Indigo PCN despite displaying Disabled Blue Badge at hospital

sandrew

Hi,

I've read lots of relevant threads on this board and followed all your wonderful advice (both on this occasion, and another successful occasion with Morrisons) but am unsure how to proceed from here.

Summary - took my 84 year old Dad to Gloucester Hospital for a medical appointment in March. He is disabled, as am I. There was a four bay parking zone very near the clinic door. Two spaces were marked disabled parking (and occupied). Two were normal spaces. We parked and displayed MY blue parking badge in the normal space. At my own hospital in Oxford you can park anywhere and, as long as you display your blue badge, you don't have to pay, as is the way with a lot of Council car parks. We assumed this was the case at Gloucester Hospital. Wrong. When we returned several hours later we had a window PCN for failing to pay. The sign saying so was at the rear of the car but we had not seen it (my husband was busy helping me into my wheelchair and my Dad's appointment was, ironically, for his assessment to have cataract surgery - say no more).

I appealed to Indigo Parking and was rejected. I cited Equality Act, not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, misleading signage and siting of disabled parking spaces, no authority to issue invoices on the land. Signed The Keeper.

I will be appealing to POPLA today as otherwise I will miss the 28 day period to do so. My wording is as follows:

1. Indigo Parking have failed to make a 'reasonable adjustment' yet they 'knew or should have known' from my appeal that a disabled person was present from the display of the Blue Parking Badge, and therefore met the definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010 ('the EA'). As soon as they were made aware of this, they were obliged by law to consider making a reasonable adjustment.

They failed to do so and so they are in breach of the EA because they have offered no justification for applying a rigid parking rule. Equality law allows a service provider to treat disabled people more favourably than non-disabled people, such as not charging a disabled person displaying a blue badge for parking in a parking space directly adjacent to a disabled parking space, if it causes detriment to a protected person/carer. The aim of the law in allowing this is to remove barriers that disabled people would otherwise face to accessing services.

2. Indigo Parking do not own this site and have not shown their landowner contract to show their authority to operate on the land, as required by the BPA Code of Practice.

3) The charge of £80 is punitive and unreasonable, contravening the BPA Code of Practice section 19. Indigo Parking must therefore be required to explain their 'charge' by providing POPLA with a detailed financial appraisal which evidences the genuine pre-estimated amount of loss in this particular site parking for this alleged contravention.


However, I am somewhat confused ...... I have NOT yet received the NTK but the 56 days are not up for another 5 days, yet my 28 days with POPLA are up today. If anybody reads this today and can advise whether or not I should include this fact in my POPLA appeal, then I would be very grateful. Short notice I know! Otherwise I shall exclude it as this stage, and then use it in my rebuttal if POPLA reject my appeal.

I have also written to PALS at the hospital with a complaint.

Any thoughts most welcome.

Guys_Dad

What were the conditions re paying and length of stay in the Blue Badge bays?

Were they free with unlimited time or at least a period of free parking that exceeded your own parking time?

If even BB holders had to pay in the BB slots for the length of time you were there, then that weakens your case considerably.

sandrew

This is from the hospital website ....

"Disabled users may park free in accessible spaces across the two hospital sites. Please be advised this only applies to marked accessible spaces and if you are unable to find a vacant acecssible space, you must pay for your parking at patient and visitor rates advertised.

The Hospital sites have a large number of accessible spaces available throughout the patient and visitor car parks, but as you are aware from your blue badge handbook, the rules governing private land enable charges to be levied to all users parked on private land. Please note that failure to observe this ruling will result in a Parking Charge Notice being issued to your vehicle."

I have to assume from this there is no time limit in the BB spaces. We ignorantly did not photograph the sign before we left the car park/area (and live two hours away) and the photo of the sign that Indigo have sent with their Appeal rejection is not legible even with a magnifying glass.

Sorry I can't be more definite.

Ralph-y

Hi and welcome to the forum ......

have a read through the newbies thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822

especially the bits re BPA ....

