Ticket for parking in disabled bay

Coupon-mad

Although you have used none of the usual POPLA templates everyone else does (see NEWBIES thread post #3) I think that's actually very good.


You need EVIDENCE that the driver of this car is routinely given permission to use the disabled space and was allowed on this occasion. Word of mouth is just hearsay and has no weight. Get an email from them if you can.

And I did say add something else to your non-POFA/keeper liability point:

You could argue that the 'if after 29 days...' sentence in the final para is not exactly what 8(2)f of the POFA says - and I would - but POPLA might not buy this argument, as they let Premier Park use the 'if after 29 days' wording.

Still, throw it ALL at PPS (London) as they might struggle to handle it all.

velour

Hi Coupon-mad,
Thanks - I try to be different! Did a search for templates and used one that came up, stupidly didn't just look in the newbies thread.

I'll chase the email about the use of the disabled space and will add in the bit about the '..if after 29 days...' wording.

Thanks again for the help, very much appreciated.

Coupon-mad

Have a look at the templates in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread too, as the point about unclear signs is MUCH more detailed and the point about no landowner authority/para 7 of the CoP are both stranger than the old version you copied from.

It also tells you how to submit this on POPLA's awful website by uploading it.

Le_Kirk

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and am appealing against the above charge. I content that I am not liable for the parking charge on the following grounds and would ask that they are all considered.

Did you mean this?

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and am appealing against the above charge. I [STRIKE]content[/STRIKE] contest that I am not liable for the parking charge on the following grounds and would ask that they are all considered.

behalf of the landowner, has read and the relevant terms of the contract and is qualified to attest to the full limit of authority of the parking company

This doesn't make sense, did you perhaps mean: -

behalf of the landowner, has read [strike]and[/strike] ALL the relevant terms of the contract and is qualified to attest to the full limit of authority of the parking company

velour

Le_Kirk - I did, thanks!

The_Deep

I am doubtful that a term requiring a BB in a disabled only bay in a private car park is a fair term in a consumer contract.

Not every disabled person has a BB, and not every disabled BB qualifies for one under some perplexing and ill considered Councils decisions.

However, if you are disabled, whether a BB holder or not, you have certain entitlements. Trying to charge a non BB holding disabled person is disabled discrimination imo, and certainly worth arguing in court.

Guys_Dad

The_Deep wrote: »

I am doubtful that a term requiring a BB in a disabled only bay in a private car park is a fair term in a consumer contract.

Not every disabled person has a BB, and not every disabled BB qualifies for one under some perplexing and ill considered Councils decisions.

However, if you are disabled, whether a BB holder or not, you have certain entitlements. Trying to charge a non BB holding disabled person is disabled discrimination imo, and certainly worth arguing in court.

You would lose. Particularly if you were ablebodied.

I am amazed at the number of times regulars here can't seem to get it into their heads that the provision of sufficient parking spaces for disabled people is a matter for landowners/stores etc and if these are insufficient, that is a matter between them and the aggrieved.

The PPC is not obliged to make any provision themselves, only to manage the car park in line with their contract with the landowner and if the landowner has determined that use of the disabled parking space is governed by the display of a valid BB, then the beef is with the landowner. The PPC is basing their claim on breach of t&c and you need to demolish that argument.

I have yet to see a winning case against a PPC based on the either unfair consumer terms or breach of disability discrimination when parked in a disabled bay and not showing a valid BB when that is in the t&c..

Coupon-mad

The PPC is not obliged to make any provision themselves

I'd say they are, under the EHRC Statutory Equality Act CoP for Service Providers.

I have yet to see a winning case against a PPC based on the either unfair consumer terms or breach of disability discrimination when parked in a disabled bay and not showing a valid BB when that is in the t&c.

Excel v Greenwood, where he had MS and forgot to display his BB:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4784284/excel-lose-in-court-after-they-had-won-at-popla

Sensible Judge heard that forgetfulness was a feature of his disability and decided that Excel should have cancelled the PCN when they received his appeal & copy BB.

Guys_Dad

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I'd say they are, under the EHRC Statutory Equality Act CoP for Service Providers.

Excel v Greenwood, where he had MS and forgot to display his BB:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4784284/excel-lose-in-court-after-they-had-won-at-popla

Sensible Judge heard that forgetfulness was a feature of his disability and decided that Excel should have cancelled the PCN when they received his appeal & copy BB.

But are the PPC service providers or is it their client? I think the latter.

The Excel -v- Greenwood is a good example, but given the number of cases on here subsequent to that one, there should be many many more but I don't see evidence of that.

Coupon-mad

Both are - the terms is defined in the EHRC CoP, page 24:

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/servicescode_0.pdf

Use of the terms ‘service provider’, ‘services’ and ‘service user’
1.23 As explained above, the Act imposes duties on service providers and those exercising public functions (under Part 3) and on associations (under Part 7).

The term ‘service provider’ is used in this Code to refer to all legal persons with responsibilities under these parts of the Act. The term ‘services’ includes goods and facilities and refers to all relevant activities carried out by ‘service providers’. Similarly, the term ‘service user’ refers to people who are users of these ‘services’: for example, customers of services, users of facilities, consumers or purchasers of goods, people who benefit from or are subject to public functions; and people who are members, associates and guests of associations. People who attempt to or want to use a service, benefit from a public function or join an association may also be ‘service users’, even if they cannot actually use the ‘service’ because of discrimination.

PPCs are at pains to say they can offer a contract regardless of not owning the land (selling Buckingham Palace argument) and can make contracts with drivers directly that have nothing to do with said landowner.

So, they are certainly trading with drivers as the 'principal' (they argue this all the time) and are the 'service provider' here. It would be different if we were talking about cleaners, for example.

The difference being a cleaner doesn't claim to be 'the principal' making contracts with people!