IMPORTANT REMINDER: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information. If you are uploading images, please take extra care that you have redacted all personal information.

Discrimination against disabled

I have a problem with premier park in Park tawe north. My husband is disabled and we parked in an orange disabled bay, thing is that according to the law under the equality act 2010 they should provide a reasonable adjustment for all disabled customers not just the ones with Blue Badge. Fact is I thought the orange bay was offering just this. However we received a Parking charge notice from them.
The following was the result and I am looking for help with this, since I am not used to fighting parking charges I have made several mistakes, like owning up to the fact I was driving and parked etc. Wish I had looked at all of the advice before appealing the ticket.
This is the decision from POPLA
Operator Name
Premier Park
Operator Case Summary
The Appellant states “I would like to appeal to this parking ticket as I parked in that disabled bay to allow my husband who has just come out of hospital after having a stroke, to be able to get out of the car and come into the shop with me. He has partial sight since his stroke and we have not had time to claim a blue badge for him. I am willing to go to court over this. ” The Appellant admits she does not have a blue badge yet as they have not claimed one yet. The signage states “Blue badge holders only in marked blue badge bays. A blue badge must be clearly displayed at all times in the windscreen area. No concessions apply.” We cannot be held liable for the Appellant believing she was exempt from complying with the terms and conditions because she does not have a blue badge yet. As can be seen from our photographic evidence there is no blue badge on display in the windscreen area. The blue badge bays are for holders of a valid blue badge only.
Motorists with a disability who do not hold a blue badge, are not entitled to park in these bays. (note from freedom 68 in fact no provision is made for disabled people who do not have badges)
According to the the government uk website: How to display the badge: When using the parking concessions you must display the badge on the dashboard or facia panel, where it can be clearly read through the front windscreen. If there is no dashboard or facia panel in your vehicle, you must still display the badge in a place where it can be clearly read from outside the vehicle. The front of the badge should face upwards, showing the hologram. The side showing the photograph should not be visible through the windscreen. You must also ensure that the details on the front of the badge remain legible. If they become unreadable through fading or wear and tear, you must return the badge to your local authority so they can issue you with a new one. Displaying a badge that is illegible may result in a parking fine. Blind people need to ensure that people displaying the badge or clock on their behalf understand how to display them correctly. Incorrect display of the badge may result in a parking fine or a Penalty Charge Notice. The Appellant has appealed on the grounds of mitigating circumstances. As per POPLA FAQ’s If you have appealed to POPLA on the grounds of mitigating circumstances (a reason beyond your control that prevented you from fulfilling the Terms and Conditions of the parking contract), it is less likely that your appeal will be successful. This is because POPLA is not able to allow an appeal for mitigating circumstances. In the event that the assessor finds a mitigating circumstance to be the reason for the parking charge being issued, the assessor can request the parking operator to consider this, but cannot enforce it. The Appellant parked in a disabled bay without clearly displaying a valid blue badge, therefore a Parking Charge Notice was issued. It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that they have read and parked in compliance with the terms and conditions. On this occasion, the Appellant did not. We request that the Appellant's appeal be refused.
What they dont state here is my explanation and additional comments about why I thought the signage was wrong, I stated that the bay was marked in orange, with no indication of whether it was mear-ly a disabled bay or whether it was blue badge only as it is clearly marked in other supermarket bays like Sainsburys or Asda for example. Also the wording on their signage states Blue badge holders only in MARKED Blue badge bays – this would indicate that the bay would be actually marked with the wording Blue Badge! If they can make the assumption that all orange marked disabled bays are blue badge bays then I can also make the assumption that all orange marked disabled bays are for everyone that is disabled, badge or not.
Decision
Unsuccessful
Assessor Name
left out for legal reasons
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued a parking charge notice to the motorist for ‘Parking in a disabled bay without clearly displaying a valid disabled badge’.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant says that on this date, she parked in a bay which was marked in orange for disabled. She states that later in the month she received a parking notice request for payment because they stated that she had parked inappropriately or dangerously. The appellant says that this was not the case, she had parked properly and safely in that bay using it for the specific purposes it was made for. She states that she parked there so that her disabled husband could actually get out of the car to be able to come into the shop with her, he would not have been able to get out of the car in a normal parking space. The appellant has said that her husband suffered a stroke on the 9 February 2018 which resulted in a brain bleed and a subsequent mini stroke a month and half later which caused him to be admitted to hospital for a further five days in April. She states that he now has vision impairment and lost half of his eye sight in the right eye and peripheral sight towards the right, in his left eye. The appellant says that the signage for the parking was not visible from the area that she parked in. she states that on the sign it states blue badge holders may park in the disabled blue badge parking areas. She says that since the disabled bay does not state if it is a blue badge disabled parking bay or a disabled parking bay for disabled people, she parked in that bay. She states that to be discriminated against is against the law as being disabled is one of the nine characteristics that is protected by law. The appellant says that anyone is at risk of becoming disabled, however not everyone can get a blue badge as soon as they become disabled as it takes time to get assessments from the doctors. The appellant has provided evidence to POPLA of the signage, a receipt, a photograph of the parking bay and evidence of a transfer of care form for her husband.