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

Fruitcake

Stacey, I've just watched your videos. I have a simple disabled hoist in my cars for lifting mobility scooters in and out, but your set up is much more complicated and time consuming. It looks a bit scary as well!

What a lovely man your husband is for looking after you like that.

Keep your spirits up, everyone here is on your side. You ARE going to win this.

Fruity

Fruitcake

bod1467 wrote: »

Down to 4.3 now.

Oh dear, how sad, never mind.

Stacey81

I just think of somethink


maybe I jus being real dumb by no think about this before now I no sure.
I is member of DMUK (disabled motering UK)
http://www.disabledmotoring.org/


would be worth me contact them for help to?

Ralph-y

to be honest .....

I don't think that you will get help any where that will beat the advice off CM , Parking Prankster and all the others here ........

what might be worth doing is to let any organisation you belong to, know the problem you had the misfortune to fall into .....

and

where you found help and advice



keep up the good work

Ralph:cool:

Fruitcake

Ralph-y wrote: »

to be honest .....

I don't think that you will get help any where that will beat the advice off CM , Parking Prankster and all the others here ........

what might be worth doing is to let any organisation you belong to, know the problem you had the misfortune to fall into .....

and

where you found help and advice



keep up the good work

Ralph:cool:

+1 for that advice.

Umkomaas

DMUK are too close to PPCs for my liking. I would be wary of advice given by them.

Stacey81

I work some more on section
4:- Breach of the Equality Act 2010


I think mayb sounds better


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. No reasonable adjustment made 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 shop for change for the machine as the phone payment system was not working as stated by 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. I deciding not to accept any contract and leave. Smart are guilty of disability discrimination because in the appeal this was explained, 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 EA is not guidance, it is the applicable law and it is a statutory DUTY in law, that Service Providers in customer-facing environments 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

Ivor_Pecheque

I can see you're getting the hang of this Stacey ☺

Power t'ya elbow.

Stacey81

I had help hehe I no that clever

pappa_golf

stacie , you might like to add that the photo taken by the ANPR cameras upon your exit , and supposedly audited by "smart" clearly show that the vehicle had been modified for wheelchair access and signage was clearly shown on the rear door


this signage can be clearly seen in the photo , and smart have not bothered to check the photos when they did there stock appeal refusal