Forgotten Blue Badge PCN

mechpet

knightstyle said:

Hi mechpet My wife has been in a similar situation and the parking sharks dropped the case at the last minute 2 days before due in court. Lots of threats and reduced penalties but following advice on here we stuck out and would have gone to court.
Follow advice on here given by experienced regulars and you will not loose!
Please complain to everyone you can and have you contacted the local press?

Thank you for your message, it would be nice if my dads case had a similar ending, the thought of him being taken to court is causing huge distress to both him and my mum who are both in their 70’s. He has done nothing wrong and the thought of him having to pay really annoys me, which is why I am doing my best to fight it with him. I can’t believe there isn’t someone with a bit of common sense/compassion to sort it out. Haven’t gone to the press or anything yet, but it is something to consider now. 

Manxman_in_exile

Just for information, I'm a retired NHS manager and I'm pretty certain that this organisation is nothing to do with the NHS and I suspect that NHS parking principles/guidelines don't apply to them.

I suspect they are nothing more than a commercial facilities company that rents out property to NHS care trusts.  I doubt they give two hoots about the OP's disabled father if they (or their agents) can squeeze money out of him.

(NB not all organisations with "health", "care" and "trust" in the title belong to the NHS.  Normally ".nhs" will appear in a NHS trust's website and email addresses) 

[Edit:  They don't even seem to have a secure website... ]

mechpet

Manxman_in_exile said:

Just for information, I'm a retired NHS manager and I'm pretty certain that this organisation is nothing to do with the NHS and I suspect that NHS parking principles/guidelines don't apply to them.

I suspect they are nothing more than a commercial facilities company that rents out property to NHS care trusts.  I doubt they give two hoots about the OP's disabled father if they (or their agents) can squeeze money out of him.

(NB not all organisations with "health", "care" and "trust" in the title belong to the NHS.  Normally ".nhs" will appear in a NHS trust's website and email addresses) 

[Edit:  They don't even seem to have a secure website... ]

Unfortunately, if correct this was also my concern. They are the landowner and own several GP surgeries around the town.  Thank you for your comment 

mechpet

Coupon-mad said:

And driver, not 'and owner' (para 2).

In para 3 mention that you have protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, which an alleged contract about paying £100 if not displaying a piece of card (which is in fact merely one indicator of disability need and applies only to Local Authority parking) cannot overrule. Disabled persons are protected from unfair policies and must not be harassed or marginalised.  As soon as the Claimant knew about the Blue Badge, they should have simply cancelled the charge, as the Government's new incoming statutory Code of Practice (which mentions and draws from the Equality Act) will specifically mandate in the Appeals Charter. The Code will not be retrospective but this clause is nothing new.  It is simply stating the law and quashing unfair practices from a rogue industry.

Is forgetfulness a feature of any medical condition you have?  If so, state that and add some more paragraphs:

para 4:
refer to Excel v Greenwood  Case Number 3QT60496 (4/10/2013) which was on all fours with this case, and where the Judge stated that the parking firm had an obligation to make reasonable adjustments to remove barriers to disabled persons, and that included a duty to cancel the charge as soon as they knew that Mr Greenwood was disabled and merely forgot to display his Badge, but had appended it to his appeal.

Para 5:

It is believed that this Claimant's sister company (Excel) planned to appeal the Greenwood case and as such, the owner of VCS/Excel (Simon Renshaw-Smith, known in the press and public domain as the notorious 'Captain Clampit') will be aware of the case snd that his companies hold a copy of the transcript they obtained for Excel v Greenwood. There is no reasonable cause of action for a case of duplicate facts to be heard nearly a decade later, expecting a different result.

6.  If the Claimant disagrees and contends that the facts are somehow different, the Defendant requires that the Claimant exhibit the full and/or approved judgment transcript for Excel v Greenwood, because that case has only been publicly reported anecdotally and in the press. Although not persuasive, Greenwood involved the same Claimant trying to argue the same points, and It would assist the court to be able to read through the 2013 case papers which must be exhibited by the Claimant, which would meet the Overriding Objective and support the interests of open dealing and justice.

para 7. Add something about your complaint to the NHS Trust and that Excel Parking Services Ltd (company number xxxxxx - look it up!) answered the complaint, when parking company at the site is VCS Ltd (company number xxxxxx - look that up too!). 

I didn’t know if I needed to put anything in about signage, there isn’t anything at the entrance to the car park but each bay has a sign?  

Do the accessible bays actually have FULL TERMS signs within view from the driver's seat that tell you about the £100?  Doubt it!  If they only state to display a BBadge but not the 'penalty' for not doing so, then add that as para 8.

Read about Excel v Greenwood here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4784284/excel-lose-in-court-after-they-had-won-at-popla/p1

Oh, and reply to that rubbish email and copy in your MP and the CEO of the NHS Trust responsible, and tell them about the fact the parking agent is breaching the NHS Car Parking Principles (published Government policy) and the Equality Act 2010 and tell them about Excel v Greenwood.

