Parking Ticket @ Fistral beach. no time given to apeal or pay.

pappa_golf

I can think of one or two forum members that would like to write that appeal for you ,

Stacey81

me is grateful for alls helps but me hav dos som for me self it weal portant to me do for me what me can dos.


me NOWS I gets confuse and lost sometimes but me real do havs try do much for me as i can.


me just need push in rite way ans bit helps mak sura I goin rite way.


that ways when me win me bes proud me dos much me can help me self to.


maybs think me crazy but it portant me. and it help me fite bake me confidac no let them take it way again. and me can then when over fite make sura no one else get hurt like me. and me will NOW what me talking bout cause laearn from all amazing people here.


me listing song now which me think is GOOD song help me now fight song by rachel platten

Ralph-y

Hi, if you still want to speak to the Parking Prankster ....

his email can be found here

https://www.blogger.com/profile/15270922602703929291

Ralph:cool:

Fruitcake

Go to post 100 of this thread, click on the Parking-Prankster's user name and it gives you the option to send a private message to him
Click on that and it brings up a new window for you to type the message in.

Stacey81

I been tryin send Mr parking prankster message but it no letting me say he message box full.


so me write here hope he see or maybe someone else know answer

---

Hello mr parking prankster

I no want bother you.
I not yet get letter from SMART say ticket been canciled. post been today now and still no letter.
me just need now when me should put appeal in to POPLA if no get letter.
date on me response was 9th June, 28 days from then be 7th July me think.
me no want do it on last day just in case so maybe me do it couple days for?
maybe Monday 4th July? if no have letter for then?
thank you for you time and you help
Stacey

Ralph-y

try

prankster@parking-prankster.com

Ralph:cool:

Stacey81

have emailed mr parking prankster to. thank you ralph


just in case me do have do me appeal me been workin on it still. fink me near done


friend mine went though check spelling for me today so think it all OKs. please attck it for spellin ans god wordin me not best at wording an anything else that me mayb forget. let me knows if me need add any thin else or do any thing else.

---

On (DATE BLANKED OUT) I came home from my holiday in Southwest to find a Parking Charge Notice from Smart parking. Dated (DATE BLANKED OUT) . I appealed to Smart parking who rejected my appeal on (DATE BLANKED OUT) . I am appealing as the named keeper of this Motability vehicle, with licence plate number (BLANKED OUT) . I dispute that I am liable for the alleged parking charge. I wish to appeal against the charge on the following grounds:-
1) No keeper liability
2) No driver liability
3)Lack of Grace Periods
4) Breach of the Equality Act 2010
5) No 'legitimate interest' or 'commercial justification'
6) This IS (unlike in the Beavis case) an unfair penalty.
7) No contract accepted; unlike in the Beavis case.
8) No landowner authority


1:- No Keeper Liability
Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedom Act 2012. (POFA 2012), Para 9 states that the Notice to Keeper must state the following.


9(1) A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
(2)The notice must—
(a)Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
(b) Inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;
(c) Describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable;
(d) Specify the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid, as at a time which is—
(e) State that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—
(f) Warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—
(g) Inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available;
(h) Identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made;


Smart Parking failed to inform me as keeper of this Motability vehicle that the Driver was responsible for paying. They also Failed to inform me of the facts of which the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose and the other facts that made them payable and a breakdown of how the charge become so much.


Smart parking also failed to inform me as Keeper that they do not know who the driver was and how to make contact with the driver.


2:- No driver liability
There is no Driver liability because the driver has not been identified and I am unable to drive myself, due to epilepsy and side effects of my disability, Degenerative neuro muscular disease, causing lack of muscle control, poor eye sight and many other symptoms relating to my disability that make it impossible for me to drive (I use a wheelchair). I am appealing as the named keeper of this Motability vehicle and cannot be held liable.


3:- Lack of Grace Periods
Section 13 of the British Parking Association code of practise, states


13 Grace Periods
13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.
13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to reach your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.
Section 16 of the British Parking Association code of practise, states
16 Disabled Motorists.
16.1 The equality act 2010 says that providers of services to the public must make ’reasonable adjustments’ to remove barriers which may discriminate against disabled people.
16.2 ‘reasonable adjustments’ to prevent discrimination are likely to include larger ‘disabled’ parking spaces near to the entrance or amenities for disabled people whose mobility is impaired. It also could include lowered payment machines and other ways to pay if payment is required: for example paying by phone. You and your staff also need to realise that some disabled people may take a long time to get to the payment machines.


