Disabled charge in a UKPC managed shopping centre

aguynameddarryl

fisherjim wrote: »

Why is it nonsensical?
The ppc's supposedly have an appeals system, and any fair minded system would cancel the ticket once an appeal by the disabled person or representative was made.
Or in the good old days of onsite parking operatives they would actually manage the bays and make the allowance on the day.
But no it's all about the cash, and bullying the people that least deserve it!

Because, at this stage, it hasn't yet been appealed?

How was the PPC to have known the driver/passenger was disabled? I don't think the PPC has done anything wrong at this stage. Should they automatically assume everyone in a disabled bay is disabled under the terms of the EA?

If so, what's to stop anyone from doing it?!

aguynameddarryl

pogofish wrote: »

No - Actually, its the law!

...

However, once informed that a reasonable adjustment is required/involved, any PPC (or retailer) failing to recognise their responsabilities under the Act is a matter for the strongest complaint!

They haven't yet done that though. The PPC have, at this stage, acted entirely properly.

If they hadn't ticketed the car, they would, in fact, have been behaving in appropriately.

Herzlos

Guys_Dad wrote: »

So how was the PPC supposed to know that there was a disabled person using the space?

By actually managing the car park? When they see someone using a disabled bay, and the user is clearly in need of assistance, they should be providing assistance or allowing them to park. If they see someone who doesn't look like they need assistance, they should ask them.

Of course, it's more lucrative to watch them struggle into the shop and run across to issue a ticket.

In any case, the Law (Equalities Act 2010) doesn't require a blue badge, which is meaningless on private ground anyway. It requires allowances to be made for those that qualify under the act.

Failing that, the appeals service is meant to allow people to plead their case, and upon notifying the parking company that there was a driver/passenger that qualified for assistance under the EA2010, they should drop the charge, as per the law.

Of course, they won't, because it's more lucrative to deny it and hassle them for payment.

Herzlos

aguynameddarryl wrote: »

How were the PPC to know that two passengers were disabled?

Because one of them is an 80 year old man that requires the use of a walker? The guy that issued the ticket is pretty much guaranteed to have watched them park and leave the car, especially since it'll have taken them a while.

Due diligence.

And not doing that is what's caused the expense for the company, not the driver.

baza52

did the driver or the passenger have a disabled blue badge?
The OP says an 80yr old and a wheelchair user but does not confirm if either has a blue badge.

pogofish

baza52 wrote: »

did the driver or the passenger have a disabled blue badge?
The OP says an 80yr old and a wheelchair user but does not confirm if either has a blue badge.

The Blue Badge Scheme does not apply in private car parks! - Its the Equality Act that applies here - and that applies to all disabled people requiring an appropriate reasonable adjustment, regardless of any badge.

aguynameddarryl

Herzlos wrote: »

Of course, it's more lucrative to watch them struggle into the shop and run across to issue a ticket.

You're guessing wildly beyond any facts.

Herzlos wrote: »

In any case, the Law (Equalities Act 2010) doesn't require a blue badge

Find where I said it did. Please.

Herzlos wrote: »

Failing that, the appeals service is meant to allow people to plead their case, and upon notifying the parking company that there was a driver/passenger that qualified for assistance under the EA2010, they should drop the charge, as per the law.

For the umpteenth time, it hasn't yet been appealed - your ire is premature at best and wasted at worst.

aguynameddarryl

Manned car parks, to the staffing levels most of you seem to advocate, would cost considerably more to run, would you all be in favour of paying more for the privilege of parking?

Herzlos

aguynameddarryl wrote: »

Manned car parks, to the staffing levels most of you seem to advocate, would cost considerably more to run, would you all be in favour of paying more for the privilege of parking?

How did the windscreen ticket get there if the car park wasn't manned?

I'd be curious to know what time it was issued, I bet it was within about 2 minutes of the passengers leaving line of sight, because the PPC's have form for near instantaneous tickets, and that only happens because they'll sit and watch people leave the site, or park up, and wait for them to be far enough away and pounce.

Guys_Dad

Herzlos wrote: »

Because one of them is an 80 year old man that requires the use of a walker? The guy that issued the ticket is pretty much guaranteed to have watched them park and leave the car, especially since it'll have taken them a while.

Due diligence.

And not doing that is what's caused the expense for the company, not the driver.

That is a possibility but no more than that. You have absolutely no evidence for that.

You are currently jumping the gun. In all probability the PPC will NOT act properly but you should read the more balanced comments of other equally anti-PPC contributors who will be as vociferous as you should the PPC fail to uphold the appeal, but until then, it is the motorist's mistake that has caused this.