District Enforcement & Gladstones Solicitors

beamerguy

well done ...... love to see the emails

Coupon-mad

OK, here's the first email that Lancing Council sent (quite rude/dismissive of the consumer's position and clearly part-written by District Enforcement):

Dear  Mr xxxxxxx, 

Apologies for the delayed response on this matter but I have been waiting for a reply from District Enforcement to establish the facts from both sides. As such, your letter has not been circulated to all members of the Parish Council.

Please do not consider this comment as being dismissive of your overall situation, but I am somewhat taken aback that this is the first the Parish Council has heard of your dispute with District Enforcement - 16 months after the visit which is the subject of the said charge, i.e. July 2019.

Mr Loughton MP is aware that the Parish Council can and does intervene in certain cases so I do not understand why you did not bring this matter to the Parish Council’s attention at an earlier stage, i.e. upon receipt of the first or second parking charge notice.

When the car park’s terms and conditions changed to ‘Pay on Exit’ with the introduction of the auto number plate recognition system, blue badge holders had to register with District Enforcement in order to continue to receive free parking. This is clearly explained in the first two photographs of the signs you refer to:-

‘Blue badge holders are exempt from Pay on Exit Charges once a blue badge has been registered.’

This statement does not prevent a blue badge holder from using the designated parking bays as you imply. If the blue badge was not able to be registered at the time of the visit, then the £1.50 exit charge should have been paid. There were a number of ways a blue badge could have been registered; via telephone, email to District Enforcement or District Enforcement’s website ‘contact us’ page. District Enforcement has no record of you making any attempts to register your vehicle. If difficulties were experienced, then why did you not contact the Parish Council for help with this.

The reason there was a change to the ‘Pay on Exit’ signage was to make the grace period clearer and to remove the term that was crossed out by hand as seen in the second photo sign.

In terms of the Parking Charge Notice, letters were sent to you on 10th July 2019 and 8th August 2019. District Enforcement has no record of a challenge or response to either of these. Having received no communication or response from you, the matter was therefore passed to their solicitors on 9th June 2020 and letters before claim issued in accordance with the pre-action protocol. The outstanding debt was placed before the Court on 2nd November 2020 when the Claim was issued. 

Responses to your other comments and points are as follows:-

- Any breach of the Equality Act is denied. Reasonable adjustments are made to ensure there are no impediments to access the service provided, namely the opportunity to park at the facility. Blue badge holders are not only granted dedicated parking spaces closer to the exit of the car park but also exemption from the parking tariff. These are accepted 'reasonable adjustments' under the Act.

- Any breach of Data Protection is denied. District Enforcement has reasonable cause to apply for registered keeper details where there is a breach of the terms and conditions of use on managed land. As it stands, you breached the terms and conditions of use and therefore, the application to the DVLA was lawful.

- The "punitive damages" have been accepted as recoverable by the Supreme Court and the law in relation to Parking Charge levels has been settled in favour of the Operator applying the Parking Charge.

- In response to Point 1, the question is whether the terms AT THE TIME OF THE PARKING EVENT were clear. District Enforcement’s position is that they were, as evidenced by the signage provided. Whether you chose to ignore these or not is irrelevant - the test is an objective one. The signage, at the time of the parking event, was in place for over 6 months.

- In response to Point 2, the same above would apply. In addition, the "reasonable adjustment" is not defined as 'free parking'. Reasonable adjustments include the provision of dedicated parking bays, pay machines that are accessible from wheelchairs and extended grace periods for less-abled motorists to comply with the terms. Furthermore, the car park has been independently assessed by a Disabled Motoring charity and awarded certification under the scheme thereby establishing the legitimacy of the measures put in place. Where ANPR is in use, it is a reasonable adjustment to request registration details of blue badge holders to prevent charges being issued to those who, ordinarily, would be entitled to park without charge.

- In response to Point 3, District Enforcement argue that the land is 'private' as the management is provided to them under a licence agreement held with Lancing Parish Council. The legal position is that, regardless of the authority to 'enter into a contract', if the offer has been made and accepted by the other party, and the contract has been performed, then there is a right to sue under that contract for any breach.

Clearly, had you brought this issue to the attention of District Enforcement or the Parish Council in the early stages of the dispute, the charge could have been cancelled and the blue badge could have been registered at the same time. However, as that has not been the case, the claim is valid and should be settled accordingly.

Kind regards,


xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx (Mrs)
Clerk to Lancing Parish Council
The Parish Hall, South Street
Lancing, West Sussex, BN15 8AJ

Coupon-mad

So this reply was sent straight back:


Dear Mrs xxxxxxxxxxx, 
cc:  Tim Loughton MP

Despite your protests, I must say that your reply does come across as dismissive as well as critical of our family. We are seriously distressed by what Lancing Parish Council is doing to people by inflicting notorious ex-clampers,  District Enforcement, upon visitors to the car park.    How could the Council allow this to happen?   This is not how Councils are allowed to operate your public car parks.

Your reply has clearly been partly written by xxx xxxxxxxxx of District Enforcement (or one of his employees) and it seems that the Council has swallowed every word, as have DMUK if it is true that they have been persuaded to award their friends at this horrific car park one of their 'Parkmarks'.  Don't be fooled. Sadly, it seems the Council has been.  DMUK are colleagues of DE's self-serving Trade Body, the IPC.  Did you know that?   You can see this on Twitter, where DMUK and the IPC constantly describe the other as 'friends' and colleagues.
  
