Are the £70 recovery add ons still disputable/thrown out at court?

Paradigm

I seem to find a lot of mixed messaging on this.

Le_Kirk

That's because we are hearing mixed results.  Some judges and courts routinely dismiss the case or at least remove the add-ons, some judges don't seem to understand that the parking company code of practice is not law but is a set of rules they made up for their "old boys club".

Coupon-mad

Most Judges disallow the fake costs.

Claims are not struck out any more but loads are discontinued.

Which PPC?

Which solicitor?

What stage are you at?

Paradigm

DCB Legal/CP Plus. Just had the LBA (yesterday), not me but my sister.

Sadly she appealed the PCN naming herself as the driver before I knew anything about it. I've told her to send SAR to CPP but haven't done anything about DCBL yet.

Brief story, she's disabled with badge & parked in a motorway services disabled bay but overstayed the free 2 hour parking by 22 mins. DCBL asking for £170 instead of the £100 on the PCN.

Fruitcake

She should send a 30 day hold instruction stating that although she denies the debt she is seeking debt advice and require the case to be put on hold for 30 days as per court pre-action protocol.

That will give her more time to do her research.

Plan A is always a complaint to the landowner and her MP. In this case it will be the manager and/or CEO of the MSA. The two main ones crop up on this forum regularly. One is better at getting PCNs cancelled than the other.

She must mention the Equality Act 2010 and has protected characteristics as defined by the Act, and the service provider must make reasonable adjustments for people covered by the Act.
One reasonable adjustment must be to allow more time for people with a disability.

A MSA is a place of safety, a refuge, and motorists must not be forced to drive when tired or when they are not ready to leave etcetera due to a disability.

Paradigm

She's already contacted Moto & received a "we can't do anything" response. I can post it if needed, I think 

Fruitcake

Did she mention her disability/blue badge and the breach of the EA 2010 in her complaint, and has she also complained to her MP?
Was the complaint to the MOTO MSA manager or the CEO?

Paradigm

I don't know who she sent it to or what she said, sorry. The reply is below, hopefully...

Thank you taking the tome to contact us in relation to a PCN that you received, following a visit to a Moto Service area.

GroupNexus / CP Plus manage the parking on all of our Motorway Service Areas and help us to ensure that there is always sufficient parking provision, and for this reason Under General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), we do not hold any information on the drivers, visits or vehicles that park on any of our services. Therefore we can not be involved in the appeals process as we do not have the relevant details to be able to do so. 

However, with your permission, I can send your correspondence to GroupNexus, who will be able to look into this matter and answer your concerns and respond to you accordingly. Please confirm if you would like me to arrange this.

Additionally, I would like to thank you for your feedback about potentially longer time needed by disabled customers. This will be taken under advisement.

Regards,

Nadia

Coupon-mad

Paradigm said:

She's already contacted Moto & received a "we can't do anything" response.  

That's illegal.

I grabbed this that I wrote for another similar defence (the words below).  Adapt the wording to suit (she is not a Defendant yet) and THROW the Equality Act 2010 at MOTO's CEO.  Also get her to copy in DCBLegal and CP Plus AND HER MP....


I would like to draw attention to protections under the Equality Act 2010 (EA) point 2.20(3) and other provisions.  The Defendant considers that the time limitation imposed is an unfair term in that it does not account for the additional time taken to carry out normal day-to-day activities that is faced by a person with relevant (mobility/stamina impairing) ‘protected characteristics’. 

The applicable law and the statutory EHRC Equality Act Code of Practice regarding a Service Provider's obligation to take steps in advance to avoid indirect discrimination, means that this Claimant should have made available a prominently communicated mechanism to enable disabled drivers to claim a ‘reasonable adjustment’ of extra parking time on site.

Car park provisions that must be provided by Service Providers at locations where the public are invited, do not stop at physical adjustments such as a wider bay.

Increasing/relaxing fixed time limits for those disabled persons who need to take longer than an able-bodied person to carry out activities is covered by the EA and has a specific example in the EHRC Statutory Code of Practice (see the example about 'tours').

Whilst the fixed policy of a free parking time may be sufficient for able-bodied patrons if the shops, this is not sufficient for the Defendant's needs.  The vehicle should be exempt from unlawful allegations of ‘overstay’ and the Claimant has failed in its statutory duty to make 'reasonable adjustments' to remove such barriers and find a workable system to adjust fixed policies that may cause detriment, harassment and unfair cost to those with protected characteristics.

The DFT guidance states that MSAs must offer 'at least 2 hours free parking'.  At least.  And that's assuming able-bodied drivers are stopping there.  Such minima must be adjusted to a longer/flexible time, for disabled persons who need it.

There is no lawful justification nor excuse for causing indirect discrimination to the disabled public 'at large', by a trader saying 'we didn't know'. Avoiding indirect discrimination is not dependent upon the trader being informed about the needs of individual disabled people. It is an anticipatory duty enshrined in law and could have been easily and inexpensively addressed by clear signage offering disabled or mobility impaired visitors more time, for example by registering the VRM on a 'white list' inside the stores.  

No such reasonable adjustment was made available by this Claimant on any signs, thus the fixed time limit term is void for illegality due to a clear EA breach of duty.  Contractual terms cannot override disability law which protects all persons with relevant 'protected characteristics.'  The charge and allegation of overstay is illegal.

Paradigm

Thank you @Coupon-mad, just what I wanted  It's pretty awkward when you get involved at a late stage, not knowing the full facts.

Very much appreciated.

Fruitcake

C-m, this comment doesn't make sense.

"Whilst the fixed policy of a free parking time may be sufficient for able-bodied patrons if the shops, this is not sufficient for the Defendant's needs."