We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
How do I know it's a real LBC?
Options
Comments
-
Mumtomany said:Coupon-mad said:the response said that they could not expect an anticipatory duty in this circumstance.Whyever not? Was that from POPLA or the PPC?
Avoiding INdirect discrimination (against the disabled population at large, as opposed to known individuals) is an anticipatory duty, under the law.
“A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others.”
At the time the Parking Charge Notice was issued we could not have reasonably been expected to know of your circumstances and we cannot be said to have treated you unfairly at the point we issued the Parking Charge. Please note, following this appeal denial response, we will cease to respond to all further unfounded allegations of our having discriminated against yourself.
This was from the PPC.
I think they are wrong.
Para 13 of the Equality Act defines Direct Discrimination, not discrimination in general.
I am surprised they left out that word 'Direct' from their explanation because the title, in bold, of that paragraph is Direct Discrimination.
There is another paragraph that defines Indirect Discrimination - para 19 of the Discrimination Act.
When you reply, I am sure they will respond because this is not an 'unfounded allegation'.2 -
I think that is what you would expect from a PPC. Do not forget that their whole stock in trade is to convince you that they know the law ( even when they stretch thinks more than a bit), and that you had better pay up quickly.
I believe that , as usual, they deliberately evade the point, and in this case talk about not being reasonably expected to know of your circumstances, rather than address the real point in that they should have cancelled the ticket once they had been informed of the special needs.
To continue to pursue is unlawful, and I would expect a Judge to back you, not them, if it ever gets that farThe pen is mightier than the sword ..... and I have many pens.1 -
I'd reply pointing the above out and stating that your point is far from unfounded, but perhaps they just need an ickle wickle bit of help to read the right part of the EA because it isn't section 13.
Tell them to read up on their anticipatory duty to avoid INdirect discrimination against the disabled population 'at large' as per Section 19.
They should also read and adapt their policies to comply with the Services, Public functions and Associations: Statutory Code of Practice, issued by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). Breach of that code is an offence because in itself, it creates statutory duties.
Finish by saying if they are still confused about how wide-reaching the protections are in the EA, you recommend they seek legal advice because harassing a disabled service user is an offence in itself under the EA, s26:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/26
PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD1 -
-
thank you everyone In the response to Gladstones should I go into detail around my child’s condition? I haven’t this far in the appeal, just stated that I overstayed because of the extra care required at the time.0
-
Yes, it is better to be seen to narrow all areas of dispute to try to avoid court.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD1 -
Respond by saying:
Dear Sirs,
I refer to your dismissive template email which continues to demand an excessively inflated sum and utterly fails to even deal with the core disability discrimination dispute.
I remind you of the overriding objective at this stage, to stock-take and review our respective positions, following the Practice Direction by exchanging information to see if proceedings can be avoided and to - at least - narrow the issues.
Your continued demands for extortionate money without properly (or at all) dealing with the indisputable protection of the Equality Act 2010 which covered the driver (as carer for a disabled passenger) from day one, is deplorable.
Your threatograms are causing immense distress.
I take it that is your aim, to make life difficult and wear me down? All roboclaim parking 'solicitors' are considered to be the same; running a totally out of control toxic 'bulk litigation' culture. Personally, I cannot wait for the first roboclaim firm to fall at the hurdles set by the new statutory Code of Practice and be forced to stop adding your false £70 per PCN 'success fee', as unjust enrichment.
I require your client's response specifically to the allegation of indirect discrimination by failing to allow more time over and above allowed/paid for parking time.
Your client's conduct remains in breach of the Equality Act 2010. More time must be allowed for disabled visitors, by way of a 'reasonable adjustment'. This has already been tested legally regarding car parks and tariffs:
https://www.wake-smith.co.uk/latest-news/news-archive/2011/06/20/Council-Car-Park-Case-Settled-A-Victory-for-Blue-Badge-Holders
The same legal duty applies to private parking firms as applies to Councils. That legal challenge resulted in Councils changing their policies; some allow at least an hour's extended parking time on after expiry of paid-for time for Blue Badge holders and others allow disabled persons at least three hours in any parking space as a bare minimum (on and off street).
