Advice re blue badge owner

[Deleted User]

D_P_Dance said:

And, if they persist, consider a claim for disability discrimination if appropriate.  

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/legal-system/small-claims/making-a-small-claim/

Thanks for the reply. That is what I am counter-claiming.

Jenni_D

Your vehicle's "overstay" was 12 minutes ... a ticket was purchased at 17:55 yet (allegedly) the vehicle entered the car park at 17:51, so the consideration period in this case was 4 minutes. (The IPC CoP doesn't define this consideration period, but by performance this can be assumed to have been 4 minutes in this case).

As your vehicle (allegedly) exited at 19:07 then they may claim you exceeded the 10 minutes grace period by 2 minutes.

(Just putting across how the other side may view this).

As part of the defence is in relation to timings, you should be putting the claimant to strict proof that their ANPR cameras and PDT machines have synchronised clocks. Also you can argue the extra 2 minutes was needed due to your disability, and the PPC needs to make allowances per the Equality Act 2010 (- and they've been aware of your disability for quite some time?)  

[Deleted User]

Jenni_D said:

Your vehicle's "overstay" was 12 minutes ... a ticket was purchased at 17:55 yet (allegedly) the vehicle entered the car park at 17:51, so the consideration period in this case was 4 minutes. (The IPC CoP doesn't define this consideration period, but by performance this can be assumed to have been 4 minutes in this case).

As your vehicle (allegedly) exited at 19:07 then they may claim you exceeded the 10 minutes grace period by 2 minutes.

(Just putting across how the other side may view this).

As part of the defence is in relation to timings, you should be putting the claimant to strict proof that their ANPR cameras and PDT machines have synchronised clocks.  

Cool, thanks for the reply Jenni.

I think I understand the above. I think its a reasonable adjustment under the EA to extend that 10 minutes grace period to someone that is disabled (at least 2 more minutes). I am on top rate of mobility allowance for my PIP benefit as well, so my mobility is severely limited when compared to a non-disabled person.

They've been aware of my disability since they included the copy of my blue badge I sent them with their denial of my appeal, back in December 2019!

Coupon-mad

You are not counterclaiming, you haven't shown us a counterclaim.

Your new version of para 3 looks much better and yes, save the detail for WS stage. 

However, where does your defence mention that you are disabled, the Claimant knows this from your appeal(?) and being a service provider, the Claimant would in any event have a statutory duty to make reasonable adjustments of both the grace period and the paid-for parking time.

[Deleted User]

Coupon-mad said:

You are not counterclaiming, you haven't shown us a counterclaim.

Your new version of para 3 looks much better and yes, save the detail for WS stage. 

However, where does your defence mention that you are disabled, the Claimant knows this from your appeal(?) and being a service provider, the Claimant would in any event have a statutory duty to make reasonable adjustments of both the grace period and the paid-for parking time.

Hi, thanks for replying.

I thought I was saving all the info about being disabled for the WS? I deleted the final paragraph in point 3 of my defence where it mentioned I was disabled.

Which part of the appeal should I address that I am disabled please?

I do plan to counterclaim and am using https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6149245/90-seconds-part-two/p18 as a template. It looks like I can just use it as is, but need to change and amend a few things. 

I'll post this when I'm done if you don't mind looking through it please.

Le_Kirk

You need to leave everything in your defence if you are going to refer to it in your witness statement, although it could just be a short bullet point.  If it is not in your defence you cannot introduce it later.

[Deleted User]

Le_Kirk said:

You need to leave everything in your defence if you are going to refer to it in your witness statement, although it could just be a short bullet point.  If it is not in your defence you cannot introduce it later.

Here is my point 3 of my defence. Please can you tell me what you think? The final sentence is what I have added:

3.       The Defendant’s car entered the car park at 17:51. The signage was not visible from the car as it was dark and the signage was not lit. A ticket was purchased for one hour’s parking at 17:55, following the Claimant's terms and conditions. The car was captured leaving past the exit at 19:07. The Defendant correctly paid for their hour's parking and the Defendant denies any breach of the terms on offer to drivers arriving before 6pm. The Claimant is bound by their accredited trade association’s (ATA) terms and conditions. The Claimant’s ATA, the IPC, state in their code of practice, page 13, part b, 15.1, 15.2 that a “reasonable” amount of time should be given to a motorist after entry to a car park, and before purchase of a ticket, to make an informed choice on whether to park or not. The IPC also state that a separate 10 minutes should be given to a motorist, after expiry of the ticket, to exit the car park. These periods of time are known as “grace periods”. The Defendant is a disabled person with 'protected characteristics' pursuant to the Equality Act 2010 (per Chapter 1, paragraph 6 of the EA).

Le_Kirk

Should do the job and allow you to expand upon it in the WS.

[Deleted User]

Hello again, 

I'm now working on my counterclaim. I'm using https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6149245/90-seconds-part-two/p22 to form the basis of my claim and having read through it thoroughly over the last week I think I can use most of it, as is.

