Advice re blue badge owner

[Deleted User]

.  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.

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.

[Deleted User]

It seems to me that BW are contradicting what PPS said to me back in December. According to PPS, the 70p I paid only covered from entry until 6pm, whereas BW say I paid for an hour.

[Deleted User]

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.

nosferatu1001

Yes, because theyre hinging their entire thing on an "overstay" now of 16 minutes, when of course no contract commences until the tariff is paid. Theyre hoping you wont notice
Id go ahead and sue the PPC. 

[Deleted User]

Sorry about the double post. Somehow there was a formatting error pulling across from google docs and I can't edit the post, so i've reported the first one above

[Deleted User]

nosferatu1001 said:

Yes, because theyre hinging their entire thing on an "overstay" now of 16 minutes, when of course no contract commences until the tariff is paid. Theyre hoping you wont notice
Id go ahead and sue the PPC. 

They made no reference to EA 2010 and said reasonable adjustments are decided by PPS. That doesn't sound right to me?

BW are also talking about a grace period, but according to the response to my appeal to PPS back in December, I was liable for payment from the moment I entered to the moment I left the carpark.

If this case has proceeded to BW on the basis of the above it seems like a massive con to me?

nosferatu1001

Nope, because if they do mention it, they have no rebuttal. Theyre just hoping it will go away. 
Its not a massive con - its simply their !!!!!! business model of using courts this way. 

beamerguy

As BWL have already proven, they fail to understand what the left does from the right.   If they fail in answering relevant questions made, they may care to answer them in court ?
I was highly amused by this .....

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. <<<<<

Straight out of the double glazing sales manual  (called the alternative close)

As the IPC CoP has no bearing to the motorist and as no reference was made that it was sufficient, it is unfair to assume the motorist understands in a moving vehicle especially the unfair and unlawful addition of £60. The vehicle was parked on the basis and understanding that the laws of the country apply

[Deleted User]

beamerguy said:

As BWL have already proven, they fail to understand what the left does from the right.   If they fail in answering relevant questions made, they may care to answer them in court ?
I was highly amused by this .....

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. <<<<<

Straight out of the double glazing sales manual  (called the alternative close)

As the IPC CoP has no bearing to the motorist and as no reference was made that it was sufficient, it is unfair to assume the motorist understands in a moving vehicle especially the unfair and unlawful addition of £60. The vehicle was parked on the basis and understanding that the laws of the country apply

Thanks for this. What does 'alternative close' mean? 

Cheers.

Redx

google the meaning