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

Ivor_Pecheque

Hi Stacey, what you are doing is fantastic. The stuff around equality needs sorting.

I'd agree with Ralph-y, this has to be right, and those with a far better legal brain than I will be along soon to help.

No one likes a bully, and you are doing a fab job sticking up to them.

This video demonstrates the number of Private Parking Companies on the road to Fistral. The end bit of the video does give some idea of the scale of the problem.

The bit where you got stuck was at 14:30:05 (to the right.).



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swJ_elscsJM&feature=youtu.be

Ralph-y

sadly ........

yes I know .... its off topic ....

but

I might well be cheaper to park on double yellows some where ....

if , IF caught ...... then you receive a lesser council fine than scumpany invoice :eek:

Please keep up the good work

every body !

Ralph:cool:

Coupon-mad

We'll all have another look at pulling your appeal points together on Monday but Stacey, you have done 95% of it already so it's nearly there.

Stacey81

Ralph-y wrote: »

I might well be cheaper to park on double yellows some where ....

Giggles at Ralph it free up 3 hours if hav Blue badge but then you hav play game called I stuck on road where the next deep curb

Ivor_Pecheque wrote: »

No one likes a bully, and you are doing a fab job sticking up to them.

This video demonstrates the number of Private Parking Companies on the road to Fistral. The end bit of the video does give some idea of the scale of the problem.

The bit where you got stuck was at 14:30:05 (to the right.).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swJ_elscsJM&feature=youtu.be

I sorry if me seam like I was be pushy ovar weekend me not mean seam like bully. me just little worried cause time get close now and also I has pic up buggies when I went to hospital and feel no feeling well and me little worried I no will get me appeal in. cause me geetin sick. and me no goin let them win.


I hav lauf at you video no first time me see it. I see it for I remember say we park where blue van was with white thing on it roof. but this time me watch me notice something and me lauf. there is bridge/ramp to some shop or caf!? at 2:26 in video?
I not even see that on day me just follow signs they say go surf shop and that where beach wheelchair is to so all mak sence go thera and then thera was sign say beach wheelchair acsses, so that what me did.
I no evan no was ovar shops thera me missd out on SHOPPING???? no ways!!

Coupon-mad wrote: »

We'll all have another look at pulling your appeal points together on Monday but Stacey, you have done 95% of it already so it's nearly there.

Sorry I no do no work yesterday me no could stop cough cough sneeze sneeze and fall sleep all day.
me will put all gether now what me have for everyone attch what me have NOW!


me rather send this in soonar rather than leav to last day cause me real no feeling to goods and me NO let them wins cause me to poorlies put in me appeal.


OK let me go get what me do so far and put ups for you alls


ohs anyone like cold an chest infection free of charg meds come withs it, nos hiden fees nos invoices in post laters for it promise hehe...... <<< now that is bein SMART giggles ans see me say INVOICE no fine

Stacey81

On May 1st 2016 I came home from my holiday in Southwest to find a Parking Charge Notice from Smart parking. Dated 22 of April 2016. I appealed to Smart parking who rejected my appeal on 9th June 2016. I am appealing as the named keeper of this Motability vehicle, with licence plate number YJ65 LOD. I dispute that I am liable for the alleged parking charge. I wish to appeal against the charge on the following grounds:-

• No keeper liability
• No driver liability
• Lack of Grace Periods
• Breach of the Equality Act 2010
• No 'legitimate interest' or 'commercial justification'
• This IS (unlike in the Beavis case) an unfair penalty.
• No contract accepted; unlike in the Beavis case.
• No landowner authority
• Indirect discrimination - disadvantaging a group of people who share a protected characteristic

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 paragraph6(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. Instead they lead me to believe I, as the Keeper and Passenger of this Motability vehicle was responsible to pay. Even After I contacted them to inform them of the problems I had at their car park, stating ‘I had to be clamped into and out of the van’ they still chased me for the owed money. Knowing I was NOT the driver.

They also failed to inform me of the facts of which the circumstances and requirements to pay them arose and the other facts that made them payable. Smart parking did not provide me with 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 sticky tape 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 decided not to accept any contract and so I left. 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 their 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 vehicle. 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.

---

REST ON NEXT POST Due to
The following errors occurred with your submission:

1. The text that you have entered is too long (28288 characters). Please shorten it to 25000 characters long.

Stacey81

PART 2 of the APEAL

---

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

9:- Indirect discrimination - disadvantaging a group of people who share a protected characteristic

I believe that Smart Parking are Indirectly Discriminating against Disabled people who are in the Protected Character group, for Disabled, in particular those who require the use of a Wheelchairs, Scooters, walking aids and other mobility aids.
Section 19 of the Equality Act 2010, states
This section has no associated Explanatory Notes
(1)A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if A applies to B a provision, criterion or practice which is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B's.
(2)For the purposes of subsection (1), a provision, criterion or practice is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B's if—
(a)A applies, or would apply, it to persons with whom B does not share the characteristic,
(b)it puts, or would put, persons with whom B shares the characteristic at a particular disadvantage when compared with persons with whom B does not share it,
(c)it puts, or would put, B at that disadvantage, and
(d)A cannot show it to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
(3)The relevant protected characteristics are—

• disability;
  (There are other characteristics, but Disability is the one that relates to this case).
  
