Forgot to display blue badge.

Snakes_Belly

antandann wrote: »

The signs were terrible, but the judge wasn't interested in the pictures as parking in a disabled parking bay should mean you automatically display your blue badge, according to him. One parking company in cases such as this asks for a £15 donation to help combat disabled bay misuse, when you send a copy of your badge. We'd gladly have rounded that up to 20 quid as misuse of bays is epidemic. But to charge genuinely disabled people the same as people who are abusing the bays is ruthless. I wonder how the judge would have ruled if he'd recently been ticketed. He deserves to have my wife's condition and see how well he can focus on anything. Where has the humanity gone in our country? Sorry, I'm venting again.

No my daughter wasn't aware of a contract to display a blue badge. Just to correct the fine amount, my wife says the final tally was £260 but the judge was very magnanimous and disallowed the interest Gladstone's wanted to add on otherwise it would have been higher.

I think a letter to the landowner is the best route, which is something I should have done from the start.

If this had been a council run car park they would have cancelled the ticket upon production of your blue badge. I would write to your MP about the incident and the disparity between car parks. Until you have a PCN from a private parking company you don't realise how aggressive they are.

There is a lot of ignorance about neurological conditions because it's not a visible disability.

I have bored all my friends and family and anyone else who wants to listen with the details of my parking incident. At least now everyone in my circle of family friends are aware of the pitfalls. This is one way that you can get back at the PPC's and save other people from the same fate.

antandann

Snakes Belly if you don't mind me asking what happened in your case?

I haven't heard of one other case similar to this where the defendant lost. The judge had made his mind up before we got through the door. His first words on the matter were, "It looks clear cut to me and you've admitted fault." I read out passages from the Equality Act and applied them to the reasonable adjustment which was the parking bay, and his response was, " Yeah, well." And that was that! So a genuinely disabled person can use a reasonable adjustment which is provided for them, in a free carpark, use Pizza Hut on the retail park and then ultimately be fined £260. That was one expensive pizza. Not that it will change much but I'll write to our MP, the MP of where the incident occurred (Halifax) and the Land Owner, maybe the local paper for Halifax as well, plus as many internet sites as possible. Probably won't change much, but it may make me feel just a little better.

Snakes_Belly

I have not been to court yet but it is imminent.

The full details are on my thread.

Basic facts are that I had a migraine on the way to Burton on Trent and had to pull over for about half an hour. My migraine is with an aura which causes a visual disturbance and light sensitivity. When I eventually arrived in Burton the ticket machine did not work and I left a note. Signs were in very small font.

Migraine can be a disability if it is chronic which mine is but I have not claimed any benefits and I don't have a badge or need one. I would have had difficulty on the day with the signs as they are in small font and in bright colours. I become very sensitive to light after a migraine. My pupils become like pinheads.

The PPC have trivilised my condition ( they don't understand it). I have had to produce a doctor's letter.

I did wonder if the judge has trivialised your wife's condition. He obviously does not understand it.

I think that if you had come to this site originally you would have stood a better chance of winning your case as there are people on this site who are specialists in their field some being legally trained.

Some judges would have classed your case as De Minimis which means that it should have never been taken to court.

Half_way

Are you still thinking of contcting the landowner?
to get any progression on this i would strongly recomend you do so.

Maybe a letter to the land owner to explain the situation is the way to go. But I honestly wouldn't know where to start now - my confidence is shot.

You need to start at the beginning,



something along the lines of:


To (name of landowner)
On date xxx I visited your retail park at (location), with my wife (?) who suffers from ( briefly describe/name disability and its effects - be honest do not downplay it)

On that particular day, for whatever reason the blue badge was not displayed in the vehicle, and it was subsequently issued with a parking charge notice.
Under normal circumstances, and when / if dealing with a respectable company the parking charge should have been cancelled with the parking company was made aware of my Wifes condition, especially as this falls under the Equalities act, However they continued to pursue this matter though the court system, where they won the case on a technicality.

The issue of the Equality act, and my wifes painful disability was ignored/dismissed, as it was seen as a breach in the same way that a blue car parked in a bay for red cars could be seen a s a breach.

I would at this point like to remind you that you are jointly and severally liable for the actions of your agents, and by allowing an un regulated company such as a private parking company (neither the British parking association or the IPC are regulators - merely private trade clubs) to act in this way, and in turn causing you to breach the Equalitys act for allowing them to operate in the manner that they are.

