UKPC Parking Charge - Parking in disabled space

nigelbb

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Did you display the Blue Badge? If so, fight it.

If not, weigh up whether £15 is reasonable for making an error of failing to display against a possible court case decision going against you and facing an amount of 10 times that sum. Sometimes you have to pay for your mistakes and if the price of that is reasonable, you need to take it on the chin.

It's your call.

I agree. Just pay the £15 & get on with your life.

Half_way

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Might have, could have.............

It's up to the OP. As I have said, it's a £15-v-£150-v-£0 gamble. Turn the £15 down and it's a £150-v-£0 gamble.
I have highlighted a potential argument that could be presented to court. And we all know how fickle judges can be. Too many focus on the parking contract. And as I have said on other threads, parking cases are separate from EA and it is possible to lose a parking case and win an EA case.

The problem that we regulars have is that we all have a long resentment against PPCs and invariably encourage others to take the PPCs on in our war against them. I have won a few cases against PPCs helping others but only when I had the angles covered and when the amount demanded was £100.

But it's the OP's money and if we are genuinely moneysavers, then it's only right to put other scenarios to enable the OP to make a decision.

Whilst I would baulk at paying out anything, i certainly wouldn't pay a penny until all options have been exhausted, and the obvious one that hasn't been, or doesnt appear to have been looked at is the landowner aspect again whos car park is it/where is the car park in question?

Whilst the blue badge is not valid on private land, it can be used, and possibly requested as evidence that a person in a vehicle has a requirement for reasonable adjustments to be made. One thing that is valid is the Equality Act, and upon receiving evidence of a disability that requires reasonable adjustments ( ie special parking bays) the parking company/car park owner should drop any action immediately, again its vitally important to get in touch with the landowner to bring them in on this so that they know what their agents are up to.
If the OP has a window of time between the £15 being due and now, then He/She should get in touch with the landowner and let them know about this as well as reminding them that they are jointly and severally liable for the actions of their agents, and there could be a claim against the landowner for the actions of their agents with regards to a breach of the equalities act.

Again, while it may only be £15 i would be tempted to fight out of principal and if nothing is heard from the landowner and the OP feels forced to pay the £15 then look into the possibility of a claim under the EA.
The Parking company should have cancelled this once they received evidence that an occupant of the vehicle had a disability/protected characteristic under the EA, but then again that would be reasonable behaviour and not the usual bottom feeding money grubbing tactics that we now expect from PPC land

Guys_Dad

Half_way wrote: »

Again, while it may only be £15 i would be tempted to fight out of principal and if nothing is heard from the landowner and the OP feels forced to pay the £15 then look into the possibility of a claim under the EA.
The Parking company should have cancelled this once they received evidence that an occupant of the vehicle had a disability/protected characteristic under the EA, but then again that would be reasonable behaviour and not the usual bottom feeding money grubbing tactics that we now expect from PPC land

Your principles - OP's principal !

Before following all of the advice above, check the amount of time that the PPC offer of £15 is open for. It certainly won't be for ever. And when that time is up, it's a £0-v-£150 gamble.

Half_way

As mentioned, the OP needs to look at what, if any time windy they may have.
If they have the opportunity then it's certainly with going for, if not then a strong complaint to the landowner is certainly due, possibly to set the scene for a potential equalities act claim.
The landowner as principal is responsible for the actions of it's agents so they need to know what is happening, and out of principle it's with going for the principal who is responsible for the actions of His/Her agents (yay got the principal / principle thing right I think, I blame these touch screen phone thingys)