Grace periods must be 'reasonable' and are not set in stone. Given the circumstances of the case, clearly a wheelchair stuck in sand, which had to be freed then safely clamped back into the vehicle and all passengers secured safely, would take much longer than ten minutes. It took longer than 10 minutes just to arrive, find a space (it is busy at the beach), and stop, once unclamped and escorted out of the van, look for the P&D machine read the signs, to be informed that there was No free Parking for Blue Badge Holders. Extra time was needed to See and read the written note Stuck on the Sign with Calotype stating the Pay by Phone Facility’s where unavailable and Change was available at the surf shop.


Then Time was needed to look for change! But then I got stuck in the sand in the effort of trying to find the surf shop with change. It took 3 people to rescue me in my wheelchair from the sand I was stuck in near the P&D machine. They had to use wooden Planks and their bare hands to dig me out of the sand. Then I decided I would just go home because I had hurt my foot when I had become stuck in the sand and the whole thing had scared me, so we decided not to stay. Plus as I could NOT get to the surf shop to get the change needed for the machine, as the sign had stated I needed to do. I felt I had no option but to leave.


Another ten minutes was taken to get me into the van, give me pain medications for my Hurt foot, get my coat of and clamp the wheelchair back and leave. I had followed all instructions given to me, by the signs. However, no consideration had been made by Smart as to if it was Safe or even achievable for someone in a wheelchair to get to the surf shop for change. And no other alternative was available but to leave the car park. Which is exactly what I did, as quick as I possibly could, given my physical disabilities.


The British Parking Association code of practise states very clearly ‘You and your staff also need to realise that some disabled people may take a long time to get to the payment machines.’ (See point below on the Equality Act 2010, my legal right to a reasonable adjustment of time as a disabled passenger).




4:- Breach of the Equality Act 2010
Section 29 and 20 of the Equality Act 2010, states that:
(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. In order to avoid that discrimination in service provision, the Equality Act then prescribes a duty to make reasonable adjustments to the service according to section 20. The duty comprises the following three requirements:


1. The first requirement is a requirement, where a provision, criterion or practice 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.


2. The second requirement is a requirement, where a physical feature (such as lack of lifts or only stepped access) 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 ie to remove it, alter it or work around it by install ramps or lifts.


3. The third requirement is a requirement, where a disabled person would, but for the provision of an auxiliary aid, be put 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 provide the auxiliary. Provides a legal response to the parking reportaid (without passing on the expense of that additional aid). The Disability Discrimination Act (1995) Code of Practice states at para 6.4 that,


The policy of the DDA (now Equality Act 2010) is not a minimalist policy of simply ensuring that some access is available to disabled people; it is so far as is reasonably practicable, to approximate the access enjoyed by the rest of the public. Accordingly, the purpose of the duty to make reasonable adjustments is to provide access to a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard normally offered to the public at large.
I believe that not only are Smart parking in breach of the Equality Act 2010, but they are also Discriminating against me, for reasons relating to my disability. I believe Smart parking have discriminated against me by not making any reasonable adjustment to the Grace period normally offered to able bodied visitors. Clearly more time was needed to load & unload a wheelchair in and out of a van, using a clamping system to secure the wheelchair safely. Time was needed to rescue my Wheelchair when it became stuck in sand trying to read the information and get to the surf shop for change for the machine as instructed by the signs to do. As the phone payment system was not working as stated by the small stuck on message on the sign. After finding out the terms were not free for disabled people and the parking facility’s where not accessible another for my needs (Getting stuck in the sand showed the facilities of the car park NOT to be accessible for my needs). I deciding not to accept any contract and leave. I left as quickly as was physically possible with in the abilities of my disabilities.
I believe Smart parking have discriminated against me by not making any reasonable adjustment to make the car park usable to disabled customers. By asking them to go across sand to get change for a machine, no other options where put into place to allow disabled people to use the facility’s offered to abled bodied customers.
Smart are guilty of disability discrimination because in the appeal it was explained to them, that I was a wheelchair user. That I had Tried to follow there signs and instructions but in doing so had become stuck in the sand and had to be rescued. I had explained to them that it takes a long time to clamp and unclamp a wheelchair from a vicheal. And that I did not feel I should be charged for matters that where outside my control, or matters that where caused in relation to my disability. I provided Smart parking a copy of the picture I took on the day, showing the left over marks on the beach from where my wheelchair got stuck. I also had pointed out to smart that they could see clearly from there pictures of my van it has a blue badge and it is a special adapted van. So they 'knew or should have known' about the protected characteristics of a passenger and the issue of the wheelchair getting stuck in sand and the passenger injuring her foot and deciding not to stay after all.
The Equality Act is not guidance, it is the applicable law and it is a statutory DUTY in law, that the Service Providers MUST make reasonable adjustments to suit disability need. And this is not restricted to merely bunging in some disabled bays - time is a factor requiring reasonable adjustments too