  Indirect discrimination occurs when there's a policy which applies in the same way for everybody but which has an effect which disadvantages a group of people who share a protected characteristic, and you are disadvantaged as part of this group. If this happens, the person or organization applying the policy must justify it. A ‘policy’ can include a practice, a rule or an arrangement. It makes no difference whether anyone intended the policy to disadvantage you or not.

I believe Smart parking are indirectly discriminating against People with Disabilities, in particular those who require the use of a Wheelchairs, Scooters, walking aids and other mobility aids.

I believe Smart Parking are indirectly discriminating by offering a service that puts people who are reliant on Wheelchairs, Scooters, walking aids and other mobility aids at a substantial disadvantage.

Smart Parking are offering a service to the public to park their cars for a set fee. Their ‘Pay by phone’ Option is, or was at the time of this incident NOT working, and the alternative offered to the public was to access change from the local surf shop. Where this is possible for many members of the public it leaves a large group of people at a substantial disadvantage, of not being able to access the surf shop, due to the sand and other physical barriers. This includes, those people who are reliant on Wheelchairs, Scooters, walking aids and other mobility aids. Resulting in Smart parking offering a service to these people on worse terms than they would offer to the rest of the public. This is indirect discrimination.

Smart Parking are offering a service to the public to park their cars for a set fee. Smart parking offer a 10 minute grace period for all service users to read the signs, and choose to agree to the terms of contract or leave. Where this is possible for many members of the public it leaves a large group of people at a substantial disadvantage, as 10 minutes is not always enough time for people with mobility impairments. This includes, those people who are reliant on Wheelchairs, Scooters, walking aids and other mobility aids. Resulting in Smart parking offering a service to these people on worse terms than they would offer to the rest of the public. This is indirect discrimination.

Smart Parking are offering a service to the public to park their cars for a set fee. Smart parking are using an ANPR Camera recording system. To record the times using timed photos of when cars enter and exit a car park. This system does NOT always allow easy recognition if a vehicle is used by a disabled motorist or disabled passenger. To allow Smart parking to make clear and thorough check of the pictures to assess if the vehicle involved possibly may have needed more than the 10 minutes grace period. For example, it does not always clearly show Blue badges, Stickers and signs showing vehicles are adapted or carry disabled or mobility impaired passages or drivers. Unlike Foot patrolling officers who can take Close up photos and walk AROUND a vehicle to inspect for Blue badges, stickers and information needed to see if more time is required before issuing a Ticket and causing undue stress and worry. Where the ANPR works for many members of the public it leaves a large group of people at a substantial disadvantage with mobility impairments, as it can NOT identify a car who has a mobility impaired passenger or driver. This includes, those people who are reliant on Wheelchairs, Scooters, walking aids and other mobility aids. Resulting in Smart parking offering a service to these people on worse terms than they would offer to the rest of the public. This is indirect discrimination.

Smart Parking are Offering a service to the public, they must make it accessible to all members of the public. Including persons with disabilities. They should not be putting Persons with disabilities at a substantial disadvantage. Which they are doing with the 3 Cases above, showing clearly that they are indirectly discriminating against People with disabilities, In particular, those with mobility impairments.

Stacey81

Sorry I not no why it changes to diffrant types writing when me paste it.
in me word doc it all same size and same font and everything and look all smart and nice
I no sure if it me Drgaon or screen reader that doin it or if something else or what do it.


me try change section 1 with fruit cake suggestions and do all fruitcakes spellins thank you for help me with them,


I rel still stuck on 8 that one got me MOST

tykesi

Parking-Prankster wrote: »

I am just the messenger. Many thanks to the people behind the scenes.

I have been assured this is cancelled and therefore Smart should contact you to confirm this. However if you do not receive this by the POPLA cut off date I would still recommend filing your appeal. Lets wait a couple of weeks first though. You have 28 days from the date of the appeal dismissal to file your appeal.

Where did this assurance come from and is there any news as to why this seemingly hasn't been cancelled?

Fruitcake

I would put breach of Equality Act as point 1. I don't think this will win at PoPLA but it will make sure that the assessor reads it.

I would then make Grace Periods point 2 so that the assessor has to read the BPA Section 16 bit about grace periods for disabled motorists.

This is just my opinion, but a PoPLA win where the EA 2010 is used would be very useful in the future.

Stacey81

I did reply to fruitcake but computer eat me reply me guess cause it run way hehe


mr parking prankster say in one he post that no liability cause I no can drive is me main point that why I no change order me points in.


but me will wait see what coupon mad say