DCB Legal N1SDT for parking over the line in a disabled space

Fruitcake

Did the PPC provide you with images of the car at the material time. These would have been on the NTK and probably these and more would have been on the appeal portal as well.

Can you show us an image of where the car was parked, or a link/image from Google Streetview and an indication of which bay in which the vehicle was parked?

If the vehicle was just over a line but still within the hatched area or similar next to the bay, then you can argue it was within the bay, and/or the fact the vehicle was only just outside the bay is de minimis. 

Necron79

A very valid point, I should have mentioned that I'm assuming my wife was the driver as I have no recollection of the ticket and she thinks she might have had it. She is no longer driving due to her illness and it has effected her memory so I'm making a lot of assumptions that it was her. 

Revised para 3

Due to the length of time, the Defendant has little to no recollection of the days in question over 4 years ago, which were unremarkable. The defendant was not the driver of the vehicle at the time. The defendant believes their wife to have been the driver at the time. The vehicle was parked in a disabled/accessible parking bay. The POC simply states "out of bay" which is incorrect, and put the claimant to strict proof that the contrary is true. The driver is registered disabled, and displayed a disabled person's blue badge as a curtesy, even though the BB scheme does not apply on private land. The driver has protected characteristics and as defined by the Equality Act 2010, and therefore entitled to reasonable adjustments that may include, but not be limited to, needing more time, or more room to enter and exit the vehicle. Service providers are required to anticipate the needs of motorists and make reasonable adjustments to accommodate their needs. Failing to do so is indirect discrimination, a breach of the above Act, and a criminal offence. Failing to make reasonable adjustments once the service provider has been made aware of a person's disability is direct discrimination, a further breach of the Act, and a further criminal offence. The driver at the material time required more time to use the on site facilities, and more room to park the vehicle than was available. By failing to anticipate these needs, and by continuing to pursue the motorist once they were made aware of the driver's needs is both discrimination and a criminal offence.

Coupon-mad

All good except a spelling mistake: 'curtesy'.

Fruitcake

I would suggest a few adjustments. 

"Due to the length of time, the Defendant has little to no recollection of the days in question on an unremarkable day over 4 years ago other than that they The defendant was were not the driver of the vehicle at the time. The defendant believes their wife, who has cognitive (memory) and physical disabilities to may have been the driver at the time, but cannot state beyond the balance of probabilities that it is true. It is accepted that the The vehicle was parked in a disabled/accessible parking bay." 

"The driver is registered disabled, and  displayed a disabled person's blue badge as a curtesy courtesy ..."

There is no register of disabled persons in the UK. 

Necron79

They might have provided images 4 years ago but nothing was provided with recent court paperwork. I have no idea how to access the appeals portal. 

Necron79

Due to the length of time, the Defendant has little recollection of the days in question on an unremarkable day over 4 years ago other than that they were not the driver of the vehicle at the time. The defendant believes their wife, who has cognitive (memory) and physical disabilities may have been the driver at the time, but cannot state beyond the balance of probabilities that it is true. It is accepted that the vehicle was parked in a disabled/accessible parking bay. The POC simply states "out of bay" which is incorrect, and put the claimant to strict proof that the contrary is true. The driver displayed a disabled person's blue badge as a courtesy, even though the BB scheme does not apply on private land. The driver has protected characteristics and as defined by the Equality Act 2010, and therefore entitled to reasonable adjustments that may include, but not be limited to, needing more time, or more room to enter and exit the vehicle. Service providers are required to anticipate the needs of motorists and make reasonable adjustments to accommodate their needs. Failing to do so is indirect discrimination, a breach of the above Act, and a criminal offence. Failing to make reasonable adjustments once the service provider has been made aware of a person's disability is direct discrimination, a further breach of the Act, and a further criminal offence. The driver at the material time required more time to use the onsite facilities, and more room to park the vehicle than was available. By failing to anticipate these needs, and by continuing to pursue the motorist once they were made aware of the driver's needs is both discrimination and a criminal offence.

Coupon-mad

Were they 'made aware' in an appeal?

Or do you mean they were aware at the outset due to the blue badge?

Necron79

Blue badge would have been in the window otherwise they would have issued the ticket for no blue badge instead of out of bay.

Coupon-mad

I realise that - and I'm with you - but your wording takes the point: 'they should have cancelled the PCN once they knew'.  That was written for a case where the person appealed and that victim was saying that the back office staff should have cancelled it, once they knew (from the appeal).

Just needs some tweaks to make the point that no PCN should have been issued at all because the driver's Blue badge would have been displayed on the dashboard, so the ticketer knew this was a disabled service user all along, and failed to make a reasonable adjustment under the EA.

Necron79

Thanks, I think I'm starting to get the hang of this legal speak.

Due to the length of time, the Defendant has little recollection of the days in question on an unremarkable day over 4 years ago other than that they were not the driver of the vehicle at the time. The defendant believes their wife, who has cognitive (memory) and physical disabilities may have been the driver at the time, but cannot state beyond the balance of probabilities that it is true. It is accepted that the vehicle was parked in a disabled/accessible parking bay. The POC simply states "out of bay" which is incorrect, and put the claimant to strict proof that the contrary is true. The driver displayed a disabled person's blue badge as a courtesy, even though the BB scheme does not apply on private land. The driver has protected characteristics and as defined by the Equality Act 2010, and therefore entitled to reasonable adjustments that may include, but not be limited to, needing more time, or more room to enter and exit the vehicle. Service providers are required to anticipate the needs of motorists and make reasonable adjustments to accommodate their needs. Failing to do so is indirect discrimination, a breach of the above Act, and a criminal offence. Failing to make reasonable adjustments/accommodations when service provider was aware of a person's disability is direct discrimination, a further breach of the Act, and a further criminal offence. The driver at the material time required more time to use the onsite facilities, and more room to park the vehicle than was available. By failing to anticipate these needs, and by continuing to pursue the motorist when they were aware of the driver's needs is both discrimination and a criminal offence.