5:- No 'legitimate interest' or 'commercial justification'
No 'legitimate interest' or 'commercial justification' can be reasonably argued, in a case involving clear disability discrimination. This series of events over a period of minutes does NOT attract any tariff, let alone £110 charge. Clearly this was one to cancel at the outset when Smart got the appeal. There is certainly no 'legitimate interest' shown - the charge being pursued under these circumstances is the very definition of 'unconscionable' and breaches the EA 2010. This PCN fails the test established in ParkingEye v Beavis where at 28 it was held:


''A damages clause may properly be justified by some other consideration than the desire to recover compensation for a breach. This must depend on whether the {parking firm} has a legitimate interest in performance extending beyond the prospect of pecuniary compensation flowing directly from the breach in question.''


Clearly, there is no legitimate interest in expecting a person with disability’s, with an injury - and their carer, grappling with a wheelchair - to 'perform' the task of leaving as quickly as an able-bodied person hopping back into their car and driving out.




6:- This IS (unlike in the Beavis case) an unfair penalty.
This IS (unlike in the Beavis case) an unfair penalty. At the Supreme Court it was held at 107:


''In our opinion the term imposing the £85 charge was not unfair. The term does not exclude any right which the consumer may be said to enjoy under the general law or by statute''


But here, it does 'exclude the right' the consumer (Myself) enjoys and requires under the applicable statute (the EA) to a 'reasonable adjustment' of Grace Period time.


7:- No contract accepted; unlike in the Beavis case.
No contract accepted; unlike in the Beavis case, the occupants of the car had no opportunity to understand what they would later be held to have 'agreed'. The vehicle left as soon as possible after deciding NOT to stay and the fact the vehicle took a few minutes longer to leave than one with able bodied passengers is shown by the video evidence of how long it takes merely to clamp the wheelchair back in place safely. This was NOT an unreasonable time taken to leave and does not render the occupants of the car liable to pay a tariff for the time taken, which was not parking time but 'loading of wheelchair' time.


8:- No landowner authority
Section 7.3 of the British Parking Association code of practise, states
Written authorisation of Landowner.
7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

Fruitcake

I have just started having a look. It looks very good but it needs a few tweaks here and there.

You should detail every bit of the NTK that fails to meet the requirements of POFA 2012.

For example,

(2)The notice must—
(a)Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

Smart Parking did not specify the vehicle, did not identify the relevant land, and did not record the period of parking.

.. and so on.

Calotype should be Cellotape, or just "sticky tape"

Fruitcake

Smart are guilty of disability discrimination because in the appeal it was explained to them, that I was a wheelchair user. That I had [STRIKE]Tried to follow there signs[/STRIKE] tried to follow their signs and instructions but in doing so had become stuck in the sand and had to be rescued.


Somewhere you need to add that in your initial appeal, Smart Parking were made aware of your mobility issues, that you needed extra time, and you provided proof of this to Smart Parking but they have ignored this.

I don't think a PoPLA appeal has ever been won on EA 2010 grounds, so I would put this section first to make sure the PoPLA assessor reads it before going on to anything else.

Fruitcake

I [STRIKE]deciding[/STRIKE] decided not to accept any contract and so I left [STRIKE]leave[/STRIKE].