I am not asking for much, just to be re compensated for the time/stress/worry anxiety and cost that your agents , the parking company have caused, as well as an undertaking that such things will not happen again in the future and that you will from this point forward comply with the Equality act

antandann

Snakes Belly, not many things stopped my Mum from soldiering on, but her Migraine attacks often did. I'll read your thread and wish you well in your case. Just run if you have judge Hickinbottom.

Cheers halfway, great template, really appreciated. I will write to the carpark owner.

NeilCr

Half_way wrote: »

Are you still thinking of contcting the landowner?
to get any progression on this i would strongly recomend you do so.



You need to start at the beginning,



something along the lines of:


To (name of landowner)
On date xxx I visited your retail park at (location), with my wife (?) who suffers from ( briefly describe/name disability and its effects - be honest do not downplay it)

On that particular day, for whatever reason the blue badge was not displayed in the vehicle, and it was subsequently issued with a parking charge notice.
Under normal circumstances, and when / if dealing with a respectable company the parking charge should have been cancelled with the parking company was made aware of my Wifes condition, especially as this falls under the Equalities act, However they continued to pursue this matter though the court system, where they won the case on a technicality.

The issue of the Equality act, and my wifes painful disability was ignored/dismissed, as it was seen as a breach in the same way that a blue car parked in a bay for red cars could be seen a s a breach.

I would at this point like to remind you that you are jointly and severally liable for the actions of your agents, and by allowing an un regulated company such as a private parking company (neither the British parking association or the IPC are regulators - merely private trade clubs) to act in this way, and in turn causing you to breach the Equalitys act for allowing them to operate in the manner that they are.

I am not asking for much, just to be re compensated for the time/stress/worry anxiety and cost that your agents , the parking company have caused, as well as an undertaking that such things will not happen again in the future and that you will from this point forward comply with the Equality act

Yes to contacting the landowner. Yes to starting from the beginning.

No to waving the big stick right now. As far as I can tell this is the first time that the landowner will have heard of this. They have had no input so far so give them a chance. The approach above would make me think - it's been to court - the court has decided. And?

I'd set out the story - say that you were extremely stressed and upset and you realise, in retrospect, that you should have contacted them earlier. Given the circumstances would they now consider helping you out. If they don't then you can ramp up the ante. I have found that, quite often, the softly softly approach works and it is less stressful too!

antandann

I think I would be more at ease appealing to their better nature first.

Just to clarify some points: my wife was the registered keeper of the vehicle and it was a Motobility vehicle. My wife has two registered drivers, her husband (me) and her daughter. I'm her main driver, and I'm totally anal about checking the Blue Badge has been displayed, even when it isn't really needed. My daughter is her Mum's secondary driver and doesn't drive her Mum that often. The badge had been put on the dash, but had been knocked off by my wife's crutch as she pulled her crutch that was stuck in the footwell, and it clattered against the windscreen and then knocked the Blue Badge holder into the footwell. This was because my wife put up the badge on her side of the car ( the passenger side). The only mistake was not checking the badge was in view on leaving the vehicle. How could we name the driver of the vehicle when it was our own daughter trying to take her Mum out for a treat as it was the first time she'd been outside in months. Money before people is the modern mantra and I'll always put people before money, that's probably the reason I'm poor.

Ha ha on the socialist comment. Comrade, my lips are sealed on where I stand on the political spectrum as I don't want to alienate half the people that may be willing to help me.

Coupon-mad

The badge had been put on the dash, but had been knocked off by my wife's crutch as she pulled her crutch that was stuck in the footwell, and it clattered against the windscreen and then knocked the Blue Badge holder into the footwell.

Did you say this - specifically about the crutch knocking the BB down - in the

- first appeal?
- the Witness Statement?
- and/or at the hearing?

I will contact you this week, please don't go firing stuff off just yet.

So, the Defendant was the registered keeper, who was the disabled person harassed even though the parking firm knew she was disabled.

antandann

Hope you enjoyed your weekend Cm. I've offered a story to two local papers suggesting a title of the £270 Pizza, but I will run everything by the forum first regarding writing to the land owners.

Regarding the crutch, yes on the first letter and several others and at the hearing. The court lost my first defence, but it's okay for them to foul up without reprimand.