This is not private land.  Council land offered for public parking can never be operated as if it were 'private land' and this was confirmed by Parliament about six years ago, and again by the Local Authorities Ombudsman in a decision against Kent County Council where they were ordered to stop operating their car parks this way and to pay a consumer compensation.  Kindly stop quoting DE's own interpretation at me, and please take legal advice before the Council extend this contract.  

There was no point whatsoever in anyone 'appealing' to the likes of any IPC member parking firm.  Only 5% of consumer appeals to the 'IAS' are upheld. Did the Council even check things like this before signing this contract?

Are you admitting that the charge is 'punitive' and unrecoverable 'damages' or have I misunderstood, or does the Council not know the status of a parking charge (please don't ask DE).

Were the Council aware that the actions of private companies like this have become so out of hand that the Government has stepped in and is creating a new statutory Code of Practice along with a real, independent Appeals Service to replace the kangaroo court 'offered' by the IPC?  No appeal would have worked and the Council has been taken in if you thought being an IPC member meant that such an 'independent appeals service' truly exists just because the IPC gave it that name.  This is well known and would have been simple to Google, had the Council carried out any due diligence before allowing this aggressive enforcement to harass locals, instead of operating it properly under the TMA, if need be in liaison with the County Council to create a Parking Places Order as intended by Parliament for Local Council car parks.

How was I supposed to know that I could complain to Lancing Parish Council about DE?   How dare you blame me, as if we have sat on our hands for 16 months - how are we supposed to know how to extricate ourselves from this unwanted scam and unsolicited demands for money?  The letters mimic Council tickets and enforcement but don't have the Council's name on them. I have only just had this complaint route suggested to me when I sought advice, when I got the court claim!   DE don't tell people that this is an option on their signs, their PCN nor on any letter.  They just offer the kangaroo court of IAS and then start a series of aggressive demands, in terrorem of consumers, designed to bully and make people fall into line, then they sue those who don't pay.  

This is not land where you can allow a private operator to use ANPR.  This  was banned under the Deregulation Act in 2015.  Did the Council not know that?

Offering accessible bays and free parking is not the full extent of your duties under the Equality Act 2010. You have have anticipatory duties to avoid discriminating against the disabled population 'at large' and causing indirect discrimination by use of arbitrary policies and unfair systems used by the Council and your agents.   One of your duties is a Disability Risk Assessment before this enforcement began, which has to be reviewed regularly (this is one of your many statutory duties set by the EHRC in their codes of practice relating to the Equality Act 2010). 

I am formally requesting that you escalate this complaint to the Head of the Council and reconsider, given you are now admitting that you sometimes 'intervene' in these cases, yet still allow DE to operate here, using ANPR and unclear signs and unworkable requirements to 'register' a disability somehow (which was unexplained on the signs).  I am asking again - please intervene and restore our faith in the Council.

Also, I formally require the Council to supply me with a copy of your Disability Risk Assessments relating to the use of ANPR and DE in this car park.  I will accept them by email or post and I'd like a copy sent to my MP as well, please.

It goes without saying that, if we suffer financial loss as a result of this horrific court claim, compounding our serious distress already suffered and the disability discrimination, we will sue the Council for your liability as principal, given your joint and several liability for the actions of your agent.  I will require a member of Lancing Parish Council to appear in court to answer for your actions in operating a Council car park this way and to explain your failure to make reasonable adjustments for my son. 

Would you like to see the files of evidence of his medical conditions?  I can send it to you but look forward to receiving the Disability Risk Assessment by return, first, so I can see the steps the Council took when you put this out to tender to a private firm, despite the fact you cannot lawfully operate car parks this way, and so that I can see the discussions - if any - that the Council had with an employee of this notoriously litigious company about how this unsuitable (and banned for Council land) ANPR system would affect disabled visitors like us, who had no way to 'register' their child's medical needs on a day when all we wanted to do was park and take him to the beach.

I look forward to this complaint being reconsidered.  If our anger comes through it is nothing personal of course (I am grateful for the initial reply) but our frustration is hardly surprising, given the circumstances.  The Council needs to take legal advice about the ANPR system you have allowed to be used, and stop asking the ex-clamper firm you have contracted, for their own interpretation of the law.

yours sincerely

Coupon-mad

The outcome:

Great News... heard back from Gladstones and also the council lady:

Our Client proposes to discontinue their claim above and bear the costs of doing the same provided you agree to bear your own costs, if any, incurred in the matter.

In the event we do not receive a response within the next 7 days, we will discontinue our Client's claim on the agreement both parties will bear their own costs.

Kind Regards

Litigation Assistant

++++++++++++
and from the Council:

As you state to not have known that you could contact the Parish Council to dispute your case with District Enforcement, arrangements will be made for this specific claim to be discontinued.

Kind regards

xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx (Mrs)
Clerk to Lancing Parish Council
The Parish Hall, South Street
Lancing, West Sussex, BN15 8AJ

nosferatu1001

Wow
So any news on the DRA? its a formal request so they cannot ignore it...

Coupon-mad

I asked the OP to follow it up and ask for it again, in case Mrs xxxxxx thinks she's papered over the cracks.