District Enforcement & Gladstones Solicitors

bad_year

You say "You need to trust us and not some staffer at the MP,s office, they clearly do not have a clue" but I am not sure what I am supposed to do now?

Yes I am aware that the ias is (according to the forum) a waste of time - I was just stating what her reply was.

I have still NOT received any reply from the council, so assume they will not be intervening or asking DE to drop this.

...and I have still not received the SAR or anything from DE.

So again, if anyone has read the entire threat (including my letter to the council) actual help with what to now write (as the best defense) would still be much appreciated.

Le_Kirk

You won't receive a SAR, you submitted the SAR; you will receive all the data they hold about you and your vehicle with that particular VRM.  The parking companies have 30 days to respond to your Subject Access Request.  The best defence has already been written as a template for you with you only needing to alter two paragraphs (2&3) and show us.  The defence is one of the announcements on the first page of the forum.

bad_year

Le_Kirk said:

You won't receive a SAR, you submitted the SAR; you will receive all the data they hold about you and your vehicle with that particular VRM.  The parking companies have 30 days to respond to your Subject Access Request.  The best defence has already been written as a template for you with you only needing to alter two paragraphs (2&3) and show us.  The defence is one of the announcements on the first page of the forum.

Thanks Le Kirk... here is what i have so far for paras 2 & 3... difficult to know what to write as i have nothing back from DE and don't want to leave it till very last minute (i mean if it arrives after the deadline for submitting the defense email)

Coupon-mad

All your paragraphs need numbers, of course.  Re-number the paragraphs below #3, if you have lots to say, as you do.

The facts as known to the Defendant:
2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied.  It is not known whether the vehicle was driven by the Defendant or his wife on this occasion so there is only (at best) a 50% chance it was the Defendant which is not enough to establish as fact, on the balance of probabilities, who was driving.  This is important because this is not 'relevant land' under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 because the car park is under statutory control (Council owned).  There can be no keeper liability on such land, which is exempt from the provisions of Schedule 4.  Liability is denied for that reason and for all the other reasons set out below.

3. The Defendant, and his wife, both drivers of their DVLA registered “disabled” vehicle are very familiar with the Beach Green Public Car Park in Lancing, as they use it all the time, as the closest possible access to the beach and play area for their family and disabled young son. The Defendant, and his wife, have never paid to park at the Beach Green Public Car Park and have previously parked there more than 20+ times without any problems whatsoever as it is supposed to be free for the disabled and Blue badge holders.

4.  The Defendant’s son is severely disabled. He was diagnosed at birth with Meningitis, Sepsis and Hydrocephalus and later with incurable Cerebral Palsy (he cannot walk, stand or balance unaided). He also has a bilateral squint (so has no depth perception) and deafness high pitch hearing loss, as well as suffers from Epilepsy and serious life-threatening seizures and was admitted (into Worthing Hospital, yet again) just last month, so he obviously meets the definition of disability.  matches the UK government’s own definition of being “disabled”.  The Defendant has two arch lever files packed full of supporting NHS documents to confirm and support this fact.

5.  The car park signs stating a Blue badge needs to be “registered” (with the Claimant, how?) in order for a registered disabled person to be entitled to use a disability parking bay space is ludicrous and beyond absurd. It is the Claimant’s, and Lancing Parish Council’s, duty to provide such disability bays and “reasonable adjustments” to meet the requirements in the Equality Act 2010. Definition of “disability” under the Equality Act 2010 According to the Equality Act 2010, “you’re considered disabled under the Equality Act 2010 if you have a physical or mental impairment that has a ‘substantial’ and ‘long-term’ negative effect on your ability to do normal daily activities''  (source: https://www.gov.uk/definition-of-disability-under-equality-act-2010).  Under that Act, he and his carers are legally entitled to 'reasonable adjustments' due to his protected characteristics and the legislation is silent about the Council (on-street only) Blue Badge scheme because that is just one indicator or disability, not the only one for private parking companies.   Contract law cannot trump primary disability law.

6.   Even if a parking operator partly 'adopts' Blue Badges into their contract terms to make it easier to check cars, this is not enough to meet the requirements of the Act and they cannot deny disabled people the right to use the accessible bay provisions on offer from the landowner.  The Claimant, and Lancing Parish Council (the car park landowner), both have an absolute duty of care under that law to make “reasonable adjustments” for everyone covered by the law. The Defendant stresses that the signs at the car park are ambiguous and misleading and have since been “changed” numerous times: From: “Pay on Exit” to “Pay and Display” From the ridiculous and absurd: - "Blue badge holders are exempt from Pay before Exit Charges once a valid blue badge has been registered with District Enforcement" - to "Blue badge holders are exempt from Pay before Exit Charges once a blue badge has been registered".  And most recently: - to "Blue badge holders are exempt from Pay and Display Charges when clearly displaying a valid blue badge".

