DEBT RECOVERY NOTICE - Matalan Worksop

Coupon-mad

I would have something like:

The party which contracted Smart Parking is jointly and severally liable for disability discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 (EA). If the responsible party who allow Smart Parking to operate at this location is Matalan, I trust you will treat this issue with the seriousness it deserves. If not Matalan, then please refer this complaint to the landowner who contracted and enabled this notorious firm to harass disabled customers, and it almost goes without saying that I expect them to cancel the 'charge' and issue an apology for this contractor's conduct.

Our whole family is extremely angry about this discriminatory treatment of your disabled customers and one wonders why a private parking firm is contracted at this location at all, it being a car park which is only used by people spending money in the shops. That you allow this to happen to customers is a national scandal that does Matalan no favours whatsoever.

The store was busy and my husband walks with crutches (PIP awarded) so it is indisputable that he meets the definition of disability within the EA. Indeed we require that our VRM is added to the store 'white list' immediately, exempting us from any 'PCNs' in future because disabled people must (by law under the EA) be afforded reasonable adjustments, such as a longer time to do our shopping. For guidance on your duty as a customer-facing retailer to take proactive steps to avoid discrimination against disabled shoppers, please refer to the Equality Act Code of Practice for Service Providers on the EHRC website because it is certainly not just a matter of providing physical adjustments like disabled bays outside.

BusyBoust

Dear Mr ********
Parking Charge Notice: ********
Thank you for your recent communication.
As per the British Parking Association code of practice (paragraph 22.7), all appeals must be submitted to us within 28 days of the Notice to Keeper being issued.! Due to the length of time your PCN has been open, we have now referred this to a debt recovery (Debt Recovery Plus) who are handling the matter on our behalf.! Please contact them directly if you wish to discuss this further.
Debt Recovery Plus: 0208 234 6775 or 0141 301 2355
Yours Sincerely
Smart Parking Limited

Smart Parking Ltd also trading as Town and City Parking, registered in Scotland (SC138255), 5 South Inch Business Centre, Shore Road, Perth, PH2 8BW
https://www.smartparking.com

BusyBoust

I received this ⬆⬆ after 17 days (outside BPA guidelines of 14 days to respond might I add)
our respinding email::

As outlined in my original complaint I DID NOT RECEIVE a PCN from you nor do I acknowledge being the driver on said day merely registered keeper.

As I have not received any PCN from you I cannot/couldnot respond within 28 days as I have absolutely NO IDEA when you "claim" to have issued one. I feel greatly suspicious of your dealings because you failed to send any PCN to the address listed on owner details within 14 days (nor at any point since) but successfully managed to forward them to your own debt recovery department under the guise of a different company name. I am sure those same codes of practice outline procedures for conduct and contact in this matter also. As outlined previously all further contact from you or agents working on your behalf will be forwarded in my complaint to KADOE DVLA and indeed to BPA and any other governing body with an interest in the practices of companies operating under their umbrella.!

Under BPA code of practice 20.8 - 20.16 and section 22 refering to complaints and appeals and access to a POPLA code, you must provide the registered keeper with adequate notice and details of appeal procedures within 14 days which you did NOT do. You also have refused me under reasonable circumstances access to a POPLA code further defying the code as set out. Reasonable measures have not been utilised as I did not receive a PCN and do not have any clue when your mythical 28 days ended, I suggest that these circumstances invalidate any time limit you impose as I have not now nor previously received any notice as to when this timeframe alledgedly originally expired. You are also required to respond to my appeal contact within a set timeframe (14 days) which you did not. You are outside your time frame specified as reasonable in the BPA code of practice, this is yet one more thing I will add to my complaint on your conduct. I will aldo draw to tgeir attention the section relation to reasonable charges yours being more than 50% higher than the example in the code itself.

I will be looking into contacting POPLA myself and outlining all of these details along with all correspondence pertaining to this matter as you have failed to adhere to a code of practice you yourself have quoted.


Good day.

... I plan on ignoring all further correspondence from both companies unless or until I become the first person that smart parking decides to take to court. ���� They're making me very cross.

BusyBoust

sorry about typos ��

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I would have something like:

The party which contracted Smart Parking is jointly and severally liable for disability discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 (EA). If the responsible party who allow Smart Parking to operate at this location is Matalan, I trust you will treat this issue with the seriousness it deserves. If not Matalan, then please refer this complaint to the landowner who contracted and enabled this notorious firm to harass disabled customers, and it almost goes without saying that I expect them to cancel the 'charge' and issue an apology for this contractor's conduct.

Our whole family is extremely angry about this discriminatory treatment of your disabled customers and one wonders why a private parking firm is contracted at this location at all, it being a car park which is only used by people spending money in the shops. That you allow this to happen to customers is a national scandal that does Matalan no favours whatsoever.

The store was busy and my husband walks with crutches (PIP awarded) so it is indisputable that he meets the definition of disability within the EA. Indeed we require that our VRM is added to the store 'white list' immediately, exempting us from any 'PCNs' in future because disabled people must (by law under the EA) be afforded reasonable adjustments, such as a longer time to do our shopping. For guidance on your duty as a customer-facing retailer to take proactive steps to avoid discrimination against disabled shoppers, please refer to the Equality Act Code of Practice for Service Providers on the EHRC website because it is certainly not just a matter of providing physical adjustments like disabled bays outside.

Did you send this to Matalan?

BusyBoust

No, I've just read it. For some reason it didn't show up on the thread when i logged in. I have emailed the CEO and received zero response since sending 17/18 days ago.

BusyBoust

Whom should I send your suggested email to?
This is starting to stress me out no end now. They have not sent us a PCN and not responded to our appeal (after getting the debt recovery letter) within the outlined 14 days yet they are quoting that self same guidance of 28 days appeal time from original PCN in their refusal email, so far as i can see they're ignoring protocol themselves whilst trying to manipulate it in their favour over us.

Coupon-mad

It's only Smart, calm down.

Do not imply who was driving and you can't then lose, even if they try a claim (Smart have reportedly started one but that's not confirmed - just ONE!).

Obviously send the complaint to the retailer Head Office and the landowner, read what it says, it is accusing them of disability discrimination so it goes to those responsible for the illegal conduct of this contractor. Turn the screw.

BusyBoust

Thank you.
I have emailed the only matalan customer service email I could find and includes your suggestion. If I find any other email addresses I will forward it accordingly.

BusyBoust

Matalan are not interested.
They claim they can not intervene but state the reason is because they recently stopped dealings with Smart Parking. (Doesn't that mean that the smart claiming on Matalan behalf is invalid?) They also responded to the disability discrimination by telling us they have a policy in all store where you go in with your DWP award or blue badge and they exempt you from parking charges. To which we responded asking why this isn't made public knowledge because it isn't clearly stated on sites. They claim it is (it may be but it's also possible it's in the small print of signage) they also stated that it's possible that the signs were not clearly erected as smart parking hold the responsibility and they have been removing their signage of late... seems like a lot of jargon to get out of any accusations. I'm sure there'll be nice fresh signs up should we wish now to go check
Smart Parking refused to give us a popla code because we were outside the 28 days. When we repeatedly told them as they'd breached the bpa code and not actually sent the original PCN to us we had no idea when those 28 days ceased. They responded by giving us the original issue dated on their systems. No response from Matalan head office only their customer service complaints team. Neither will quash it.
Today we received a letter before court proceedings, more specifically a final warning before they instruct solicitors to take it to court deadline 19th may.
That's the update in a nutshell.