Parking Eye Darlington v Disabled Owner

Coupon-mad

Email the landowner and ParkingEye, with 'disability discrimination complaint' and the PCN number xxxxxx/xxxxxx in the subject line:

enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk


Dear Sirs,

Consider this to be a formal complaint about disability discrimination.

I am a disabled patron of xxxxxxx, and I have been seriously harassed for almost a year, now by Equita but originally by their notorious off-shoot, ParkingEye. Both have threatened court and caused significant distress. This harassment is discriminatory, contrary to the Equality Act 2010 and must cease immediately.

In August 2016 my car was parked in a disabled bay. I am a severely disabled partially sighted Army veteran and the vehicle is clearly a motability vehicle, something that ParkingEye are aware of, from the DVLA data they farmed last year in order to demand money from me.

At this location, the contract terms located at the bottom of the signs is woefully poor, to the point of being illegible to a person parking in a disabled bay on site.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am protected person under the definition of disability in the Equality Act 2010. I had as much right to park in a disabled bay as anyone, made efforts to discover the parking terms and I must state that an average (well-sighted) person could not possibly have read the terms in poor light, in driving rain. The sign is on an unlit fence, placed high and away from the disabled bay.

We believed that the bay was free of charge as the signs - with a prominent 'P' indicating a car park for patrons - seemed to indicate this. Before parking, the driver stopped the vehicle to read the terms and conditions but it was unable to do so, as it was raining, the natural light was poor and the wording was so small. The red/black part of the sign has no 'white space' around the words. I have subsequently checked in a good light and believe that the terms mention 'no concessions' to disabled people (whatever that actually means - ambiguous in itself). This is not stated at the disabled bays - why not?

ParkingEye will realise the implication of failure to have prominent and clear terms in a contractual sign, and one would hope their Enforcement Team will be the first to admit that this red/black sign is nothing like the one in ParkingEye v Beavis, as scrutinised in the Supreme Court.

I insist that this unfair charge is cancelled and that this matter is raised with the person responsible for the landowner's Equality Act 2010 compliance at the location. As service providers, the landowner and ParkingEye are jointly and severally liable and have statutory duties imposed under the relevant EHRC Codes of Practice (not merely guidance, but law):

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/equality-act-codes-practice

I look forward to this distressing course of harassment finally being brought to an end, and expect an apology from both ParkingEye and the landowner.

yours faithfully,

Thunderpants1817

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Email the landowner and ParkingEye, with 'disability discrimination complaint' and the PCN number xxxxxx/xxxxxx in the subject line:

enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk


Dear Sirs,

Consider this to be a formal complaint about disability discrimination.

I am a disabled patron of xxxxxxx, and I have been seriously harassed for almost a year, now by Equita but originally by their notorious off-shoot, ParkingEye. Both have threatened court and caused significant distress. This harassment is discriminatory, contrary to the Equality Act 2010 and must cease immediately.

In August 2016 my car was parked in a disabled bay. I am a severely disabled partially sighted Army veteran and the vehicle is clearly a motability vehicle, something that ParkingEye are aware of, from the DVLA data they farmed last year in order to demand money from me.

At this location, the contract terms located at the bottom of the signs is woefully poor, to the point of being illegible to a person parking in a disabled bay on site.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am protected person under the definition of disability in the Equality Act 2010. I had as much right to park in a disabled bay as anyone, made efforts to discover the parking terms and I must state that an average (well-sighted) person could not possibly have read the terms in poor light, in driving rain. The sign is on an unlit fence, placed high and away from the disabled bay.

We believed that the bay was free of charge as the signs - with a prominent 'P' indicating a car park for patrons - seemed to indicate this. Before parking, the driver stopped the vehicle to read the terms and conditions but it was unable to do so, as it was raining, the natural light was poor and the wording was so small. The red/black part of the sign has no 'white space' around the words. I have subsequently checked in a good light and believe that the terms mention 'no concessions' to disabled people (whatever that actually means - ambiguous in itself). This is not stated at the disabled bays - why not?

ParkingEye will realise the implication of failure to have prominent and clear terms in a contractual sign, and one would hope their Enforcement Team will be the first to admit that this red/black sign is nothing like the one in ParkingEye v Beavis, as scrutinised in the Supreme Court.

I insist that this unfair charge is cancelled and that this matter is raised with the person responsible for the landowner's Equality Act 2010 compliance at the location. As service providers, the landowner and ParkingEye are jointly and severally liable and have statutory duties imposed under the relevant EHRC Codes of Practice (not merely guidance, but law):

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/equality-act-codes-practice

I look forward to this distressing course of harassment finally being brought to an end, and expect an apology from both ParkingEye and the landowner.

yours faithfully,

Wow that's amazing thank you so much will definately do that, thank you so much.

Half_way

please do as instructed, you must bring the landowner in on this as well, as they are jointly and severally liable. as long as parking eye/the landowner are allowed to continue, other victims won't fight back they will be scared into paying up, depriving them of money they desperately need for other things.
It's always worth fighting these things, not just for what you may want, but for all the others out there who may fall victim to the antics of the private parking industry.