Hospital Complaint For Breach Of Equality Act 2010

Morhana

Rant 2 for post 76.

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

I have also often seen blue badge cars parked in parent and child spaces when there has been more than enough disabled spaces available, this leaves less parent and child spaces available, meaning parents have to park in "normal" spaces making it difficult to get the child/children out and back into the car.

This totally beggers belief


1st off were you there when they came to park up, who's to say there were disabled spaces available at that moment in time, I have myself used P&C spaces because there were no disabled spaces available, and gone into the shop to come out 5 mins later and see disabled spaces now available.


2nd and more importantly is so what, if a disabled person uses a P&C space, they should always override imo, as they do not match up to an able bodied parent as having a child with them is not a disability.


Don't give me the rubbish about needing extra space etc, I have seen hundreds of P&C spaces that are exactly the same size as normal unmarked spots, the only difference is they are closer to the entrance than normal spaces.


Also since these P&C spaces have come about they have eaten into the spaces at the entrances that would in the past of been available for disabled spaces, so cutting down in how many there are and as a result often the amount of spaces does not keep up with demand, and hence the disabled person has to use the P&C.


At the end of the day parents need to take responsibility for raising there children, and not expect the world around them to pander to them for something at the end od the day they chose to do, unlike a disabled person who has no choice and has been forced into there situation.


In my book my BB has always been about getting as close as possible or I cant make it to the shop, its not about if its free parking or not. I would gladly pay while displaying my BB so long as I can get to the place. In fact if I had to I would pay more for the prime spot, as that's the only way I can get to the place I need to be.


Rant over I'm going back to lurking.

Redx

and dont forget , the BB isnt free, the disabled person PAYS for the Blue Badge , plus those disabled spaces are covered by law, namely the EA 2010

parents with children pay nothing at all , plus those spaces have no backing in law

so I agree that these to55ers who have just joined and know sweet fa , can FRO in my book, its fools like catoninetails that deserve 50 lashes

!!!!!! unless you have something useful to say , especially that doesnt discriminate against those who are disabled or fighting for the disabled as in this thread

ie:- he is doing it on behalf of his disabled wife, not himself

Fruitcake

Morhana, you have only just joined but I like you already.

Well done on your first two introductory posts. :T

bazster

Fruitcake wrote: »

Morhana, you have only just joined but I like you already.

Well done on your first two introductory posts. :T

Indeed, but best not to feed the troll.

ManxRed

Fergie76 wrote: »

Even taking the letter at face value, it doesn't mention anything about empowering APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd.

It implies it by saying this:

but does not preclude it from using the services of a sister company in connection with the enforcement of Parking Charge Notices.

Which is factually incorrect as the contract doesn't reference affiliates anywhere, meaning sister companies are not party to the contract and cannot perform services under it.

Fergie76

ManxRed wrote: »

It implies it by saying this:


Which is factually incorrect as the contract doesn't reference affiliates anywhere, meaning sister companies are not party to the contract and cannot perform services under it.

It is APCOA's letter to the BPA that states that.

The Hospital letter which I assume (I know I should never assume) the ICO are referring to says:

we have noted an error in our letter dated 7th Jul which mentions an Agreement between oursleves and APCOA dated 1st Jan 14. There is no such Agreement in place and the appointment of APCOA Facilities Management (Harrow) Ltd is via a contract for Northwick Park Hospital site, dated November 1999 that runs for 40 years until 2039. With regard to Central Middlexsex and Ealing Hospitals, there is an interim arrangement in place for the management of car parking which is renewed on a month by month basis until further notice. These two sites are under review as part of our wider car park management strategy.

Please can you kindly ensure that the above is communicated as and when may be requested in relation to access to DVLA data and/or further legal action for recovery of unpaid Parking Charge Notices on our behalf.

If that is the letter that the ICO have seen, how they can infer from that anything other than no contract, I don't?

Also, that letter from the hospital is factually incorrect, as the contract that we have both seen is dated 10 Feb 98, not Nov 99 as stated in the letter above, unless they are hiding another contract?

ManxRed

I Agree.

(some other text - apparently 'I agree' is too short a message to post!)

lovinituk

catoninetails wrote: »

Give it a rest Fergie76 you are not going to get anywhere. Anyone would think you didn't have anything better to do. What are you trying to prove.

Yet you joined just to have a poke at a couple of forum regulars!! :rotfl:

Parking scam company owner/employee much!! Now THAT'S just seeing it real :T

Fergie76

Manx,

A quick question if you are around...

I have just had a another look at the contract and it says:

FMG (Harrow) Limited, whose registered offices is....................which term shall include its permitted successors and assigns.

Can that include APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd or would you still expect a clause making them party to the agreement?

Fergie76

I'm guessing from this article - http://knowledgetonegotiate.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/what-is-successors-and-assigns.html that a written assumption, novation or party to contract is still required, because of the re-assigning/subletting clause.