PCN Planet Ice - Autism - Premier Park

Frederik100

Castle said:

Frederik100 said:

I redacted it. The client was Silver Blades Ice Rink (Solihull). There was a mention of Fitness First and Silver Blades under section 2.1

Silver Blades Ice Rink Company (Solihull) Ltd, (Co Reg 09581917), don't own any land or buildings so they are not the landowner.

Could it be possible that they could act as an agent? I am wondering if this could be argued.

Coupon-mad

Only if they have title, maybe in the form of a lease.

Castle

Frederik100 said:

Castle said:

Frederik100 said:

I redacted it. The client was Silver Blades Ice Rink (Solihull). There was a mention of Fitness First and Silver Blades under section 2.1

Silver Blades Ice Rink Company (Solihull) Ltd, (Co Reg 09581917), don't own any land or buildings so they are not the landowner.

Could it be possible that they could act as an agent? I am wondering if this could be argued.

They will still need evidence of Agency or a Lease.

Frederik100

My Comments are as follows:

I request that POPLA uphold my appeal and reject this PCN for the following reasons.

1) Violation of the Equality Act of 2010

As stated prior, our son has Autism and had a meltdown which resulted in needing extra time to settle him down and change his wet clothing to leave. 

Despite the delays and given the times quoted on Premier Parks own statement (The Driver entered the car park at 13:11 and purchased a ticket at 13:15, 4 minutes after entry. This payment was for the duration of 2 hours and expired at 15:15) and the 10 minute grace period for leaving (also using Premier Parks own words), we feel that 5 minutes (and not 19 minutes over claimed by Premier Park) over given the circumstance is discriminatory against our sons disability and in breach of the Equality Act 2010 in particular section 20: Duty to make adjustments. 

20(3):The first requirement is a requirement, where a provision, criterion or practice of A's puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled, to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage.

In addition, in breach of the EHRC Equality Act Code of Practice for Service Providers

Sec 119(14.58) - Indirect discrimination will be intentional where the defendant (or defender) knew that certain consequences would follow from their actions and they wanted those consequences to follow. A motive, for example, of promoting business efficiency, does not mean that the act of indirect discrimination is unintentional.

s.19(2)(d)

(5.34) - In a case involving disability if the service provider has not complied with its duty to make relevant reasonable adjustments, it will be difficult for the service provider to show that the treatment was proportionate.

A service provider which refuses to make a 'reasonable adjustment' without lawful justification is therefore in breach of their mandatory duties under the statutory Code and their contract is unenforceable with another passage from the EHRC Equality Act Code of Practice for Service Providers:

Unenforceable terms

142(3.14)

A term of a contract that promotes or provides for treatment that is

prohibited by the Act is unenforceable. However, this will not prevent a

person who is or would be disadvantaged by an unenforceable term from

relying on it to get any benefit to which they are entitled. 

In this case, we feel that Premier Park have not taken our circumstance during this occasion into account and are indirectly discriminating against son and our experience during the day because of a 5 minute overstay.

We request that POPLA uphold our appeal and cancel this PCN charge.

2)No evidence of landowner authority: 

Although section 1.4 of the agreement between Silver Blades Ice Rink and Premier Park states that the client is either the registered landowner or authorised by the landowner to enter in this agreement, no such evidence is offered to support this. The onus is on Premier Park to establish this authority and it has failed to do so.

According to the Land Registry, SILVER BLADES ICE RINK COMPANY is the leaseholder and not the landowner of the property which in violation of of the Private Parking Code of Practice 14.1(a) - the identity of the landowner, 14.1(b) - boundary map of the land to be managed, 14.1(c) - such byelaws as may apply to the land relating to the management of parking. None of these sections are included in the agreement.

In addition, in adherance with the Companies Act of 2006, the agreement between Silver Blades Ice Rink and Premier Park has the directors names redacted, we have no idea if these were indeed directors, so this contract may not be valid. Also without signatures from witnesses or authorised signatories, this is in breach of Companies Act of 2006, Section 44:

(2)A document is validly executed by a company if it is signed on behalf of the company—

(a)by two authorised signatories, or

(b)by a director of the company in the presence of a witness who attests the signature.

(3)The following are “authorised signatories” for the purposes of subsection (2)—

(a)every director of the company, and

(b)in the case of a private company with a secretary or a public company, the secretary (or any joint secretary) of the company.

In Civil Court case law, some of the redactions are in breach (PRACTICE DIRECTION 31B – DISCLOSURE OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS) of normal disclosure procedure which is highly relevant to the matter at hand in establishing a valid contract between parties. 

In summary, we feel that Premier Park have failed to provide any evidence of landowner authority to issue PCNs and have other violations of Private Parking Code of Practice in the agreement. They also failed to establish that this is indeed a valid contract because of a lack of verifiable information nor followed the Companies Act of 2006 even if the signatories were not redacted.

Therefore, we feel that given the two points above that POPLA should uphold our appeal and cancel the PCN.

