Amount of parking charge slashed; but not removed.

Umkomaas

I'd refer you to IamEmanresu's and waamo's posts. Both very well informed contributors here. While I object to the stunts and tricks of the PPC network, I would seriously consider whether the cost of 4 pints of lager is worth fighting over in order to kill this dead. Otherwise it's up to 6 years of uncertainty as to whether the PPC will proceed to court - which you, not us, have to face the prospect of not knowing what will drop through your letterbox between now and 2024.

Sometimes pragmatism outweighs optimism.

However, if you are so driven to fight this aggressively, then no doubt you have the passion and energy to come back and help regulars help others in fighting their parking charges. It's very rewarding.

twhitehousescat

fisherjim wrote: »

They would simply say that you broke the terms and conditions that are clearly displayed in the car park, to clearly display a current disabled badge on the dash of the car, now pay up.

But you are wasting your time now, you either pay up or go on to the POPLA stage.

who,s rules? theres or the landowners ,

Half_way

This the place http://www.valleyretailandleisure.com/2015-09-30-09-38-07/contact-us.html
The landowners are bound by UK legislation, namely the Equality act.
You or your wife, or the registered keeper has informed the agents of Valley retail and leisure that an occupant of the vehicle had/has a protected characteristic under the EA and the agents of Valley retail are ignoring this.

To who it may concern, re parking charge notice # issued by your agents, UKPC describe what happened - and that your wife has a protected characteristic under he equality act, also state that you have supplied information on this, and that /valley retail are responsible for the actions of their agents.

You should also remind them that they are liable for the actions of their agents, and you are taking this to be a breach of the EA by valley retail, and that as a gesture of goodwill you will not pursue this breach further on the condition that valley retail cancel the parking charge with immediate effect, offer a full and un redacted apology, provide adequate training to their agents, and replace /amend signage insisting on blue badges to allow for those with protected characteristics under the EA to use relevant provisions for parking

Coupon-mad

I'll leave it to other posters on this one - good advice given already...

Palaceman8

Once again, I really am so grateful for the further contributions. Lots of excellently thought out advice.

Some of it is contradictory (nothing wrong in that, because there are understandably two schools of thought on this issue). I will sleep on it for a day or so

Guys_Dad

Your case is Principal -v- Principle.

I wouldn't want to pay anything, but you will lose at the independent appeal service as mitigation is not considered. You may or may not lose at court depending upon which court, which judge etc.

The fact is you didn't comply with their t&c to display your BB. Yes, on moral grounds they should have cancelled when they learned the situation. Sometimes life just ain't fair, but we all know that.

I would pay the £15 in your case.

Half_way

The blue badge is not valid on private land, the equality act is what counts.
If a person has a protected characteristic, and requires the use of special provision then they should be able to use that without being harassed, regardless of whether they own or possess a blue badge or not.
As soon as the parking company has been made aware of a person's disability they should drop any action like a hot potato, likewise the landowner who is jointly liable for the actions of its agents.

tedharris02

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Your case is Principal -v- Principle.

I wouldn't want to pay anything, but you will lose at the independent appeal service as mitigation is not considered. You may or may not lose at court depending upon which court, which judge etc.

The fact is you didn't comply with their t&c to display your BB. Yes, on moral grounds they should have cancelled when they learned the situation. Sometimes life just ain't fair, but we all know that.

I would pay the £15 in your case.

I highly doubt their T&Cs state that it must be on the dashboard. It *might* say that the badge needs to be clearly visible. But in most cases it will simply state that it must be displayed, which it was.

Guys_Dad

tedharris02 wrote: »

I highly doubt their T&Cs state that it must be on the dashboard. It *might* say that the badge needs to be clearly visible. But in most cases it will simply state that it must be displayed, which it was.

1. The income for PPCs depends upon penalty charges.

2. The PPC will have photos showing that the BB was not on display visibly on the windscreen or dash

3. What physical evidence has the OP got to refute that or prove that it was clearly visible?

We are not dealing with a moral industry that would cancel charges when evidence of right to park was supplied and their photographic evidence as against the word of the penalised motorist is likely to carry more weight in court or appeal service. Unfortunately. Hence my view is to pay up £15 rether than risk £100.

But if you are willing to underwrite any potential court award for OP, or share it with any other MSE member who advises in this specific case to fight, then by all means the OP should take it to the wire

fisherjim

tedharris02 wrote: »

I highly doubt their T&Cs state that it must be on the dashboard. It *might* say that the badge needs to be clearly visible. But in most cases it will simply state that it must be displayed, which it was.

Really?