UKPC £8k+ if I lose POPLA appeal?

HO87

enfield_freddy wrote: »

however the threat of "upto" 8k costs has only been mentioned in a reply to an independent tribunal.

This may be true but it would stretch credulity to the limit for them to suggest that they were unaware that the document would be passed to the OP as part of the appeal disclosure process. The most favourable interpretation (to UKPC) is that it is a crass error i.e. if it was not done deliberately. That would not negate the fact that the net effect is likely to be to intimidate.

Auntiemogs

Thank you so much all. :-)

No, I haven't contacted the landowner yet, I was going to see what the POPLA decision was first.

Part of me wishes that I'd paid the reduced charge but I have reason to believe that they have been deliberately targeting disabled motorists.

I'd promised my sons that we could go to the cinema, so after receiving my ticket, I pulled into a row of disabled spaces in front of the Odeon cinema. I was still reeling tbh, so I thought I'd better read the signs by the spaces, only to find that they were marked 'Authorised coach and minibus parking only' and noticed that some of the cars displaying Blue Badges had tickets. The next time I visited it was the same story, only now they'd removed all but one of the signs. They tried to enter this sign into evidence as proof that they were following the BPA code of practice, as it's the only one in the car park which is at a readable height from sitting in a car (all of the other numerous signs in the car park start about 8' up (even in the disabled areas) and are in small writing. The picture was of such low resolution that it wasn't possible to read it, and the next two photos showed what could have been taken as pictures of the same sign, outlining their terms and conditions. Luckily, I was able to provide my own photo.

I'm sorry to ramble on but I'm still so cross....

Auntiemogs

Well, I'm finally back, but the news is not good.....

Despite challenging my fine on the 3 points further up, my case was one of those suspended due to the Beavis case.

It was then passed to Wright Hassall Solicitors, and I have had an email today rejecting my appeal for the following reasons:-

• The Appellant stated in the Appeal that the amount of the parking charge is unreasonable. Pursuant to the guidance set out in the Supreme Court’s decision in ParkingEye v Beavis and in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice, a reasonable charge would be £100.00. As the charge the Car Park Operator has imposed is equal to or less than £100.00, we have no option but to reject the Appeal.

This is despite the fact that I was parked in a free car park.

• The Appellant has stated in the Appeal that they are a blue badge holder and that they have complied with the terms and conditions of the car park (“the Terms and Conditions”). We note from the evidence that the parties have submitted that the Appellant did not act in accordance with the Terms and Conditions, and accordingly the Appeal is rejected.

I have never stated that I complied with the terms and conditions, because I didn't see them (see below) - I just forgot to display my badge and didn't realise the car park was managed by UKPC.

• The Appellant has stated in the Appeal that the signage at the car park is not adequate and that they were unaware that they had entered into a contract by remaining at the location. Upon reviewing the evidence provided by both parties we contend that the signage is adequate and does comply with the BPA Code of Practice. Accordingly, the Appeal is rejected.

I have no idea what evidence was provided by UKPC, as I certainly haven't seen it. They did enter into evidence an out of focus picture of a head-height sign which was unreadable. I supplied a picture of the same sign, to show that it merely stated that the spaces were for disabled buses and taxis only, and did not show any terms and conditions. Apart from that, the only signs showing terms and conditions started at approximately 7 feet from the ground and were in small writing (I couldn't read them from a standing position, let alone seated) - this does not follow the BPA code of practice wrt people with disabilities.

So, it looks like I have to either pay up or go to court.....:(

Coupon-mad

The Appellant stated in the Appeal that the amount of the parking charge is unreasonable. Pursuant to the guidance set out in the Supreme Court’s decision in ParkingEye v Beavis and in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice, a reasonable charge would be £100.00. As the charge the Car Park Operator has imposed is equal to or less than £100.00, we have no option but to reject the Appeal.

This is despite the fact that I was parked in a free car park.

So was Barry Beavis.

Did you not seize the chance to update your appeal when WH wrote to tell you that you had seven days to add any post-Beavis information/evidence? And you should have said that you never saw UKPC's evidence!!

How many PCNs do you have in play? UKPC can only pursue the sum on the PCN (£100) plus court fee. One PCN is no biggie. Did UKPC never 'offer to settle' for £15 last year?