In case you haven't stumbled across it yet, the relevant duties applicable to a private trader (Service Provider) are set out here:
https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-010-9032?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true
Maybe you missed the fact that the above statutory Code of Practice is referred to in the incoming new DLUHC CoP, which also links the above statutory EHRC Code at section 4 'Accessible Parking':
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice
You and I both know the DLUHC CoP is only temporarily delayed for review of two specific points, neither of which affect the accessible parking section. Don't insult me by saying "it's not law yet". The Equality Act and EHRC Code are.
What was 'indirect' discrimination from day one, has morphed over recent months, into 'direct' discrimination and has now crossed the line into unlawful harassment of a carer of a (known disabled) passenger.
I require the parking firm's response to this allegation because it will form the basis of a counterclaim, which will rely on authorities including:
- Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/46.html
- Blamires v Local Gov Ombudsman
https://www.stammeringlaw.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Blamires_v_LGO.pdf
My counterclaim, should your clients file a claim despite knowing that they are in breach of primary disability law, will be for not less than £990 which is extremely reasonable, being based upon the lowest rung of the levels set out in the Vento guidelines:
https://www.nelsonslaw.co.uk/injury-to-feelings-awards/
For your information, this will not be a 'personal injury' claim so don't insult me by telling me about that type of claim. It would be a counterclaim in the County court in response to your client's claim and would rely primarily on your client's breaches of:
(i) the Equality Act 2010 and statutory EHRC CoP;
(ii) the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and
(iii) the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (misleading actions).
Such counterclaims have succeeded (transcripts for these and others will be supplied in evidence) e.g.
(a) claim G2QZ60G1 VCS v Ferguson 14th May 2021 at Portsmouth County court, where the Defendant and Part 20 counterclaimant was awarded £1500 + costs, with leave to appeal denied;
(b) VCS v White, claim no G9QZ5C9Z on 20th August 2021 at Derby Combined Court where the Defendant and Part 20 counterclaimant was awarded £1,000 plus costs (somewhat badly reported here but the court transcript is available):https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/blue-badge-holder-fined-after-6229750.amp
I expect a substantive reply, the parking charge cancelled and an apology from your clients once they have reconsidered their position. I suggest that you also need to apologise for your bare-faced misleading conduct including in this latest email, quoting Roch LJ out of context. I am reliably informed that the section you regurgitated comes not from the ratio, but from the brief summary of the losing argument. Miss Vine won.
Did your firm intentionally set out to mislead me on that case as part of this campaign of harassment, or is it just that everything you say is from a template data source and there's no human thought behind your roboclaim responses?
Finally, I should tell you that I reserve the right to provide this case to my MP, BBC Watchdog and also to my contact, a member of the DLUHC Steering Group which she may use a case study demonstrating some of the worst rogue conduct.
Cease and desist.
yours faithfully,PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD6 -
Coupon-mad said:Respond by saying:
Dear Sirs,
I refer to your dismissive template email which continues to demand an excessively inflated sum and utterly fails to even deal with the core disability discrimination dispute.
I remind you of the overriding objective at this stage, to stock-take and review our respective positions, following the Practice Direction by exchanging information to see if proceedings can be avoided and to - at least - narrow the issues.
Your continued demands for extortionate money without properly (or at all) dealing with the indisputable protection of the Equality Act 2010 which covered the driver (as carer for a disabled passenger) from day one, is deplorable.2 -
@Coupon-mad
have received this response today, what would you advise my next steps are please?Thank you for your email your content has been noted and we apologise for the late response.
Our clients position has been outlined clearly and the balance remains at £170.00.
Please make paymentby 29th March 2023 falling which we may be instructed to commence legal proceedings without further notice.
0 -
Is that their "substantive" response?
I seriously hope that you follow all the advice from @Coupon-mad and we see a counter-claim should they be so stupid as to actually issue a Claim.1
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards