Advice re blue badge owner

Le_Kirk

No photo ID.  How about a copy of the V5C (assuming you still have the car) or a copy of the PCN or whatever the PPC have sent to you.

Redx

HotelUniform74 said:

Redx said:

1) yes , to the DPO at the PPC , attaching copies of 2 recent utility bills as proof of I D under the GDPR law

I'm not responsible for bills, would two other forms of ID suffice, eg photo of passport ID page and driving license? Thanks.

Ideally , no , because they are photo I D with extra data like date of birth etc

Try looking for anything like bank statements , mobile phone contracts or letters , DWP letters , inland revenue letters , council or rent letters , V5C , redacting your sensitive information but leaving name , address and date etc showing

Coupon-mad

HotelUniform74 said:

Redx said:

1) yes , to the DPO at the PPC , attaching copies of 2 recent utility bills as proof of I D under the GDPR law

2) no

3) 

4) email b w legal with a 30 days holding letter whilst you seek debt management advice

Hi Redx, thanks for your reply.

Re: 4) After a bit of googling, would this template suffice do you think? https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/debt-and-money/sample-letters-to-creditors/Holding-letter/

Sorry, no that is horrific.  It makes excuses as to why a person can't pay a valid debt and is completely unsuitable to a scam situation of an unfair parking charge.

You don't need to Google for a template to write the 2 or 3 sentences that the Newbies thread already spells out.

[Deleted User]

Coupon-mad said:

HotelUniform74 said:

Redx said:

1) yes , to the DPO at the PPC , attaching copies of 2 recent utility bills as proof of I D under the GDPR law

2) no

3) 

4) email b w legal with a 30 days holding letter whilst you seek debt management advice

Hi Redx, thanks for your reply.

Re: 4) After a bit of googling, would this template suffice do you think? https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/debt-and-money/sample-letters-to-creditors/Holding-letter/

Sorry, no that is horrific.  It makes excuses as to why a person can't pay a valid debt and is completely unsuitable to a scam situation of an unfair parking charge.

You don't need to Google for a template to write the 2 or 3 sentences that the Newbies thread already spells out.

OK Thanks, I'll look into the newbies thread.

[Deleted User]

D_P_Dance said:

They have added what appears to be an extra unlawful amount for debt collection. Judges have dismissed an entire claim because of this. Read this and complain to your MP.

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

I spoke to my MP at the beginning before writing on here and he was total useless.

How would I incorporate this in any legal challenge please?

[Deleted User]

Do I need to respond in any other way to BW Legal or just send a 30 day holding letter?

Thank you!

Umkomaas

HotelUniform74 said:

Do I need to respond in any other way to BW Legal or just send a 30 day holding letter?

Thank you!

Just deny any debt and you will robustly defend your position in court. The NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, second post, gives guidance on this element of the proceedings. 

[Deleted User]

Umkomaas said:

HotelUniform74 said:

Do I need to respond in any other way to BW Legal or just send a 30 day holding letter?

Thank you!

Just deny any debt and you will robustly defend your position in court. The NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, second post, gives guidance on this element of the proceedings. 

Thanks for replying. 

The reason I ask is that as you can see from the 10 previous pages, I thought this was all done and dusted in April 2020, when I last heard from them, with the date of the alleged contravention of their terms occuring in November 2019. I'm assuming they've got a new manager or they're resurrecting a bunch of old cases for some particular reason.

So you don't think its worth reminding them of why they dropped the case 17 months ago by sending the letter from Coupon Mad that made them drop their pursuit in the first place?

Cheers.

Coupon-mad

Why do you think they dropped the case?  Remind us what the letter said and what their reply was (silence is not an indicator of a case being dropped).

Anyone can sue under breach of contract for up to 6 years in the English county court, so this 17 month delay and silence is nothing compared to the 2015 and 2016 PCN cases we are handling.

[Deleted User]

Coupon-mad said:

Why do you think they dropped the case?  Remind us what the letter said and what their reply was (silence is not an indicator of a case being dropped).

Anyone can sue under breach of contract for up to 6 years in the English county court, so this 17 month delay and silence is nothing compared to the 2015 and 2016 PCN cases we are handling.

I guess having not heard anything for almost 18 after a few months of constant correspondence. I'm just surprised to hear from them after all this time I suppose. I guess it's a tactic of these type of companies?

I've copied and pasted their response to your letter below, it was on top of page 9 of this thread:

Hello all,

I received a reply from BW Legal today to the letter crafted by coupon-mad (CM) above. They've replied to each point made using the same list of numbers, which i'll put below. I've also included PPS' reply to my appeal back in December which seems to contradict what BW are now saying.

CM: 

1. The correct sum was paid for an hour's parking licence as offered, commencing at 17:55

The sum of 70p was paid once the car was parked, and according to the single sign in the car park, this fulfilled to contract to buy an hour's parking commencing before 18:00. Your ambiguous signage does not indicate a charge for partial hours and merely required a 70p charge for an hour's parking, for contracts made between 08:00 and 18:00. There was no breach of contract and even if you believe there was, you have failed to consider my rights and have committed an offence under the Equality Act 2010.

BW:

 1. Our client is not obliged to provide parking for partial hours. You paid for one hours parking and overstayed by 16 minutes.

PPS :

To authorise parking for 1 hour and 16 minutes, your driver would have needed to pay £0.70 from time of entry at 17:51 until 6pm and another £2 from 6pm until they left.

