Equality Act vs. Blue Badge and PPC’s

seaweed

This question is aimed fairly and squarely at Coupon-mad, but all views would be appreciated
My partner has MS, and therefore is classed as ‘disabled’ under EA. However, she only receives the standard mobility component of PIP, (and enhanced component of daily living) – and therefore would not qualify for a Blue Badge. I have no complaint with this, mobility is not her main problem.
When at our local supermarket, we do not need to park in a disabled bay near the entrance, but we do need extra time to shop. Her condition means she needs to use a toilet more often than a non-disabled person (there is no public toilet in the supermarket, we have to go to another part of the complex), and her ‘brain fog’ and other issues means shopping itself takes longer than for most people.
However, the PPC signs say that for an extra hours parking, you must park in a disabled bay, and display a Blue Badge. We will not park in a disabled bay, as we don’t want to take up a space for someone who has more severe mobility problems – and of course we don’t have a Blue Badge.
I’ve already had two ‘tickets’ cancelled by the PPC after forwarding evidence of disability, but they have told me they won’t do it again, I should contact customer services in the store if we need more time. To cut a long story short, customer services and the PPC attendant in charge weren’t interested in the problem, their attitude being ‘no badge – no extra time’.
My next step will be to contact the store manager, and progressing upwards as necessary – BUT – can Coupon-mad or others offer advice on the legal situation first, please?

Half_way

You can write a simple letter, and go into the store with it on your next visit if they are not being helpful as you stated

customer services and the PPC attendant in charge weren’t interested in the problem, their attitude being ‘no badge – no extra time’.

I believe the part of the equality act you are looking for is the section under Reasonable Adjustments.

It could also be reasonably argued that through the actions of their agents - that is the parking company the store in question/car park owner(s) are already in breach of the Equalities act and that would go for anywhere that uses a restricted maximum time limit approach ( ie 90 minutes/2/3 hours ) If however the time limit was 5 hours then it may be less of an argument ( however this would be far less profitable for the parking company )

Im not the greatest letter writer CM will probably make a better job but something like this may be of use - the real issue here is the supermarket allowing a parking company to act as its agents.

Dear Customer support /Superstore staff
I am informing you that My partner has a protected characteristic under the Equalities Act of 2010 that being a long term disability, and as a result He/She/We requires extra time to complete His/Her/Our shop.
While He/She does not qualify for a Council issued Blue badge and does not require the use of Disabled parking spaces, He/She Does require extra time to complete His/Her/Our shop.
I have received parking tickets on the past from your store, and I have even contacted your customer support staff to let them know about the issue however they have shown little understanding of the facts and the law.
Please take note that I have given you ( the supermarket ) adequate notice and if you continue to discriminate against my partner by allowing your agents ( scumbag parking ltd) to continue to operate as they currently do then i will have no option than to consider commencing
action against you for breaching the Equalities Act 2010


dont use the above as is, its just a rough idea you need to go for the supermarket primarily as they have allowed the parking company onto their land and it they who are responsible for the parking company's actions.

Read this: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/20 Equalities Act Adjustments for disabled persons ( not sure if this is in the sticky thread)
The Car park owner is responsible for the actions of their agents, if the PPC acting as Agent has broken the Equalities act then the supermarket acting as Principle can and should be held fully to account.
Private parking company's that operate on the Parking charge notice system of deterrent are not and never will be a solution to any perceived car park problem.

Umkomaas

I think I'd be making it quite clear to the retailer that, should this intimidation/harassment continue, you will not feel restrained in issuing proceedings against them (under the Equality Act 2010), as principal, being responsible for the actions of their agent (PPC), making them jointly and severally liable.

Ask them to refer this formal response to their legal department so that they might understand the full implications of their association with, and (seeming) encouragement of, their agent's action in harassing those protected by the EA 2010. See what results.

The more the organ grinder starts to appreciate just what !!!!!! their monkey brings them and their customers, (the only source of their income/profit), the better!

Fergie76

I think it is Sect 20 para 3 you want:

The first requirement is a requirement, where a provision, criterion or practice of A's puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled, to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage.

I have just used it in a POPLA appeal.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=66789298&postcount=51

Half_way

Umkomaas wrote: »

I think I'd be making it quite clear to the retailer that, should this intimidation/harassment continue, you will not feel restrained in issuing proceedings against them (under the Equality Act 2010), as principal, being responsible for the actions of their agent (PPC), making them jointly and severally liable.

Ask them to refer this formal response to their legal department so that they might understand the full implications of their association with, and (seeming) encouragement of, their agent's action in harassing those protected by the EA 2010. See what results.

The more the organ grinder starts to appreciate just what !!!!!! their monkey brings them and their customers, (the only source of their income/profit), the better!

and if your feeling up to it a little media attention may be of use, some supermarkets may be especially sensitive to this sort of thins, as they say every little helps http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-29652764

seaweed

Thanks very much for that advice, I'll draft something along those suggested lines, and see what happens! Will keep you posted.
Thanks again