Have you tried complaining to PALS yet ?

good luck

Ralph:cool:

Guys_Dad

Looks like they have covered your situation - to your disadvantage unfortunately. Looks like you would not get a sympathetic ear from the hospital, but you can try PALS = see hre http://www.nhs.uk/chq/pages/1082.aspx?CategoryID=68

MSE members have reported good results when they intervene, but remember, they can intervene on your behalf and are not the hospital, so spell things out remembering they are your potential friends.

sandrew

Yes, I wrote to PALS when Indigo rejected the appeal and await their reply.

sandrew

I just find it amazing that a matter of 9 feet can make a difference as to whether you do not have to pay or incur a 80 quid fine.

If POPLA rejects the appeal, we shall simply ignore the 'Debt Collector' letters that drop through the letterbox.

Coupon-mad

Search the forum for 'Indigo Hospital' or 'Indigo Blue Badge' as there are a few like this on the forum already.

I will be appealing to POPLA today as otherwise I will miss the 28 day period to do so.

No, you won't. There are more like 30 - or more, but I won't say how many more - days to use a POPLA code and they NEVER stop working over a weekend. Trust me! Wait 24 hours, let's get this right.

DO NOT RUSH THIS TODAY. I PROMISE YOU IT WILL BE IN TIME ON MONDAY, IF TODAY IS DAY 28.

My wording is as follows:

1. Indigo Parking have failed to make a 'reasonable adjustment' yet they 'knew or should have known' from my appeal that a disabled person was present from the display of the Blue Parking Badge, and therefore met the definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010 ('the EA'). As soon as they were made aware of this, they were obliged by law to consider making a reasonable adjustment.

They failed to do so and so they are in breach of the EA because they have offered no justification for applying a rigid parking rule. Equality law allows a service provider to treat disabled people more favourably than non-disabled people, such as not charging a disabled person displaying a blue badge for parking in a parking space directly adjacent to a disabled parking space, if it causes detriment to a protected person/carer. The aim of the law in allowing this is to remove barriers that disabled people would otherwise face to accessing services.

2. Indigo Parking do not own this site and have not shown their landowner contract to show their authority to operate on the land, as required by the BPA Code of Practice.

3) The charge of £80 is punitive and unreasonable, contravening the BPA Code of Practice section 19. Indigo Parking must therefore be required to explain their 'charge' by providing POPLA with a detailed financial appraisal which evidences the genuine pre-estimated amount of loss in this particular site parking for this alleged contravention.

Not enough, make it stronger.

You have missed out 'no contract formed from clear signs with £100 on in large letters', for a start.

However, I am somewhat confused ...... I have NOT yet received the NTK but the 56 days are not up for another 5 days, yet my 28 days with POPLA are up today.

That's the entire point of appealing when you did. Why do poeple not relaise this, it tells you in the NEWBIES thread to appeal as keeper three weeks after a windscreen PCN and WHY...including the VITAL fact the PPC might then forget the NTK.

If anybody reads this today and can advise whether or not I should include this fact in my POPLA appeal, then I would be very grateful.

OF COURSE!

Search the forum for 'Indigo POPLA' or 'Indigo no keeper liability' and copy from a recent one that has a stronger set of points than you have. DO NOT PANIC. TRUST ME. We can do this tomorrow with input from other posters, when you have searched & found better examples and shown us a new draft (please).

sandrew

Thanks for your quick reply Coupon-mad - I had hoped you might read my post as it was your advice to OPs that helped me get a Morrisons PCN cancelled by their CEO a while back! Thanks by the way!!

Sorry for the last minute nature of my post but I thought I had it covered until I started composing my POPLA appeal.

That's great that I have longer than the 28 days, I can now draft a stronger POPLA appeal, which I'll post here tomorrow.