I didn't officially appeal as such as I'd read so much about it being a waste of time with it being the IPC. But I did write in the first response letter and say in an assertive manner that my wife wouldn't be taking them up on their invoice for £60 as she was disabled, here's the badge, so do one you parking parasite. Well that was the gist of it but I was cordial. They took the letter as an appeal as they wrote back and said thank you for your appeal but ...the usual nonsense they write and then went on to inform me that an appeal to their independent body (yeah right) the IPC wouldn't be likely succeed as mitigating circumstances ( the badge being knocked on the floor, my wife's illness) wouldn't be taken into consideration. So I thought, so why bother? I ignored all future letters until good old Gladstone's wrote. I'll scan all the letters when I get time and email them to you. A good read if you want to get to sleep. Anyway, I responded to the usual Gladstone's nonsense thus:

"I am writing as the previous keeper of vehicle **** who is not liable for the parking charge for several reasons, not least that to uphold it would constitute disability discrimination.

I have suffered from a condition known as Trigeminal Neuralgia for over twenty years which is one of the most painful conditions known to medical science, which is known colloquially as the suicide disease, as many suffers take their own life rather than endure the chronic excruciating pain. I take various medication to attempt to control my condition, which, along with the extreme pain, often results in me feeling dizzy, unbalanced, having poor concentration/memory and generally poor cognitive function. I also have Freiberg Disease which limits my range of motion. I use crutches and or a wheelchair for mobility.

Movement and inclement weather exacerbate my condition and being able to park in disabled bays is essential for me to be able to both get into and out of my vehicle, without exceptional pain, or damaging adjacent vehicles with my door, and to get to my destination without the pain becoming intolerable.


SUMMARY OF MY LEGAL RIGHT TO USE THE DISABLED PARKING BAY




Your client, HX Car Park Management Ltd. have acknowledged that I have a Blue Badge, and I am therefore entitled to park in the bay, however they continue to harass me for a payment which currently stands at £160. I consider this to be an unconscionable and disproportionate penalty charge for a disabled person using a disabled bay to give custom to the adjoining business.


BREACH OF STATUTE, NAMELY THE EQUALITY ACT 2010 AND THE EHRC 'CODE OF PRACTICE ON SERVICES, PUBLIC FUNCTIONS AND ASSOCIATIONS' (Chapter 5 Indirect Discrimination) WHICH BECAME LAW ON 6TH APRIL 2011

Your forementioned client is a service-providers who are relying on unenforceable terms which purport to create an inflexible contractual term 'requiring' disabled people to display a Council (on-street only) Blue Badge in order to use a disabled bay. The Blue Badge scheme does not lawfully apply in private car parks - as is shown in the Blue Badge booklet and on the Government website. Companies such as your client may choose to mention the badge on their signs but they cannot legally rely on it in isolation as the only indicator of disability need.

The Equality Act takes precedence over any 'contractual' terms and a blanket term to display a Blue Badge is specifically an 'unenforceable term' as defined in the Equality Act. It is an example of a blanket policy which seeks to limit the provision of the disabled bays to 'badge-display only' and thereby causes disadvantage to other people who have certain protected characteristics.

''EQUALITY ACT 2010
142(1) Unenforceable terms
A term of a contract is unenforceable against a person in so far as it constitutes, promotes or provides for treatment of that or another person that is of a description prohibited by this Act.
144(1) A term of a contract is unenforceable by a person in whose favour it would operate in so far as it purports to exclude or limit a provision of or made under this Act.

29 Provision of services
(1) A person (a “service-provider”) concerned with the provision of a service to the public or a section of the public (for payment or not) must not discriminate against a person requiring the service by not providing the person with the service.

(2) A service-provider (A) must not, in providing the service, discriminate against a person (B)—
(a)as to the terms on which A provides the service to B;
(b)by terminating the provision of the service to B;
©by subjecting B to any other detriment.

(3) A service-provider must not, in relation to the provision of the service, harass—
(a)a person requiring the service, or
(b)a person to whom the service-provider provides the service.

(4) A service-provider must not victimise a person requiring the service by not providing the person with the service.

(5) A service-provider (A) must not, in providing the service, victimise a person (B)—
(a)as to the terms on which A provides the service to B; ''


Any term that HX Car Park Management may have on their signs to the effect of 'Blue Badges only' is null and void if the effect is to deny a disabled person the statutory right to use a reasonable adjustment without penalty; any such term unlawfully limits the disabled bay provision and this could well be deemed as harassment and discrimination.

