LIDL SOUTHAMTON - 84 YEAR OLD DRIVER / NEED TO APPEAL

Umkomaas

1) ParkingEye's Parking Charge Notice is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates and the wording used.

Are you sure?  It's rather unusual for a PE NtK to be non PoFA compliant. Can we see the PE NtK (front and back) with all identifiers redacted, please? Please leave any dates showing.

Jason.rangou

Umkomaas said:

1) ParkingEye's Parking Charge Notice is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates and the wording used.

Are you sure?  It's rather unusual for a PE NtK to be non PoFA compliant. Can we see the PE NtK (front and back) with all identifiers redacted, please? Please leave any dates showing.

I copied it all from the POPLA appeal thread. WORD FOR WORD. Should I remove this?

I will take a photo now of the PCN 

Coupon-mad

We don't need to see a photo. Both versions are already in my Ntk pictures thread.

Jason.rangou

Here are the photos

Jason.rangou

My question is - Do I add something like the following also, on behalf of my father?

I am 84 years old, I have mobility issues, for which I am currently under Southampton hospital and I have learning difficulties. I like to browse the aisles and talk people also whilst in Lidl. I spend a lot of time in Lidl because it takes time for me to do my shopping and when I get to the checkout, it takes time for me to pack everything up.

I have one week left to put my POPLA appeal in.

Thank you for your help

Jason.rangou

Coupon-mad said:

We don't need to see a photo. Both versions are already in my Ntk pictures thread.

I copied the appeal from that thread. I have just read the first point, and it does not apply to me. Therefore, I will remove it.

Coupon-mad

No, I wasn't talking about the NEWBIES thread.  I said look at the NTK pictures thread.

Yes add that paragraph near the start.

Jason.rangou

Should I add this as Point 1 its a bit more detailed?

1. No period of grace given for the driver to read the signs within the car park and pay for ticket and no grace period was given for the group to safely exit the car park afterwards.

The BPA Code of Practice (13.2) states that parking operators "should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission, you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action." In addition, the BPA Code of Practice (13.4) states that the parking operators “should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.”

The driver of the car at the time was supposedly captured by ANPR cameras driving in to the car park at 19/02/24 14:45 and driving out at 17:11 on the same date The driver was unaware that parking time began from entry to the car park.

The driver returned to the car park after doing his shopping.  It is very clear from the evidence that Parkingeye have failed to uphold the minimum grace periods as per EQUALITY ACT 2010 'due to the fact the driver has learning difficulties and has protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 and that Parkingeye and the Landowner have a statutory duty to allow additional time for such visitors. I ask the ECP to review this evidence and drop out/cancel this PCN by offering 'no contest' in this POPLA process, given the disability issues. If not I will have no option other than to take this as disability discrimination with the supermarket and indeed raise this with my local MP. 

 

In additon The new statutory Code of Practice, released by Government on 7th February 2022. requires operators to adhere to the Equality Act 2010 and the EHRC statutory Code of Practice for Service Providers, and specifically has a section about accessibility that reminds operators that there are invisible disabilities that are not just about providing special wider bays, but also additional time where needed

 

nopcns

Looking at that NtK, I see no invitation for the keeper to pay the charge as required by PoFA 9(2)(e)(i).

Coupon-mad

Not that it matters:

1. the Keeper was driving;

2. If they live in the Southampton court area then this claim will get nowhere with those canny Judges!