Popla Appeal Rejected (Hospital Ticket) - Letter Before County Court Claim - ParkingEye

nosferatu1001

Ask why theyre releasing data without confirming that the reason the company was applying wasnt in breach of the mandatory instructions to hospitals on issuing parking charges. 

Coupon-mad

Email ParkingEye's legal team (they are not the same people who dealt with the appeal and POPLA) and admit to being the driver (no point not, it's a POFA PCN) and attach the evidence of the longterm medical condition once again.

enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk


Dear Sirs, 

Re: PCN xxxxxx/xxxxxx and your letter before claim
I have received your LBCCC and the purpose of this email is to inform you once again - because your appeals team appear not to understand the law - that there has been a breach of the Equality Act in failing to allow more time to persons with longterm medical conditions.  That POPLA don't understand the law either is a concern, but I would hope your dedicated legal team will finally review it properly.

I was the driver and I have a longterm ongoing medical condition that means I needed more time than an able-bodied person to go about my daily life at the moment.  The fact I was attending a hospital appointment and showed you evidence in my appeal should have been a red flag, but clearly not, so I will spell it out:

1.  I have protected characteristics and meet the definition of disability in the Equality Act.  This has nothing whatsoever to do with the Council Blue Badge Scheme and is a fact in law.  I needed a reasonable adjustment of time over and above the hour paid for.

2.  This has been tested following a court challenge, albeit on Local Authority land.  Unlike private operators, Councils are restricted to only make adjustments for Blue Badge Holders but this is not the case on private land.  The Equality Act 2010 is silent about permits and badges, for obvious reasons.
https://www.wake-smith.co.uk/news/council-car-park-case-settled-a-victory-for-blue-badge-holders/

3.  I am formally asking for a retrospective reasonable adjustment, which should have been allowed at the time of my appeal.  What I am requesting is recognition of my medical condition and my needs, and that ParkingEye allow an extra hour for persons such as myself, over and above paid-for time. 

4.  If you refuse, you will need significant and compelling justification and at all times the Hospital remains jointly and severally liable for your actions.  I suggest you must choose your words carefully if you are going to try to refuse a reasonable adjustment that is in line with the case law on the subject.

5.  Indeed I have found out that in some car parks, ParkingEye allow disabled people to register for more time (e.g. by going to the CS desk at a retailer and being added to a 'white list' to be exempted from the arbitrary time limit and the risk of a parking charge).  Kindly explain why ParkingEye thinks it is OK to offer that at a retail park, but not at a hospital where there may well be a number of persons visiting for appointments who qualify for more time?

For the avoidance of doubt I am attaching the evidence of my medical condition again and because I know that your contract requires you to liaise with them regarding appeals and to make sure court claims are not issued inappropriately, I formally request that this email is also sent to the NHS Trust for review. 

As service providers, Barnet Hospital and ParkingEye are jointly and severally liable for a significant breach of the Equality Act and I am giving you the chance to put this right now. 

Be advised that if you decide to sue me I will counterclaim for the sum of £900, setting my claim very reasonably at the bottom rung of the Vento guidelines.  I will also summons a representative of Barnet Hospital as a witness, to explain your joint breaches of the Equality Act and the apparent lack of any ability to identify people who qualify for more time for their tariff.  I will claim for my costs in full and pursuant to 27.14(g) I intend to include my further costs that the court may order to be paid by a party who has behaved unreasonably.

yours faithfully, 
 
YOUR NAME

Umkomaas

Another cracker CM. Excellent letter. Popcorn ordered ready for the response. 

bestfootie

Coupon-mad said:

....
Dear Sirs, 

Re: PCN xxxxxx/xxxxxx and your letter before claim
I have received your LBCCC and the purpose of this email is to inform you once again - because your appeals team appear not to understand the law... 

Thank you so much!! Will send that!
May I ask why you're suggesting saying who the driver was? What advantage is there to be gained in that as opposed to redacting the hospital letter confirming driver's appointment?

Umkomaas

bestfootie said:

Coupon-mad said:

....
Dear Sirs, 

Re: PCN xxxxxx/xxxxxx and your letter before claim
I have received your LBCCC and the purpose of this email is to inform you once again - because your appeals team appear not to understand the law... 

Thank you so much!! Will send that!
May I ask why you're suggesting saying who the driver was? What advantage is there to be gained in that as opposed to redacting the hospital letter confirming driver's appointment?

Because the NtK was PoFA-compliant so there's no protection for the keeper to hide behind. Being upfront in this specific circumstance about the identity of the driver makes it easier to give a first-hand account of things - especially should it ever get in front of a Judge. No shuffling of feet trying to avoid the question of who was the driver. 

bestfootie

Thank you both.
Personally, I prefer at this stage to keep the driver's details confidential, even if there is minimum/no benefit to doing so. 
Please confirm your thoughts on the substantially similar letter below, to be sent to enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk as recipient and CC'd directly to the NHS Trust in question so all are aware and I'm not relying on PE liaising with the NHS Trust :-

Dear Sirs

Re: PCN ********  and your Letter before County Court Claim ('LBCCC')
VRN: *******

I write further to my email sent to you on 24 June 2020.

