Is health issues a good defense?

Coupon-mad

Show us their reply and we'll write you a response.  Please don't worry.

Le_Kirk

LaurieCat said:

Having told BW legal this, they've basically said there's nothing they'll do about it and it'll still go to court. Do I need to do anything else? I'm now getting extremely anxious. 

Did you tell them in writing and do you have a written (e-mail is fine) response

LaurieCat

It has taken them absolutely ages (I sent my official letter to them at the end of March) but they've finally replied   Good Afternoon, Please see attached the Car Park signage stating the terms and conditions for this car park.  Whilst we sympathise with the circumstances described, this does note negate your liability under the parking contract formed and our Client is satisfied you remain liable for the PCN issued and subsequent outstanding balance. We would also note, our Client provided you with the opportunity to appeal this matter and provided details of the appeals process on the Notices sent to you. You failed to appeal within the prescribed time frame and our Client will not consider an appeal at this late stage.  Our Client is satisfied that the balance remains due and owing.

Should you have a further issue or new query that you would like us to help you with then you can contact us using the button below.

Fruitcake

Plan A is always a complain to the landowner and your MP. Did you do this? It's never too late.

State that that you have a disability and thus protected characteristics as defined by the Equality Act 2010. Note that failing to make reasonable adjustments for someone with a disability is indirect discrimination.
Continuing to pursue the charge once the operator is aware of your disability is direct discrimination.
Both are a breach of the Equality Act, and both are criminal offences.
You were delayed due to your disability but the operator has failed to make reasonable adjustments such as allowing you more time.


Send a copy to the solicitors as well as the landowner and MP.

Coupon-mad

LaurieCat said:

It has taken them absolutely ages (I sent my official letter to them at the end of March) but they've finally replied   Good Afternoon, Please see attached the Car Park signage stating the terms and conditions for this car park.  Whilst we sympathise with the circumstances described, this does note negate your liability under the parking contract formed and our Client is satisfied you remain liable for the PCN issued and subsequent outstanding balance. We would also note, our Client provided you with the opportunity to appeal this matter and provided details of the appeals process on the Notices sent to you. You failed to appeal within the prescribed time frame and our Client will not consider an appeal at this late stage.  Our Client is satisfied that the balance remains due and owing.

Should you have a further issue or new query that you would like us to help you with then you can contact us using the button below.

Dear Sirs,

I've received your template reply which I will now share with my MP to show the policy decision-makers at the DLUHC.

Napier and yourselves already know that they sent the PCN to an old address (spare me the template lecture about DVLA addresses. Mine was updated after I moved).  You both know that a new address was traced after sending the PCN to a wrong address.

You are also both fully aware that the Government's incoming Code of Practice says that where it becomes apparent that a PCN was not received (and appeal was therefore never offered) the PCN must be re-served.  Your clients failed to do that, no doubt because the IPC is picking and choosing which elements of the new Code to bother to implement. Nice work.

As such, you are wrong to say that I was 'afforded a right to appeal' and it certainly isn't 'prescribed(!)' - i.e. set in statute - that facts such as Equality Act protection and your clients' failure to make reasonable adjustments can only be considered for 28 days.

So, from your response I take the following information:

This is a great example for the DLUHC to demonstrate your real approach to what you call 'debt resolution'.

Napier know about my disability.

You know about my disability.

You both know that a feature of my disability is why I needed longer for my stay.

You both already know that Helen Dolphin has already tested the legal position. To help you with that, I cited it in my earlier response that you clearly didn't quite understand or care enough about to realise that that your client has no legal cause of action.

Here's a link to the facts and findings of the tested case on behalf of blue badge holders:
https://www.wake-smith.co.uk/latest-news/news-archive/2011/06/20/Council-Car-Park-Case-Settled-A-Victory-for-Blue-Badge-Holders

You may wish to consult a solicitor, as clearly the person replying to me shows no sign of being one, and is labouring under the misconception that contract law trumps a protected person's rights under the Equality Act 2010 (the EA).

I am satisfied that the balance does not remain due and owing. I am satisfied that your client now stands in clear breach of the EA by continuing to harass a person with protected characteristics.  Specifically, they have failed to consider their duty to avoid indirect discrimination. They failed to make available a 'reasonable adjustment' of extra time and are operating an inflexible policy which has the likelihood of adversely affect genuine paying patrons who have protected characteristics. An illegal fixed policy which has caused me detriment.