NB: another county court decision is NOT A PRECEDENT, not a silver bullet but it's worth shoving in VCS' face that this has already been tested in court by Captain Clampit's stable of notoriously aggressive companies, so what they are doing to you is vexatious and pure harassment.

I’m not sure what I am doing, do I place the suggestions in addition to what is in the template or instead of?

Coupon-mad

I've advised you what to add to the template as your 'facts' section, so you just re-number the rest of the template.  Of course don't remove any of it.

mechpet

Coupon-mad said:

I've advised you what to add to the template as your 'facts' section, so you just re-number the rest of the template.  Of course don't remove any of it.

@Coupon-mad thank you for clarifying, so this is what I have so far…

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question

3. On 14/12/2021 the defendant attended the Lister Health Centre in Harlow for a scheduled medical appointment. The defendant is 77 years old and has mobility issues and uses 2 crutches to assist with walking and to support poor balance. A disabled parking bay became available and the defendant parked using the space in order to be closer to the entrance. The defendant has a legal right to use the available reasonable adjustment as a person with a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 which an alleged contract about paying £100 if not displaying a piece of card (which is in fact merely one indicator of disability need and applies only to Local Authority parking) cannot overrule. Disabled persons are protected from unfair policies and must not be harassed or marginalised.  The defendant possesses a blue badge, but did on this occasion forget to display the badge. The age of the defendant and the stress of attending an appointment is a valid reason for forgetfulness. The defendant has used the claimant’s appeal process and at the earliest opportunity made the claimant made fully aware of the defendant’s disability and this has been acknowledged by the claimant in a letter dated 18/01/2022. As soon as the Claimant knew about the Blue Badge, they should have simply cancelled the charge, as the Government's new incoming statutory Code of Practice (which mentions and draws from the Equality Act) will specifically mandate in the Appeals Charter. The Code will not be retrospective but this clause is nothing new.  It is simply stating the law and quashing unfair practices from a rogue industry.

4. The defendants case draws close parallels with Excel v Greenwood Case number 3QT60496(4/10/2013), where a judge stated that the parking firm had an obligation to make reasonable adjustments to remove barriers to disabled persons and that included the duty to cancel the charge as soon as they knew that Mr Greenwood was disabled and merely forgot to display his badge, but had it appended to his appeal.

5. It is believed that this Claimant's sister company (Excel) planned to appeal the Greenwood case and as such, the owner of VCS/Excel (Simon Renshaw-Smith, known in the press and public domain as the notorious 'Captain Clampit') will be aware of the case snd that his companies hold a copy of the transcript they obtained for Excel v Greenwood. There is no reasonable cause of action for a case of duplicate facts to be heard nearly a decade later, expecting a different result.

6. If the Claimant disagrees and contends that the facts are somehow different, the Defendant requires that the Claimant exhibit the full and/or approved judgment transcript for Excel v Greenwood, because that case has only been publicly reported anecdotally and in the press. Although not persuasive, Greenwoodinvolved the same Claimant trying to argue the same points, and It would assist the court to be able to read through the 2013 case papers which must be exhibited by the Claimant, which would meet the Overriding Objective and support the interests of open dealing and justice.

7. The defendant made a complaint to Harlow Health Centres Trust Ltd, and that Excel Parking Services Ltd (company number 02878122) answered the complaint, when the parking company at the site is VCS Ltd (company number 02498820). The defendant believes this to be a breach of GDPR.

8. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  To pre-empt the usual template responses from this serial litigator: the court process is outside of the Defendant's life experience and they cannot be criticised for adapting some pre-written wording from a reliable advice resource. The Claimant is urged not to patronise the Defendant with (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence. 

The rest of the template hasn’t been amended other than renumbering the paragraphs.

Coupon-mad

You've copied a couple of typos I made so run it through a spellcheck!

I'd split that really long paragraph 3 and make this #4, then re-number all below it:

The defendant has used the claimant’s appeal process and at the earliest opportunity made the claimant made fully aware of the defendant’s disability and this has been acknowledged by the claimant in a letter dated 18/01/2022. As soon as the Claimant knew about the Blue Badge, they should have simply cancelled the charge, as the Government's new incoming statutory Code of Practice (which mentions and draws from the Equality Act) will specifically mandate in the Appeals Charter. The Code will not be retrospective but this clause is nothing new.  It is simply stating the law and quashing unfair practices from a rogue industry.

mechpet

Thank you,  The template is not yet on a word document so thank you for highlighting that there are typos. Will make sure this is done and will also split para 3 and re number 

Fruitcake

"There communications clearly set out ..."

That letter was purportedly written by a CEO.

6/10

See me.

I note it is a registered charity. It might be worth making a complaint to the Charities Commission ... and mister Roberts' former headmaster.

mechpet

Fruitcake said:

"There communications clearly set out ..."

That letter was purportedly written by a CEO.

6/10

See me.

I note it is a registered charity. It might be worth making a complaint to the Charities Commission ... and mister Roberts' former headmaster.

Oh dear! I missed this, probably because I was so annoyed at their refusal to instruct VCS to abide by the rules. I will look into the charities commission. Thank you.