UKPC Missed Popla Deadline

jayooo

Hi all,

Looking for some advice on a dispute with UKPC if possible please?

My mother was ticketed on a retail park for "parked in a disabled person's space without clearly displaying a valid disabled person's badge".

No my mother does have a blue badge but did fail to display it, so this part is true. However on private land I don't believe disabled parking rules can be enforced?

We filled in the appeal online using the templates available on this site (not mentioning the fact she is actually disabled), and it was rejected as expected, and POPLA code given, but we missed the appeal deadline (totally our fault).

From what I gather it is now too late to do anything? She is now receiving letters threatening court action from a company called Debt Recovery Plus.

What is the best way to proceed from here? All communication with UKPC has been given as "registered keeper". Could we now reset the clock and inform them someone else was driving the vehicle? Or should we ignore and argue the fact disabled parking cannot be enforced should the case ever go to court?

Thanks in advance,

James

Redx

read post #4 of the NEWBIES sticky thread, as you are now in IGNORE mode

the EA2010 applies on private land, not the BB

Ralph-y

as above .......

but go back to the retail park and speak to the managers in any shops visited an complain long and loud!

the advice below was given to a poster in a similar position to you .....
by a learned forum member ....
it might be of interest / useful

EQUALITY ACT 2010 AND BREACH OF UTCCR 1999

For the avoidance of doubt, the registered keeper of this vehicle has 'Protected Characteristics' under the Equality Act and has a legal right to use any 'reasonable adjustment' provided by any landholder/client/operator when visiting a customer-facing environment, including car parks. The registered keeper was an occupant of the vehicle when it was parked at the location in question.

As you are aware, the Blue Badge scheme does not even lawfully apply in private car parks. Companies such as XYZ may well mention the Badge on your signs, ostensibly to pay lip-service to disability law and to make it easy for you to issue tickets for any transgression you might invent, but you cannot rely on it in isolation as the only indicator of disability need. And you are certainly wholly unjustified to harass a disabled visitor for the spurious reason that you seem to think that, suddenly, a disability disappears if a Blue Badge date is not visible (a copy of which is attached, because as keeper I am keen to resolve the issue and have better things to do than enter into protracted correspondence with a firm like XYZ).

Your terms on your signs are expressly unenforceable and if you disagree then I will show a District Judge that is the case, along with exposing the flaws in your Notice to Keeper, the non-compliance of your signage at the disabled bays at this site and the fact you have clearly made no loss.

Where there is a current disabled tax disc then it is an indicator that the car is used by someone whose restricted mobility qualifies for higher rate disability benefit. In this case the presence of the tax disc and subsequent provision of a copy of the Blue Badge has caused XYZ to know about the disability. It is clear that your employees need urgent training in the Equality Act 2010.
Here is the law and how your signage terms are affected by it:

EQUALITY ACT 2010

142 Unenforceable terms
(1) 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 Contracting out

(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.

This is not a case of mitigating circumstances, this is primary disability law which takes precedence and which grants unequivocal rights which cannot be removed, nor restricted to certain groups, nor unilaterally changed or charged for on a whim, for your profit.

Any term that XYZ may have on your signs to the effect 'Blue Badges only' is wholly unreasonable and therefore null and void, if the effect is to deny a disabled person their statutory right to use a reasonable adjustment without penalty.

EQUALITY ACT 2010

29 Provision of services

(1) A person (a “service-provider”) concerned with the provision of a service to the public or a section of the public (for payment or not) must not discriminate against a person requiring the service by not providing the person with the service.

(2) A service-provider (A) must not, in providing the service, discriminate against a person (B)—
(a) as to the terms on which A provides the service to B;
(b) by terminating the provision of the service to B;
(c) by subjecting B to any other detriment.

(3) A service-provider must not, in relation to the provision of the service, harass—
(a) a person requiring the service, or
(b) a person to whom the service-provider provides the service.

(4) A service-provider must not victimise a person requiring the service by not providing the person with the service.

(5) A service-provider (A) must not, in providing the service, victimise a person (B)—
(a) as to the terms on which A provides the service to B;
(b) by terminating the provision of the service to B;
(c) by subjecting B to any other detriment.

As a company, XYZ has specifically breached your legal duties under the 'EHRC Equality Act Code of Practice for Service Providers' which has been law since 2011. 'Service Provider' is a term loosely associated with XYZ and certainly applies to your landowner/occupier client in this car park, who are being sent a copy of this letter.

I know that XYZ do not own this car park and you are acting merely as agents for the owner/occupier. If you progress this case to court you will be required among your evidence, to produce your contract or site agreement with the landowner and I will require XYZ to demonstrate how your contract and ownership status differs from that in the cases VCS v Ibbotson, Case No 1SE09849 (16/5/2012), ParkingEye v Sharma, Case No. 3QT62646 (23/10/2013) and ParkingEye v Gardam, Case No: 3QT60598 (14/11/2013).

I will also direct the Judge to the case of UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012 finding that the charges are a penalty) and Excel v Greenwood, Case Number 3QT60496 (4/10/2013) which was about a forgotten Blue Badge, where the Judge found that the Excel should have made reasonable adjustments once they knew about the disability.

When you saw the DVLA data and printed out a Notice to Keeper, you certainly already knew about the disability need - take a look at the address you sent the Notice to Keeper to which shows it as a 'Motability Vehicle'. You have already been told about the disability and have been given proof that a Blue Badge exists - so your breach of the Act is complete. Harassment is also a specific breach of the Equality Act as well, so choose your reply carefully as I am keeping all your letters, and those of your agents, safe in case they are needed in court.

I will of course defend this robustly in court and I reserve the right to claim against you, since the remedy for Equality Act 2010 breach is monetary damages with far more legal backing than your Parking Charge Notice.


Good luck

Ralph:cool:

jayooo

Thanks both for your help.

I have many hours more of reading to do!

Just for clarity, that info provided seems to form the basis of an appeal, would it be an idea to send something similar to UKPC, or is too late to bother and continue ignoring and fight in court, if indeed it ever got to that stage?

*Edited to state that we will of course go back and speak to the shops visited on the retail park in the first instance.

James

Redx

you are wasting your time with UKPC, better to argue it out with a judge, if it ever got that far

a landowner cancellation is your best bet

jayooo

Thanks RedX, I shall be visiting the landowner and fighting the case.

James