7.  The Equality Act 2010 does not require the driver to display any sort of badge or permit. Anyone who fits the lawful definition of disability is entitled to make use of the ‘reasonable adjustments’. The Claimant, and Lancing Parish Council, are in effect adding arbitrary rules to the lawful right of someone to use a ‘reasonable adjustment’, which is considered a breach of the Equality Act 2010. In other words, displaying a badge cannot be a contractual term or condition for using a disabled bay - even though the Defendant’s disabled son clearly has a valid Blue badge! 

8.  The Defendant questions the legality or the right of Lancing Parish Council to employ a parking contractor (the Claimant) who is using Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) on land specifically excluded from such a scheme (Councils were banned from operating public car parks by the use of ANPR or CCTV, in the Deregulation Act 2015.   This is not private land, nor relevant land (POFA definition) and it cannot be operated lawfully on behalf of any Council, by remote camera.   who breaches the Defendant’s privacy by seeking personal data from DVLA, and who seek ridiculous punitive damages for an alleged loss of £1.50 and have threatened with court action. The Claimant is blatantly misleading the public by stating on car park signage that the public owned council land is “private land” in order to try and legitimise the use of ANPR, which it cannot legally, as the land is owned by the Lancing Parish Council and councils are banned since 2013 from operating their land under contract law, and banned from using ANPR.  As the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, the Defendant’s good character has also been called into question by a breach of the Defendant’s personal data and good name unlawfully tainted. The Claimant has a history of issuing hundreds of erroneous Parking Charges at the Beach Green Public Car Park in Lancing and when the scheme was first set up the system malfunctioned on several occasions.  It is in the public domain that this Claimant was ordered by the landowner to cancel many charges due to the system failing.

9.  The Claimant is put to strict proof that any contravention occurred (which is denied) and that their systems were working properly and how they believe the Defendant can be held liable under any applicable rule of law, in the absence of any evidence of who was driving on the material date. 

10.  The Claimant is further put to strict proof of the disability impact assessments (if any) carried out by them together with the Council, before enforcement began and at regular intervals since then, and how their operation at Beach Green meets the duties that they and their principal are subject to.  Town and Parish Councils are the first tier of governance and are democratically elected local authorities, subject to the public sector equality duty which came into force in 2011 as part of the Equality Act.   Meeting different needs involves taking steps to take account of disabled people's disabilities and one requirement upon the public sector is regular disability impact assessments. 

11.  Ignorance (of facts about individual service users needs, and/or about the law) is not a justification for discrimination.  This Claimant operates a large number of local Council car parks, which they will be well aware have a different legal status than 'private land' and should not be described as such because it is a misleading term.  As as well as falling outside of the POFA 2012 (no 'keeper liability' legally possible) and not being allowed by the Government to be run by the use of ANPR/CCTV remote cameras, the duty upon local authorities and their agents to avoid disability discrimination is mandatory.  This does not just apply to people who are known in advance  - or by display of a permit, for example - to be disabled (direct discrimination).  Also illegal is 'indirect discrimination' against the disabled population 'at large', and this is where disability impact assessments come in, along with a legal duty for flexible policies to meet the anticipatory duty to eliminate discriminating against disabled visitors, whether their needs are known or not.

12.  Further, given that Beach Green Car Park is operated by this Claimant on an agency basis 'on behalf of' a known principal (Lancing Parish Council) it is averred that the law of agency applies and the correct claimant would only be the Council, in this particular case.  The HMRC v VCS case (likely to be referenced by this Claimant, as far as the Defendant has ascertained from research of similar cases involving other consumer victims) does not assist this Claimant in a case where the principal is known (believed to be specifically identified on signage) and the car park is under statutory control.,  It is averred that a private parking firm using banned ANPR on behalf of a council has a bare licence at best and has no standing to sue patrons of the site in their own name.

bad_year

Thanks Coupon-mad for your kind and very speedy help :-)

D_P_Dance

You need to trust us and not some staffer at the MP,s office, they clearly do not have a clue

This has not been my experience, I have been very  impressed by my MP's staff.  

bad_year

Huge thanks to the forum... and especially to Coupon-mad for the fantastic help :-) 

Court Claim against me has just been dropped !

Le_Kirk

bad_year said:

Huge thanks to the forum... and especially to Coupon-mad for the fantastic help :-) 

Court Claim against me has just been dropped !

Wow, well done - some more details please when you have stopped walking on the ceiling!

D_P_Dance

They have wasted your time, now consider wasting some of theirs, read this.

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

Coupon-mad

The OP sent an email I suggested, to the Council.  The OP can reproduce the email replies here. 

Glad it worked!  ANOTHER GLADSTONES / DISTRICT ENFORCEMENT ONE BITES THE DUST!