I got the PCN on 30th March, and appealed on 9th April. I had read all the NEWBIE advice and had learned that sending in the appeal to Indigo might then distract them from sending the NTK but I also knew that my appeal was sooner than recommended ..... but I had a conflict - the car is a Motability vehicle i.e. leased, and the advice suggested to get an appeal into Indigo before they had a chance to take the route of finding my name from Motability, and so head them off. Hope I got that right?? So I guessed I might then have the 56 day NTK vs POPLA appeal dates dilemma if no NTK was forthcoming - which it hasn't so far.

I'll do more searching tomorrow morning on the board and revisit my draft. I wasn't sure whether to include the fact I had not received a NTK in my POPLA appeal because the 56 days were not up. I shall now include the relevant paragraph.

Thank you!

Coupon-mad

That's great that I have longer than the 28 days, I can now draft a stronger POPLA appeal, which I'll post here tomorrow.

I got the PCN on 30th March, and appealed on 9th April. I had read all the NEWBIE advice and had learned that sending in the appeal to Indigo might then distract them from sending the NTK but I also knew that my appeal was sooner than recommended ..... but I had a conflict - the car is a Motability vehicle i.e. leased, and the advice suggested to get an appeal into Indigo before they had a chance to take the route of finding my name from Motability, and so head them off. Hope I got that right?? So I guessed I might then have the 56 day NTK vs POPLA appeal dates dilemma if no NTK was forthcoming - which it hasn't so far.

All sounds good.

I wasn't sure whether to include the fact I had not received a NTK in my POPLA appeal because the 56 days were not up. I shall now include the relevant paragraph.

Yes, definitely. By the time Indigo get the POPLA appeal and read it, they will have no time to serve a NTK and we've never seen a PPC try to do so, having read in a POPLA appeal that they've missed the boat. You are so close to the 56 days it's as good as certain you won't get a NTK and by the time the POPLA Assessor looks at it in June it will be far to late for a NTK.

Edna_Basher

To help you beef up the "no contract" argument in your appeal, here is a suggestion:

"The Operator’s full terms and conditions were not visible from inside the vehicle.

The Operator did not comply with Paragraph 18.10 of the BPA Code of Practice which requires that so that disabled motorists can decide whether they want to use the site, there should be at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for parking that can be viewed without needing to leave the vehicle. Ideally this sign should be close to any parking bays set aside for disabled motorists.

With regard to the final point in this Paragraph 18.10, given that the Operator was seeking to apply different terms and conditions to disabled motorists who did not park in the bays that had been set aside for them (i.e. that disabled motorists were required to pay to park in "non-disabled" parking bays), it was equally important for such signs to be situated in areas adjacent to all parking bays, not just those set aside for disabled motorists.

I have reason to believe that there were no signs in the car park upon which the Operator’s full terms and conditions could be read from inside the vehicle. Given that both the driver and passenger were disabled, POPLA may reasonably conclude that the Operator failed to convey its terms and conditions to the driver".


Also, if you are appealing as "keeper", rather than driver you can highlight that the Operator did not warn the driver that it intended to use the provisions of POFA to pursue the vehicle's keeper.

"The car park signs failed to notify the driver that the Operator intended to utilise the provisions of POFA

In circumstances where the terms of a notice are not negotiable (as is the case with the car park signage) and where there is any ambiguity or contradiction in those terms, the rule of contra proferentem shall apply against the party responsible for writing those terms. This is confirmed within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 including;

Paragraph 68: Requirement for Transparency

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.

(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

Paragraph 69: Contract terms that may have different meanings

(1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.

I have reason to believe that the Operator’s signs did not include as a core term any condition advising the driver that it would reserve the right under POFA to hold the vehicle’s keeper or hirer liable for the parking charge should this not be paid by the driver.

The application of POFA is not automatic; in order to be able to hold a vehicle’s keeper liable for unpaid parking charges an operator must a) first choose to use POFA for this purpose and then b) fully comply with all of POFA’s terms and conditions.

In accordance with the rule of contra proferentem it is reasonable for the driver to conclude that this Operator was one of the many private parking companies that choose not to use the provisions of POFA to claim unpaid parking charges from the keeper or hirer. It is unreasonable that the Operator should seek to apply this additional condition retrospectively".