Unfair behaviour by Privately operated carpark management company

dave77238u38

1505grandad said:

Use (capital letters) for place names  -  for instance "appointment at (l)ewisham hospital"

".... I parked my vehicle in the UHL blue badge carpark and displayed (his) badge on the dashboard"

Is (this) correct  -  is not yours?

Thanks for pointing this out, its a typo. Will adjust. 

dave77238u38

Because of Wise Parking's dishonest and underhand tactics that clearly puts the driver at an unfair disadvantage, and not forgetting Parking Charge Notices are invoice’s (not penalties), if that is the case then surely consumer law applies?    

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (part 2, unfair terms) and Consumer Protection Law.

The test for ‘unfair terms’ in the Consumer Rights Act 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”.

There is a requirement in Consumer Law for prominence and transparency, that information is to be provided in plain and intelligible language and, if in writing, is legible and is prominent, being brought to the consumer’s attention in such a way that the average customer – who is well informed, observant and circumspect – would be aware of the term.

Is this a reasonable argument to put forward if needed?

KeithP

dave77238u38 said:

Because of Wise Parking's dishonest and underhand tactics that clearly puts the driver at an unfair disadvantage, and not forgetting Parking Charge Notices are invoice’s (not penalties), if that is the case then surely consumer law applies?    

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (part 2, unfair terms) and Consumer Protection Law.

The test for ‘unfair terms’ in the Consumer Rights Act 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”.

There is a requirement in Consumer Law for prominence and transparency, that information is to be provided in plain and intelligible language and, if in writing, is legible and is prominent, being brought to the consumer’s attention in such a way that the average customer – who is well informed, observant and circumspect – would be aware of the term.

Is this a reasonable argument to put forward if needed?

Yes.

That argument is put forward in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the Template Defence.

See here... Template Defence.

dave77238u38

KeithP said:

dave77238u38 said:

Because of Wise Parking's dishonest and underhand tactics that clearly puts the driver at an unfair disadvantage, and not forgetting Parking Charge Notices are invoice’s (not penalties), if that is the case then surely consumer law applies?    

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (part 2, unfair terms) and Consumer Protection Law.

The test for ‘unfair terms’ in the Consumer Rights Act 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”.

There is a requirement in Consumer Law for prominence and transparency, that information is to be provided in plain and intelligible language and, if in writing, is legible and is prominent, being brought to the consumer’s attention in such a way that the average customer – who is well informed, observant and circumspect – would be aware of the term.

Is this a reasonable argument to put forward if needed?

Yes.

That argument is put forward in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the Template Defence.

See here... Template Defence.

Thank you

dave77238u38

 I received a response from Wise Parking this evening regarding a complaint I submitted regarding inadequacy to their signage.

Stuart Cole, Director of Wise Parking himself dealt with this complaint. 

will be attaching this email below.         

Mouse007

Assertion not assumption

How about requesting a copy of the audit report? and why did the Trust feel they needed to request extra sign then?

dave77238u38

Mouse007 said:

Assertion not assumption

How about requesting a copy of the audit report? and why did the Trust feel they needed to request extra sign then?

That's a good Idea, should I email him directly the above questions or put it in a SAR request?
Also would a SAR enable me to see the correspondence between Wise parking and the Trust regarding the request for "additional signage"?   

Mouse007

No, a SAR is about your personal data only.

I'm sure a request for the audit report will be refused, the added question will annoy them - but the fact they have admitted the trust's request adds considerably to your case (poor signage). Save that for a Witness Statement - if it ever gets that far.

dave77238u38

Mouse007 said:

No, a SAR is about your personal data only.

I'm sure a request for the audit report will be refused, the added question will annoy them - but the fact they have admitted the trust's request adds considerably to your case (poor signage). Save that for a Witness Statement - if it ever gets that far.

Thank you

KeithP

Whilst you are writing to the head of the hospital's Trust - as suggested by @Fruitcake this morning - you might want to send a Freedom of Information Request asking the Trust why they felt the need to request extra signs and ask for a copy of the Trust's request to Wise for those extra signs.