Should you have a further issue or new query that you would like my MP to help you with before they send this case study to the DLUHC, then you can contact them when the MP writes to you in support of my position. Yours faithfully

Umkomaas

👆 Sparking on all cylinders this morning @Coupon-mad. Howitzer. 👍

Fruitcake

I don't think the OP has mentioned that they have a disabled badge. It doesn't affect the case, but wording should be adjusted accordingly to omit reference to a blue badge, but to mention the motorist's illness/disability.

This is one of the things I tried to highlight in the government consultation, that proof of a disability/need/protected characteristics should not be limited to production of a blue badge, but should include any proof of said physical or mental limitations. I believe it all fell on deaf ears.

LaurieCat

Coupon-mad said:

LaurieCat said:

It has taken them absolutely ages (I sent my official letter to them at the end of March) but they've finally replied   Good Afternoon, Please see attached the Car Park signage stating the terms and conditions for this car park.  Whilst we sympathise with the circumstances described, this does note negate your liability under the parking contract formed and our Client is satisfied you remain liable for the PCN issued and subsequent outstanding balance. We would also note, our Client provided you with the opportunity to appeal this matter and provided details of the appeals process on the Notices sent to you. You failed to appeal within the prescribed time frame and our Client will not consider an appeal at this late stage.  Our Client is satisfied that the balance remains due and owing.

Should you have a further issue or new query that you would like us to help you with then you can contact us using the button below.

Dear Sirs,

I've received your template reply which I will now share with my MP to show the policy decision-makers at the DLUHC.

Napier and yourselves already know that they sent the PCN to an old address (spare me the template lecture about DVLA addresses. Mine was updated after I moved).  You both know that a new address was traced after sending the PCN to a wrong address.

You are also both fully aware that the Government's incoming Code of Practice says that where it becomes apparent that a PCN was not received (and appeal was therefore never offered) the PCN must be re-served.  Your clients failed to do that, no doubt because the IPC is picking and choosing which elements of the new Code to bother to implement. Nice work.

As such, you are wrong to say that I was 'afforded a right to appeal' and it certainly isn't 'prescribed(!)' - i.e. set in statute - that facts such as Equality Act protection and your clients' failure to make reasonable adjustments can only be considered for 28 days.

So, from your response I take the following information:

This is a great example for the DLUHC to demonstrate your real approach to what you call 'debt resolution'.

Napier know about my disability.

You know about my disability.

You both know that a feature of my disability is why I needed longer for my stay.

You both already know that Helen Dolphin has already tested the legal position. To help you with that, I cited it in my earlier response that you clearly didn't quite understand or care enough about to realise that that your client has no legal cause of action.

Here's a link to the facts and findings of the tested case on behalf of blue badge holders:
https://www.wake-smith.co.uk/latest-news/news-archive/2011/06/20/Council-Car-Park-Case-Settled-A-Victory-for-Blue-Badge-Holders

You may wish to consult a solicitor, as clearly the person replying to me shows no sign of being one, and is labouring under the misconception that contract law trumps a protected person's rights under the Equality Act 2010 (the EA).

I am satisfied that the balance does not remain due and owing. I am satisfied that your client now stands in clear breach of the EA by continuing to harass a person with protected characteristics.  Specifically, they have failed to consider their duty to avoid indirect discrimination. They failed to make available a 'reasonable adjustment' of extra time and are operating an inflexible policy which has the likelihood of adversely affect genuine paying patrons who have protected characteristics. An illegal fixed policy which has caused me detriment.

Should you have a further issue or new query that you would like my MP to help you with before they send this case study to the DLUHC, then you can contact them when the MP writes to you in support of my position. Yours faithfully

This is fantastic - thank you so much!! I wasn't aware of any of the legal side of it. Should I then contact my MP to inform them/complain to them? 

LaurieCat

Fruitcake said:

I don't think the OP has mentioned that they have a disabled badge. It doesn't affect the case, but wording should be adjusted accordingly to omit reference to a blue badge, but to mention the motorist's illness/disability.

This is one of the things I tried to highlight in the government consultation, that proof of a disability/need/protected characteristics should not be limited to production of a blue badge, but should include any proof of said physical or mental limitations. I believe it all fell on deaf ears.

I don't have a blue badge - thank you for highlighting that to me. I'll adjust the wording slightly.

Coupon-mad

Absolutely.