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided evidence of the signage at the site, which sets out the terms and conditions of parking. The signage states, “Maximum stay 3 hours, no return within 2 hours, Blue badge holders only in marked blue badge bays. A blue badge must be clearly displayed at all times in the windscreen area. No concessions apply”. Additionally, it states, “If you enter or park on this land contravening the terms and conditions displayed, you are agreeing to pay: Parking Charge Notice (PCN) £100”. The car park is patrolled by a parking attendant. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle parked in this car park, on the date of the event. The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the motorist for ‘Parking in a disabled bay without clearly displaying a valid disabled badge’. The appellant has said in her grounds for appeal that on this date, she parked in a bay which was marked in orange for disabled. She states that later in the month she received a parking notice request for payment because they stated that she had parked inappropriately or dangerously. The appellant says that this was not the case, she had parked properly and safely in that bay using it for the specific purposes it was made for. She states that she parked there so that her disabled husband could actually get out of the car to be able to come into the shop with her, he would not have been able to get out of the car in a normal parking space. The appellant has said that her husband suffered a stroke on the 9 February 2018 which resulted in a brain bleed and a subsequent mini stroke a month and half later which caused him to be admitted to hospital for a further five days in April. She states that he now has vision impairment and lost half of his eye sight in the right eye and peripheral sight towards the right, in his left eye. The appellant says that the signage for the parking was not visible from the area that she parked in. she states that on the sign it states blue badge holders may park in the disabled blue badge parking areas. She says that since the disabled bay does not state if it is a blue badge disabled parking bay or a disabled parking bay for disabled people, she parked in that bay. She states that to be discriminated against is against the law as being disabled is one of the nine characteristics that is protected by law. The appellant says that anyone is at risk of becoming disabled, however not everyone can get a blue badge as soon as they become disabled as it takes time to get assessments from the doctors. When it comes to parking on private land, a motorist accepts the terms and conditions of the site by parking their vehicle. The terms and conditions are stipulated on the signs displayed within the car park. The operator has provided evidence of the signage displayed at the site, along with a site map. Having assessed this evidence, I am satisfied that there are numerous terms and conditions displayed throughout the site, including at the entrance and therefore, I am satisfied that the appellant was given the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions before agreeing to the contract. The signage clearly states: ‘Blue badge holders only in
marked blue badge bays. A blue badge must be clearly displayed at all times in the windscreen area. No concessions apply’. Within Section 20.5a of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, it states: “When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised”. The parking attendant has taken photographs of the appellant’s vehicle parked. Having assessed this evidence, I am satisfied that the attendant has carried out a full visual inspection on the vehicle and has proven from the photographs that the appellant has parked her vehicle in a disabled bay and has not displayed a blue badge. Therefore, the appellant was not authorised to park in this bay. I note that the appellant has provided evidence to POPLA of a transfer of care form for her husband and states that he has been in hospital and has suffered a stroke recently which resulted in a brain bleed. She has also said that he now has vision impairment and lost half of his eye sight in the right eye and peripheral sight towards the right, in his left eye. Whilst I can only understand and sympathise with the appellant regarding her husband’s health, when looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract. Even if a motorist presents mitigating circumstances setting out exceptional reasons why they did not keep to the parking conditions, POPLA cannot allow an appeal if a contract was formed and the motorist did not keep to those conditions. I note that the appellant feels that her husband has been discriminated. However, when the operator has issued the PCN, it would not have been aware that the appellant’s husband was disabled. Discrimination is treating somebody differently because of a protected characteristic, such as a disability. The operator has issued the PCN for parking in a disabled bay and not displaying a blue badge. As such, the attendant was not aware that the appellant’s husband had a disability due to the appellant not being in possession of a blue badge. I do not consider the operator to have discriminated the appellant. If the appellant has requested a blue badge or needs to apply for a blue badge, it is her responsibility to contact the relevant authorities to discuss this. Ultimately, POPLA’s role is to assess the terms and conditions of the car park and to determine if the appellant did indeed comply with those terms. As the appellant has parked in a disabled bay and has not displayed a blue badge, nor has she provided evidence to POPLA that she is in possession of a blue badge, I am satisfied that she was not entitled to park in this disabled parking bay. If you wish to park in a disabled parking bay, you must be in possession of a blue badge. As such, I conclude that this PCN has been issued correctly.
Would really appreciate any help I could have with this
Thank you
«1

