Disabled Spot Ticket

pcyuljr

The_Deep wrote: »

UKPC are fraudsters

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11858473/Parking-firm-UKPC-admits-faking-tickets-to-fine-drivers.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/

I wonder if the judge knows about this?

If their paperwork is tickety boo, the signage passes muster, their contracts are in order, etc., you have given them an open goal.

Yep, I agree with you. And kick myself for it. Hey ho, I'll just have to downgrade my own Christmas present this year!

Redx

I am , because I qualify under the EA2010 with a long term disability and I have a BB as well, and have done since they were orange, so I have a vested interest

it is my opinion that the PENALTY (it should be a PENALTY charge notice and not a PARKING charge notice) for being in a disabled spot and not qualifying under the EA2010 rules should be say £500 , not £100 or £85 or whatever, which is separate to what is considered to be "normal parking as in the case of BEAVIS, because he isnt disabled and he didnt park in a disabled spot either

Mr Beavis may have thought that £85 was reasonable if he HAD parked in a disabled spot at that car park near Staples, because there were some there but he correctly chose NOT to park in one

I understand your logic, but the law does not , so I replied based on the law as it currently stands, not your viewpoint on why you did as you did

as an able bodied person, you should have dropped her off near the shop and then gone to find a parking spot further away, or risk the consequences, these are the consequences and anyone who does a similar thing should face the same consequences

if you manage to swerve this ticket, then pay the £85 into a charity of your choice, like MS or the BHF or similar, its your moral dilemma , not mine

once the MP,s have sorted out the new CoP, then we may get clarity on these issues , so perhaps the parking charge notices should be the same as the council ones, but I still believe that parking in a disabled spot without the correct requirements should be much , MUCH higher , to act as a deterrent (even if you had not done as you did)- I also told the DCLG this in their public survey 3.5 years ago

pcyuljr

Fair do's, I agree I shouldn't have parked there. Although Beavis may not have parked in a disabled space, his argument was never that he wasn't in the wrong for overstaying, merely that the charge was disproportionate.

On a side point, I'm not why people assume I'm male, or that my partner is female and I should have dropped 'her' off. But that's for another discussion...

Redx

the gender point is irrelevant to me , its a figure of speech, swap him and her around if you like , or I will edit my post if I am told I got it the wrong way round, its not central to the issue at hand, (it could even be him & him or her & her for that matter)

that disproportionate argument was being used ever since I came here for guidance around 6 years ago, it was nothing new

PE tested it in court and so were selective about which case to bring and the judges swallowed it up, making parliament have to do something about it at some point, hence the bill by Sir Greg Knight here

https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/parkingcodeofpractice.html

I have been involved in these matters almost daily for over 5 years, contributed to the BEAVIS case and to the UHW Cardiff nurses one against Indigo too , both failed. I have also written to the DCLG and to my local MP who is a shadow minister to try to get all of this changed to a fairer system

hence why I seem to know a lot, its one of the things I came here for in the first place as it affects ME, sorry to say

pcyuljr

You certainly seem dedicated. It needs people like you to fight the good fight. Keep at it, for all of us.

Redx

I try, plus UKPC ARE FRAUDSTERS ANYWAY so as mentioned by another poster we would rather that you beat them first and then decide what to do with any money saved, plus to think about it more carefully in future


thank you

Fruitcake

You have put your hand up to having made a mistake. Now let that be the end of that aspect, and concentrate on beating the scammers using points of law, not morals (which the scammers do not have.)

I doubt their signage meets the requirements of the BPA CoP. If it does then it will be a first.

Follow the appeal process detailed in the NEWBIES, get photos of the entrance and signs, especially ones that are damaged, obscured by trees, high up on poles, not on the route the driver would have taken.

Then study them to see if you can see how much the parking charge is. the last time I looked at a UKPC sign was two months ago, and it had been installed the day before. Brand new, I could not read the charge amount form the rear of the car parked in front of it.

So, inadequate signage needs to be one of your leading points at PoPLA. If the signs the scammers have supplied themselves are blurred and indistinct, as I believe they sometimes are, then use their own signs against them.
Can you read what it says on the (photos of) signs they provide?
Can you read the amount of the charge?

If the answer to either or both of those questions is no, then how can a contract been formed with the driver?