Many thanks

Coupon-mad

According to the Land Registry, SILVER BLADES ICE RINK COMPANY is the leaseholder and not the landowner of the property

A leaseholder has legal title, so they have as much status as a landowner. 

And which CoP are you quoting here?

"which in violation of of the Private Parking Code of Practice 14.1(a) - the identity of the landowner, 14.1(b) - boundary map of the land to be managed, 14.1(c) - such byelaws as may apply to the land relating to the management of parking. None of these sections are included in the agreement."

Frederik100

www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice#relationship-with-landowner

This was from the link from POPLAs website.

If they have legal title, then that point is moot :-(

Coupon-mad

That CoP doesn't exist yet.

Frederik100

My newest draft - hopefully this is better. I cleaned out the landowner point.

Our Comments are as follows:

We request that POPLA uphold my appeal and reject this PCN for the following reasons.

1) Violation of the Equality Act of 2010

As stated prior, our son has Autism and had a meltdown which resulted in needing extra time to settle him down and change his wet clothing to leave. 

Despite the delays and given the times quoted on Premier Parks own statement (The Driver entered the car park at 13:11 and purchased a ticket at 13:15, 4 minutes after entry. This payment was for the duration of 2 hours and expired at 15:15) and the 10 minute grace period for leaving (also using Premier Parks own words), we feel that 5 minutes (and not 19 minutes over claimed by Premier Park) over given the circumstance is discriminatory against our sons disability and in breach of the Equality Act 2010 in particular section 20: Duty to make adjustments. 

20(3):The first requirement is a requirement, where a provision, criterion or practice of A's puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled, to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage.

In addition, this in breach of the EHRC Equality Act Code of Practice for Service Providers

Sec 119(14.58) - Indirect discrimination will be intentional where the defendant (or defender) knew that certain consequences would follow from their actions and they wanted those consequences to follow. A motive, for example, of promoting business efficiency, does not mean that the act of indirect discrimination is unintentional.

s.19(2)(d)

(5.34) - In a case involving disability if the service provider has not complied with its duty to make relevant reasonable adjustments, it will be difficult for the service provider to show that the treatment was proportionate.

A service provider which refuses to make a 'reasonable adjustment' without lawful justification is therefore in breach of their mandatory duties under the statutory Code and their contract is unenforceable with another passage from the EHRC Equality Act Code of Practice for Service Providers:

Unenforceable terms

142(3.14)

A term of a contract that promotes or provides for treatment that is

prohibited by the Act is unenforceable. However, this will not prevent a

person who is or would be disadvantaged by an unenforceable term from

relying on it to get any benefit to which they are entitled. 

In this case, we feel that Premier Park have not taken our circumstance during this occasion into account and are indirectly discriminating against son and our experience during the day because of a 5 minute overstay (using the Premier Park Operator case summary time keeping).

2) Non-compliance with POFA 2012

Premier Park statement:

'Driver is not named, however, Notice to Keeper now states: “if, after the period of 28 days

beginning with the day after that on which this notice is given – the full amount of the unpaid

parking charge specified in this notice has not been paid in full, and we do not know both the

name and current address of the driver, under paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 we will have the right to recover from the Keeper so much

of that parking charge amount as remains unpaid’ .” in respect of providing driver details.'

However, they are in breach of paragraph 9(4) and 9(5) of Schedule 4 - 

(4) The notice must be given by—

(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or

(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.

(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.

As we have stated before, a 'Final Chance Before Action' was received 27 days after (date 21 days after) the specified period of parking ended, so this is in breach as they must adhere to this standard.

3) Redacted and Missing Signatories

In adherance with the Companies Act of 2006, the agreement between Silver Blades Ice Rink and Premier Park has the directors names redacted, we have no idea if these were indeed directors, so this contract may not be valid. Also without signatures from witnesses or authorised signatories, this is in breach of Companies Act of 2006, Section 44:

(2)A document is validly executed by a company if it is signed on behalf of the company—

(a)by two authorised signatories, or

(b)by a director of the company in the presence of a witness who attests the signature.

(3)The following are “authorised signatories” for the purposes of subsection (2)—

(a)every director of the company, and

(b)in the case of a private company with a secretary or a public company, the secretary (or any joint secretary) of the company.

In Civil Court case law, some of the redactions are in breach (PRACTICE DIRECTION 31B – DISCLOSURE OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS) of normal disclosure procedure which is highly relevant to the matter at hand in establishing a valid contract between parties. 

In summary, we feel that Premier Park have also failed to establish that this is indeed a valid contract because of a lack of verifiable information nor followed the Companies Act of 2006 even if the signatories were not redacted.

Therefore, we feel that given the three points above that POPLA should uphold our appeal and cancel the PCN.

Many thanks

Coupon-mad

I don't understand this, seems superfluous:

"As we have stated before, a 'Final Chance Before Action' was received 27 days after (date 21 days after) the specified period of parking ended, so this is in breach as they must adhere to this standard."

Final reminders are irrelevant.

Frederik100

It was only because they were supposed to send a Notice to Keeper within 14 days and they did not do this.