The unenforceable term in Charlestown Road Retail Park requiring all disabled people using a disabled bay to show a Blue Badge may be the result of an ill-conceived attempt to ostensibly comply with the Equality Act; indeed, it appears to be based on private parking industry-wide misconceptions about disability law. But, as it specifically states in the Equality Act, ignorance of disability law and lack of intention to discriminate is no defence for breach. My argument, which I am fully prepared to defend in court is that your client and indeed your company in support of their claim have shown no regard for the Equality Act nor for the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) Statutory 'Equality Act - Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations'. Consequently to seek any further erroneous recourse to be a blatant act of discrimination against a genuine disabled person and I will seek legal advice to challenge your and your client's unconscionable conduct and operations in a court of law

I feel it is vital to reiterate that this parking charge issued as a result of an unenforceable term has created indirect and if you continue to pursue this matter direct discrimination, and as such, it is a breach of the EA. It is also a breach of the statutory EHRC 'Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations' (Chapter 5 Indirect Discrimination) which became law on 6 April 2011:

''5.4 What does the Act say?
Indirect discrimination may occur when a service provider applies an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice which puts persons sharing a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage.''


I refer you to Excel v Greenwood Case Number 3QT60496 (4/10/2013), where a driver with MS forgot to display his blue badge due to forgetfulness being a feature of his condition. The Judge threw the case out because Excel had a duty to make a reasonable adjustment as soon as they knew about his condition, and had no lawful excuse to harass the disabled person by continuing to demand money. Excel could not legally offer any contract to make a disabled bay available to a person with protected characteristics at a price, given the facts of his MS and the fact they already knew about it from his appeal.

Also in the landmark case of ParkingEye Vs Beavis, 2015 in the Supreme Court, at 107:


‘’In our opinion the term imposing the £85 charge was not unfair. The term does not exclude any right which the consumer may be said to enjoy under the general law or by statute."

So in the case where a person is legally allowed a reasonable adjustment (a legal duty upon service providers, not guidance), that person can expect the rights accorded to those as mentioned above, by statute, more specifically in this case, the Equality Act statute."

There was no Witness Statement unfortunately, which is where I was really going to put it all together. But when I found out about my wife's affair I left her and wasn't going to defend her in court, and by the time we had reconciled the window had passed for the WS. But I did state the case well enough at the hearing I feel by applying the relevant passages from the EA to the case, but he'd made his mind up before we got through the door. He said that without a badge the system wouldn't work. I mentioned the Greenwood case, that had wrongly been decided according to his godliness, and in any case it wasn't binding on him he said smugly. And the EA got a, "Yeah, Well." When I asked what would someone do if they were visiting from a foreign country that was disabled but didn't have a Blue Badge, and he answered that they would need some proof they could use the bay - yeah it's called a disability! (So all disabled visitors to our green and pleasant land, however disabled you are, if you don't have a BB, you can stay out of our bays, no badge, no disability it would seem.) There was no debate or decent argument put forth from him other than no badge no right to be in the bay. A few bays I've noticed recently are for 'BB holders' with no mention of displaying the badge. So that negates Judge Dread's argument that you need to display a badge every time you enter a disabled bay. But conveniently none of this is recorded and you can't get the better of people like him as he'd be tempted to add on more money for denting his ego. If the argument had been fair I'd have won as he had no answers for my questions other than I'm big, your small and there's nothing you can do about it. Right from the start he said it was a clear case and we'd admitted fault. I thought he was playing devil's advocate because Gladstone's were a no show and he was arguing their point to make it a fair debate, but no, he'd already decided. So why drag my wife along who is in agonizing pain to your kangaroo court? He even acknowledged my wife's illness and said he sympathized, and showed his understanding by slapping her with a £260 penalty!

To get any sort of justice from this now would be great, but this is now more about helping others. If one person gains from this, I'm happy. Hell, if I receive any money from my fightback, I'll give the cash to a disabled charity and that's a solemn promise. Money IS the root of all evil, it's combating injustice, cruelty and bigotry that motivates me, as god only knows there's a lot of it to go around.

The_Deep

I have a motto, if you theow enough merde at a wall, some of it will stick, so keep on throwing.

Have you approached the Daily Mail, they love these parking stories.