I have no idea what evidence was provided by UKPC, as I certainly haven't seen it. They did enter into evidence an out of focus picture of a head-height sign which was unreadable. I supplied a picture of the same sign, to show that it merely stated that the spaces were for disabled buses and taxis only, and did not show any terms and conditions. Apart from that, the only signs showing terms and conditions started at approximately 7 feet from the ground and were in small writing (I couldn't read them from a standing position, let alone seated) - this does not follow the BPA code of practice wrt people with disabilities.

1. Complain to WH in writing, THIS week - NOW - that you never saw UKPC's evidence and that you will take this to ISPA as an unfair process on that basis because the case should be adjourned and held until you have seen UKPC's evidence. Procedural error - ask WH whether they asked UKPC for evidence because there was none? If so, WHY did they allow that to happen???

2. Complain to ISPA (Google them...).

Auntiemogs

Sorry, the evidence I'm referring to is the proof that they fulfill the BPA Code of Practice with regard to signage for disabled peeps. UKPC have always maintained that this is the case, yet apart from the photograph of the sign that can't be read, as far as I'm aware they have not entered any further evidence to prove this point (and believe me, I made several visits following my ticket, to make sure I hadn't missed one).

I'm also concerned to be told by a solicitor that I have made statements that I haven't. I've sent an inquiry to IPSA regarding a complaint, hopefully I'll hear from them soon....

Auntiemogs

Reply from IPSA...

Thank you for your email.
ISPA doesn't have any powers to make any of the providers of PoPLA do anything it can only make recommendations.
We have lobbied the relevant department - now DCLG and previously DfT - to set up an oversight body with powers to compel change.
In these circumstances you may feel complaining to another body might be more beneficial. I will, however, record your complaint in our statistics.
Best wishes

Not sure which body she may be referring to?

Half_way

Have you contacted the landowner, and if not why not?
While some great acrobatics are sometimes performed to secure a win at POPLA, it isnt the be all and end all of things.

You need to do what you should have done ages ago, complain to the landowner, tell them that you have a disability, if possible send them a copy of any documentary evidence such as a blue badge, and then tell them that the Parking company the landowners agents ( for who's actions the landowner is jointly liable for) is/are continuing to harass you and that you feel that you have been discriminated against as a result of your disability and your requirements/needs for provisions to be made without harassment under the Equalities act.
You can also add that you are sending this as a formal complaint to them about a breach of the Equity act (EA) by the landowner as a direct result of their agents actions, and you may also need to remind them that not all people with a disability as covered under the EA may possess a blue badge and the shopping centre must take that into account.

also include the awful phrase beloved of corporate non entities that love to pass the buck "gesture of goodwill"

If you can stop your agents UKPC from pursuing this matter, then as a gesture of goodwill I will not take things any further with regards to pursuing a case under the Equalities act against (landowner/owner of Gillingham retail park)

also include something about you expect them to take measures to ensure this never happens again,
Immediate action to ensure that motorists with a disability under the equalities act - who do not possess a blue badge are not persecuted
and a reminder that the blue badge scheme, and blue badges are not valid on private land ( include a copy of the handbook highlighting this) which makes a mockery of any requirements to display a valid blue badge as there is no such thing on private land.


You need to cause a fuss and make as much aggro as possible for the landowner making it so that a PPC is anything but a trouble free way to manage their car park

Coupon-mad

She might be alluding to the SRA (as WH are a Solicitor firm, apparently).

beamerguy

Auntiemogs wrote: »

Reply from IPSA...

Thank you for your email.
ISPA doesn't have any powers to make any of the providers of PoPLA do anything it can only make recommendations.
We have lobbied the relevant department - now DCLG and previously DfT - to set up an oversight body with powers to compel change.
In these circumstances you may feel complaining to another body might be more beneficial. I will, however, record your complaint in our statistics.
Best wishes

Not sure which body she may be referring to?

It's called "pass the buck" The ISPA which is financed by the BPA, both of whom appear to be a waste of time.

The DCLG are supposed to be reviewing the private parking industry but are yet to prove they are remotely interested

The scam continues

The_Deep

Have you contacted your MP, Trading Standards, Local Media? Posted on disabled boards? Making complaints of disabled discrimination is a very powerful weapon, firms have to take action.


You need to be more pro-active, you are in the driving seat