Replies

  • KeithPKeithP Forumite
    29.8K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    What help are you looking for?

    You appealed to PoPLA and your appeal failed.

    Have you complained to the landowner?

    You can now expect letters from debt collectors and post #4 on the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread gives comprehensive guidance on how to deal with those.

    In summary - ignore debt collector's letters.

    Post again on this thread if ever you receive a Letter of Claim or official court correspondence.
  • edited 25 July 2018 at 9:47PM
    RedxRedx Forumite
    38.1K Posts
    Eighth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited 25 July 2018 at 9:47PM
    those bays are actually provided under the EA2010 and the BB is not even mentioned in the EA2010

    ANYONE who qualifies under the EA2010 (NOT JUST DISABLED PEOPLE) can use those bays, the service provider has to make reasonable adjustments for those people

    the fact they have disclaimers on signage does not absolve them from the law

    anyone who qualifies under the EA21010 (LIKE MYSELF FOR EXAMPLE) could issue an LBC and an MCOL for a minimum of say £500 and name the landowner plus the parking company in the MCOL, bringing them both to court - then a judge decides if the EA2010 was broken and what the compensation (if any) might be

    in the meantime, its probably easier to wait and see if you get an LBC or an MCOL, then decide if you wish to pay for a counter claim under the EA2010 (GATHERING PROOF IN THE MEANTIME)

    ps:- the Blue Badge has no legal meaning on private land , so is just an indicator for some affected people of their disability , but certainly not everyone who qualifies under the EA2010

    the government does not issue any form of BADGE that covers each and every person who qualifies under the EA2010, so there is no easy indicator of somebodys disability , so it may well infringe on their human rights to demand some sort of proof of disability
  • FruitcakeFruitcake Forumite
    54.1K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    The scammers, BPA, and PoPLA are ignoring the fat that the BB scheme does not apply on private land, and are mixing legislation that doesn't apply with their own made up scam Ts and Cs to trap people with disabilities.
    They are all colluding with each other to discriminate against disabled motorists.


    The EA 2010 applies here, the scammers made up ters do not.

    Ignore the PoPLA result and complain like mad to your MP and the landowner that you and your husband are the victims of discrimination.

    According to the recent BB re-application form I have just filled in, using a BB when you are not supposed to is an offence. Since the BB doesn't apply on private land, this implies that displaying it where it doesn't apply is an offence, so shouldn't be displayed.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister. :D
    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
  • Thank you for your replies
    I read another post recently, the guy sent a letter stating that they thought the fee was extortionate so sent them a cheque for £20 and heard no more- do you think this would be the way to go? I wouldnt normally want to pay them anything, they owe me the money for the time I have wasted on this as well I could also bill them for that since I am self employed?
  • edited 25 July 2018 at 10:17PM
    UmkomaasUmkomaas Forumite
    36.2K Posts
    Ninth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited 25 July 2018 at 10:17PM
    You need to really press on the landowners, who are jointly and severally liable for the actions of their agents.

    You can make life very, very difficult for them under the Equality Act 2010, particularly in the area of making reasonable adjustments.

    Read that Act carefully, then hatch your plan to hit the landowners hard - the PPC is of minor consequence now; you've virtually finished with them unless they raise court proceedings against you (would be a very stupid move).

    You could make this extremely uncomfortable for all parties, including POPLA, if you get all your ducks in a row. The forum will help you along the way.
    Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
    I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
  • RedxRedx Forumite
    38.1K Posts
    Eighth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    it only worked if 6 years has elapsed since the date of the incident he was involved with, if less than 6 years has elapsed then they could try for more with a court case

    personally, I do not believe such a small offer will be accepted , plus it can imply guilt

    if you want to bill the PPC and/or landowner , then you will have to gather your proof and issue an LBC and then an MCOL in your own name as a claimant , same as they would if they wish to pursue you

    the MCOL system works both ways, but only a judge can decide

    the discrimination part is really a separate claim (or counter claim)

    so you are talking about 2 legal claims here

    1) for the time and expense in dealing with the parking charge and its aftermath (including any future court case)

    2) discrimination under the EA2010


    BOTH YOU AND THE PPC HAVE 6 YEARS TO DECIDE WHAT TO DO
  • KeithPKeithP Forumite
    29.8K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    freedom68 wrote: »
    I read another post recently, the guy sent a letter stating that they thought the fee was extortionate so sent them a cheque for £20 and heard no more- do you think this would be the way to go?
    That won't work - certainly not in the way you want it to.

    That would just show them that you are worried and you would be marked as 'one worth pursuing'.

    So that person 'heard no more' eh?
    How long did they wait?
    Remember, any creditor has up to six years to chase a debt through the courts.

    Wammo's link should give you an idea of what to do for the best.
  • KeithP wrote: »
    What help are you looking for?

    You appealed to PoPLA and your appeal failed. Yes it did fail but there may be more things that I can do and I shouldnt give up since I feel this is discrimination.

    Have you complained to the landowner? No I havent done this yet, but this is a great idea and I will do this, thank you.

    You can now expect letters from debt collectors and post #4 on the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread gives comprehensive guidance on how to deal with those.

    In summary - ignore debt collector's letters. Thank you I will ignore them.

    Post again on this thread if ever you receive a Letter of Claim or official court correspondence.
    Yes I will update as soon as I receive any letters, its good to help other people that may find themselves in similar circumstances
  • UmkomaasUmkomaas Forumite
    36.2K Posts
    Ninth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Take your time in complaining to the landowners. Get your head around EA 2010 before coolly delivering the bombshell. You want it to go off with a huge bang, not a phut!

    Going off half-c0ck on a rant will not be to your best advantage. Revenge is a dish best served cold (and calmly). :)
    Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
    I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
This discussion has been closed.
Latest News and Guides