said elsewhere yesterday, you involve yourself so deeply in the minutiae that you are unable to see the wider picture.

Stroma

The wider picture is that hospitals should not discriminate, it's primary legislation the Equality Act, and breaching it in the way this hospital is quite breathtaking! The fact that they are picking and choosing what must be followed is sheer arrogance, saying for example that only blue badge holders who are driving can use the disabled bays is discrimination and illegal, nowhere does the Equality Act state such thing!

And the whole point of having these bays is not to disadvantage disabled people, by setting tariffs and time limits the same as people who don't need these bays is discrimination, the fact is that it can take longer for someone with a wheelchair for example to do the same thing as others. The Equality Act is about removing barriers!

It's not about erecting barriers so parking companies and hospitals can make money out of other people's health problems ! And by the way the blue badge scheme is not even mentioned in the Equality Act, this person is disabled and can use disabled bays in hospitals and on private land!