CM: 

2. Signage was inadequate & ambiguous, causing an unfair pitfall or trap

The Consumer Rights Act (CRA) (2015) provides that a term is "unfair" if "contrary to the requirements of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer". The contra proferentem rule provides that where any clause in a contract is ambiguous the term should be interpreted against the interests of the party who drafted the terms. Further, the signs in this car park were woefully inadequate and the parking charge of £100 was in the smallest hidden print, and was not listed in the tariffs nor even in the same size font. The parking charge of £100 was incapable of being read or agreed at the machine and any added 'operational or debt collection costs' (even if this was on the sign, which it is believed it was not) are disallowed by the County courts and represent an abuse of process/double recovery.

BW:

2. The signage displayed to you is sufficient under the IPC's CoP. None of the terms displayed to you are unfair and if you believed them to be, we would ask why you parked your vehicle.

CM:

3. Lack of appropriate grace period

You have failed to comply with the International Parking Community’s Code of Practice as regards the grace period required before the parking contract commenced, and (separately) sufficient grace period for a driver to leave after the hour's parking licence expired. The second period alone must be a minimum (not maximum ceiling) of ten minutes, and each period must be longer than this, when it comes to disabled car park users. There is no justification in treating all drivers the same, regardless of their protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.

BW: 

Under the relevant CoP, 10 minutes is a sufficient amount of time for a Grace Period. The CoP merely makes references to 'reasonable adjustments' which are decided by our client.

CM:

4. Breach of the Equality Act 2010

You must make ‘reasonable adjustments’ and ensure that you do not put disabled people at a disadvantage compared to an able-bodied person. You must provide a reasonable adjustment in terms of both increased legibility of signage, so that the terms and conditions are legible from within the vehicle, and in addition, you must allow suffient time for disabled service users to reach the machine, read the terms and pay, and also a further period of reasonable adjustment to board their vehicle and leave, after expiry of paid-for time.

It is no lawful excuse or justification for a car park operator to say, for example, that you operate ANPR for economic reasons yet you have made it impossible for yourselves to fairly (or at all) distinguish between disabled Blue Badge holders and other drivers. You have by this conduct, illegally ignored your statutory duty to make 'reasonable adjustments' of policies in anticipation of the needs of the disabled population 'at large'. As well as removing physical barriers, this duty includes factoring in flexibility to a 'fixed' time limit, knowing that these timings are likely to cause difficulty and detriment to disabled visitors.  

You are already aware from my appeal, that I am a disabled driver, but for the avoidance of doubt and in an effort to resolve this dispute without resorting to legal action, I am attaching a copy of my Blue Badge and I can state that my medical conditions are:

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/ Myalic Encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME)

Chronic Migraine

and the effects that cause me to need longer to process information and physically use my car, are:

cognitive dysfunction

mobility impairment

Based on the above, I believe that you have discriminated against me and I intend to claim for injury to feelings and harassment due to this discrimination and for your continued unlawful processing of my data. 

BW:

4. We would also note the relevant CoP does not mention Grace Periods in their reference to reasonable adjustments.

Furthermore:

CM: 

(a) Misleading actions   

If, which is denied, my decision to park constituted acceptance of an offer to park in exchange for the sum of £100 over and above the tariff paid, then it was a transactional decision within the meaning of the said Regulations. I was unwittingly drawn in and induced into making that decision to pay 70p, which otherwise, I would not have made, by your failure to bring to my attention properly or at all the following information:- 

i) that by parking, I would be entering into a contract; 

 ii) that my 70p would be taken as payment for just five minutes, contrary to the offer of an hour's parking;

 iii) the onerous nature of the terms thereof, in particular the £100 parking charge to which unspecified costs might be added.  

It is averred that the overall presentation of the tariff and timing information, being wholly inadequate, was likely to deceive the average motorist, thus fulfilling the definition of a “misleading action” under regulation 5 (2)(a) of the Regulations. Since it would have been easy to present the information properly it is reasonable to presume that the deception was deliberate. Accordingly, your conduct amounted to:- 

 i) an unfair commercial practice which is prohibited under Regulation 3 and

 ii) a misleading action within the meaning of Regs 5 & 6, for which redress is available under regulation 27(J)(b).  

(b) Breach of The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 

Despite my full payment for an hour's parking and my reasonable responses to your alarmist letters, you have persisted in aggressively and unjustifiably pursuing exaggerated additional 'parking charges' over the course of several months. This has included sending, either by yourselves or through your agents or legal representatives, debt collection notices threatening legal action. This conduct is not part and parcel of the reasonable pursuit of a debt and amounts to harassment under section 1, Protection from Harassment Act 1997.   

 

(c) Breach of The Equality Act 2010 ('the EA') and the EHRC Statutory EA Code for Service Providers

Despite knowing about my protected characteristics and my Blue Badge from the point of my appeal, you have failed to make reasonable adjustments by cancelling the parking charge and allowing sufficient periods of grace, given my needs, either side of my properly paid-for parking time. Further, you took no account of my cognitive dysfunction in reviewing your ambiguous signage and you should have realised that your terms and specifically the 'tariff & time' wording at this location, was certainly ambiguous and unfair. This represents an offence of 'direct discrimination' from the point of your knowledge of my needs and protected status.

BW:

a. i) the signage clearly states 'WARNING: CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT'. Please find an image of the signage enclosed.

ii) we are unsure what is meant by this. Your parking was validated for one hour

iii) the terms and conditions were clearly laid out to you and were neither misleading or constitute unfair commercial practice

b. As harrassment has been referenced to in your correspondence, we feel obliged to point out that under S1(3)(c) of the Protection from harassment Act 1997, a course of conduct that someone alleges to be harassment will not be deemed so if the person who pursued it shows that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable. Our course of action has been entirely reasonable and in no way reaches the high threshold of harassment.

c. The grace period provided is reasonable under the CoP