I've changed several of the points to make it relevant to my case. Please could a kind soul read over what I have included below?

Point 30:

30.  The Claimant alleges that there was a contract formed at the moment of entry to the car park by which the Defendant is bound.  Thus, this was a transactional decision within the meaning of the Regulations at 20(b).

I've removed information about dashcam footage and the parking attendant. 

For point 32:

From using google street view it looks like there are no disabled bays at the car park I used (Keaton Rd, Ivybridge). I can't see the wheelchair symbol or any other markings to indicate a disabled bay:

https://www.google.com/maps/@50.3877692,-3.9234538,3a,15y,324.57h,85.83t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s1JZGAEUGK6b9-kBaJZs_Ew!2e0!6shttps://streetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com/v1/thumbnail?panoid=1JZGAEUGK6b9-kBaJZs_Ew&cb_client=maps_sv.tactile.gps&w=203&h=100&yaw=25.810019&pitch=0&thumbfov=100!7i13312!8i6656

Is this worth raising as a separate point in the counter-claim or earlier defence, as I can't appear to rely on what @ellaro9 wrote : "It is averred that the overall presentation of this information away from the disabled bay was likely to deceive the average motorist, thus fulfilling the definition of a “misleading action” under regulation 5 (2)(a) of the Regulations at 20(b)

 32. It is averred that the overall presentation of this information away from the parking bays was likely to deceive the average motorist, thus fulfilling the definition of a “misleading action” under regulation 5 (2)(a) of the Regulations at 20(b). Since it would have been easy to present the information properly and/or to exempt the Defendant and immediately cancel the PCN, it is reasonable to presume that this deception was deliberate.  

For point 39:

 39. None of the above conditions applied, from the moment when the Claimant received a copy of the Defendant's Blue Badge along with their appeal, and knew that this was a disabled driver using their bay. The Defendant's data should never have been obtained from the DVLA. Accordingly, the processing of the Defendant’s data was not “necessary for the performance of, or commencing, a contract” and nor, since further communication with the Defendant had no prospect of furthering their purpose, did the Claimants have any legitimate cause to continue processing the keeper's data.

I've removed information about entitlement to park in a disabled bay as there appears to be no signed and painted disabled bays at the car park I used.

For point 40:

I'm not sure if I should keep this point, but the bit about "kangaroo court" of the appeals process below seems relevant as the Claimant was aware of my disability from the point at which they received my appeal.

 40. In accordance with the DPA 2018 and the GDPR, they were no longer permitted to either process, keep or share the Defendant’s data but the Claimant compounded the issue by unlawfully sharing the data with another firm, bwlegal. The Defendant's appeal was inevitably rejected (as they invariably are by firms which are members of the IPC, known for operating a kangaroo court of an 'appeals procedure').

For point 43:

I received the claim notice on 20/11/2021, the same day I was going to hospital for a COVID swab, prior to hospital for a planned investigation procedure on Monday 22nd, so the below point seems particularly relevant to me. I'm also visiting hospital again this coming Tuesday 20th for an outpatient procedure, so have had an inpatient procedure, and an outpatient procedure in the 10 days after receiving their claim!

 43. None of the justifications in (3) above can possibly apply. Despite the Defendant’s appeal, Blue Badge evidence and continuing reasonable responses, the Claimants persisted in aggressively and unjustifiably pursuing their unreasonable charge over the course of the ensuing years. The Claimant’s harassing course of conduct included sending, either by themselves or through their agents and/or from Premier Parking Solutions, multiple demands threatening legal action and misleading the Defendant. The proper course of action was to cancel the PCN but instead, the Claimant's hostile correspondence and threats of court action have been particularly intimidating over a period of time when the Defendant's medical conditions have resulted in Hospital appointments, including an admission just 2 days after the claim arrived, leaving the Defendant both emotionally and physically more vulnerable.

Other points i've not raised here include amending the name of the company that issues the PCN, eg changing "Excel" to "Premier Parking Solutions". I will post the whole of my counterclaim once I've read through it all a few more times to check clarity and spelling etc.

Thanks again for everyone's help! 

Coupon-mad

I think you can use the misleading action section in terms of the fact that the Claimant offers a tariff that applies to cars that park before 6pm and a different tariff that applies to drivers who park after 6pm, and uses that against consumers, to entrap and unfairly penalise drivers who pay correctly.

They have used that as a 'concealed pitfall or trap' (a phrase from the Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis about a parking charge situation of poor practice that would not have been enforceable) to generate wholly improper parking charge notices.

Their machine ticket printed an expiry time of 6pm, giving just five minutes parking instead of the advertised hour.  By any reasonable interpretation, this is a misleading action under the CPUTRS. The Claimant's reply to the Defendant before they filed this claim, compounded this action by including the preposterous idea that a driver arriving and paying for an hour before 6pm is expected to return to the car park at 6pm and buy a new ticket, despite having paid the advertised rate.