I have received your LBCCC and the purpose of this email is to inform you once again - because your appeals team appear not to understand the law - that there has been a breach of the Equality Act in failing to allow more time to persons with longterm medical conditions. That POPLA don't understand the law either is a concern, but I would hope your dedicated legal team will finally review it properly.

The driver has a longterm ongoing medical condition which means they require more time than an able-bodied person to go about their daily life. The fact that the driver was attending a hospital appointment (evidence of which was submitted in the original appeal and is reattached forthwith) should have been a red flag, but clearly not, so I will spell it out:

1. The driver has protected characteristics and meets the definition of 'disability' in the Equality Act. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the Council Blue Badge Scheme and is a fact in law. The driver needed a reasonable adjustment of time over and above the hour paid for.

2. This has been tested following a court challenge, albeit on Local Authority land. Unlike private operators, Councils are restricted to only make adjustments for Blue Badge Holders but this is not the case on private land. The Equality Act 2010 is silent about permits and badges, for obvious reasons.
https://www.wake-smith.co.uk/news/council-car-park-case-settled-a-victory-for-blue-badge-holders/

3. I am formally asking for a retrospective reasonable adjustment, which should have been allowed at the time of my appeal. What I am requesting is recognition of the driver's medical condition and their needs, and that ParkingEye allow an extra hour for persons such as the driver, over and above paid-for time. 

4.  If you refuse, you will need significant and compelling justification and at all times the Hospital remains jointly and severally liable for your actions. I have cc'd the Hospital's PALS team into this email.  I suggest you choose your words carefully if you are going to try to refuse a reasonable adjustment that is in line with the caselaw on the subject.

5.  Indeed I have found out that in some car parks, ParkingEye allow disabled people to register for more time (e.g. by going to the Customer Sevices desk at a retailer and being added to a 'white list' to be exempted from the arbitrary time limit and the risk of a parking charge).  Kindly explain why ParkingEye thinks it is OK to offer that at a retail park, but not at a hospital where there may well be a number of persons visiting for appointments who qualify for more time?

For the avoidance of doubt, I am once again attaching the evidence of the driver's medical condition. I know that your contract requires you to liaise with the Hospital regarding appeals and to make sure court claims are not issued inappropriately. As a result, I have herewith CC'd the relevant NHS Trust into this email for review. 

As service providers, both ***** Hospital and ParkingEye are jointly and severally liable for a significant breach of the Equality Act and I am giving you the chance to put this right now. 

Lastly, please be advised that if you decide to bring an action against me in the County Court I will counterclaim for the sum of £900, setting my claim very reasonably at the bottom rung of the Vento guidelines. I will also summons a representative of ****** Hospital as a witness, to explain your joint breaches of the Equality Act and the apparent lack of any ability to identify people who qualify for more time on their tariff. I will claim for my costs in full and pursuant to 27.14(g) I intend to include my further costs that the court may order to be paid by a party who has behaved unreasonably (together with interest).

Please now confirm that you are making a retrospective reasonable adjustment and will now cease and desist in bringing this vexatious and without merit action, or I will have no choice but to consider bringing an action against ParkingEye Limited in the first instance for your breach of the Equality Act.

Yours faithfully

[Name]

Fruitcake

If you don't name the driver, how are you going to get round supplying the driver's personal medical data? You would need written permission from the patient (driver) authorising you to release that data otherwise you would be in breach of the DPA/GDPR regulations, and in doing so you would have to reveal the driver's identity.
You can't send the medical data anonymously.

Umkomaas

For the avoidance of doubt, I am once again attaching the evidence of the driver's medical condition.

Presumably you are redacting the name of the driver here?  So what you are sending is anonymised medical evidence. If there's no name on that and no driver identified, how can they link to each other and why would PE accept that as anything definitive?

Coupon-mad

I can't see any point in hiding the driver's details.  Hiding who was driving gives no defence in law (because in this case P/Eye have complied with the POFA) and is far better argued as that person, the driver.  Looks far better if they take it to court and gives the D grounds for a counterclaim because they were the person who was discriminated against.

bestfootie

Umkomaas said:

For the avoidance of doubt, I am once again attaching the evidence of the driver's medical condition.

Presumably you are redacting the name of the driver here?  

Yes, I have a redacted letter, it was linked in the OP.
--
I accept all your points however, and defer to your far greater experience here than my own, and will name the driver. That said, I still don't feel comfortable emailing the driver's confidential medical records to parking cowboys!

Given the sensitivity of the information contained, would you not agree that a redacted copy should be sufficient?