Carer in disabled bay parking but forgot to display blue badge

swebb99

Hi,

I've only just found this useful forum and I'm halfway through a dispute with the parking company and after reading the newbie entry's I suspect I've not followed the recommended path so far. However I thought I'd ask for advice based on the situation as it stands anyway.

I've included my defence below but realise this isn't as recommended based on the newbie advice.

In short my mother has alzheimer's and I as her sole carer (24/7) took her to a local retail park. We parked in a disabled bay but due to her rushing off I went after her and forgot to display the Blue Badge. There was no ticket when we got back but a few weeks later a letter was delivered from NexusGroup. I appealed and sent a copy of the blue badge and explained what had happened. To my surprise they didn't accept the appeal even though before hand the same thing had happened on a public street and the Police had accepted the blue badge evidence and cancelled a fine.

Anyway I have now put in a defence to court (see below) and have received an email from DCB Legal Limited stating their client has received my defence and that they intend to continue with the claim.

I'm looking for opinions on what I should do now, talk to DCB, go to court ?

Here is my defence:

I am responding to the claim made by GroupNexus regarding a 

parking charge notice issued at Sears Retail Park. I do not accept 

liability for this charge and wish to provide the following as my 

defence:

Background Context

I am the sole carer for my mother, (her name), who has 

Alzheimer's. Since the passing of my father over 2.5 years ago, I 

have devoted myself full-time to her care, which includes managing 

her day-to-day activities. My only source of income is carer's 

allowance, which totals approximately £80 per week.

Incident Details

On the date in question, I parked in a disabled bay at Sears 

Retail Park to take my mother to Marks & Spencer to purchase 

clothing. As a precaution, I parked in the disabled bay to ensure 

that, should we become separated, my mother would have a chance to 

locate the car.

Upon exiting the car, my mother immediately walked away, and I had 

to follow her to ensure her safety. In doing so, I inadvertently 

forgot to display her blue badge, which was in the inner door 

pocket of the car. I only realized this oversight upon returning 

to the vehicle.

No parking ticket was affixed to the car at the time, leading me 

to believe that the matter was resolved. I later received a notice 

in the post, which I promptly contested, providing a copy of my 

mother’s valid blue badge as evidence of entitlement to park in 

the bay.

Mitigating Circumstances

Genuine Mistake: The failure to display the blue badge was not 

intentional but occurred due to the urgent need to ensure my 

mother’s safety.

Demonstration of Eligibility: I submitted evidence of the blue 

badge as part of my initial appeal, which should have reasonably 

been sufficient to resolve the matter.

Financial Hardship: As a full-time carer with limited income, the 

imposition of this charge places an undue financial burden on me.

Comparable Precedents

On a previous occasion, a similar situation occurred in a disabled 

bay on a public highway. Upon explaining the 

circumstances to the council and providing proof of the blue 

badge, the parking ticket was cancelled as a gesture of 

understanding.

Concerns with GroupNexus’ Process

The appeals process appears to be weighted towards enforcement 

rather than understanding. Despite submitting valid evidence and 

explaining the circumstances, my appeal was dismissed without 

meaningful consideration.

The subsequent offer of a reduced fine felt dismissive and failed 

to address the genuine nature of my situation.

Conclusion

I respectfully request that the court considers the above 

mitigating factors and my financial circumstances. The evidence 

provided, including the valid blue badge, demonstrates that I was 

entitled to park in the disabled bay and that this was an honest 

mistake, not an act of deliberate non-compliance.

I urge the court to dismiss the claim on the grounds of fairness, 

proportionality, and the mitigating circumstances described.

Supporting Documents:

I can provide a copy Copy of my mother’s blue badge (no xxxxxxxx)

Evidence of my income as a carer, if required

....
......
.....

kryten3000

Equality Act applies.  Your defence isn't great, but this is DCB Legal who will either accept a lowball offer at mediation stage (£30) or will discontinue the claim nearer a hearing, especially if you submit a witness statement that has been written with the help of the forum.  

swebb99

Thanks for the info. I must admit I'm not sure what a witness statement is at the moment. I'll have a read 👍

Le_Kirk

swebb99 said:

Thanks for the info. I must admit I'm not sure what a witness statement is at the moment. I'll have a read 👍

That's why there is a NEWBIE sticky.  If you read the second post: -
a) you will know what is coming your way and be prepared
b) you will be able to read about witness statements
c) recent witness statements (that you can use for format and style but not content) are by: - 
@Harry77, @imulsion and @Defendant911

swebb99

Great thanks. I'm planning on having a good read of all the info when I'm not dealing with my mother.

kryten3000

Have a look at this guide which is designed for use from the receipt of the claim form but covers the whole process start to finish.

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1QsRGuSeimzveV1sjAFwXkHX1MW26rKwGF_qjEkAFINI

swebb99

Just a bit of an update. I had a mediation call several weeks ago where the claimant said they would accept £270. I said I wasn't paying anything. They then said they would accept £100, and again I said I wasn't prepared to pay anything as I hadn't done anything that warrantied me paying anything. The claimant then said they would take it to court. 

I haven't heard anything else so far. Oh apart from DCB legal calling me several times and then being placed in a queue whereby I immediately hang up because I don't have time as I'm caring for my mother.

Gr1pr

No problem,  the CNBC will transfer the whole case to the local civil court that you nominated on your N180 DQ document. You can login to MCOL and check your claim history,  same as checking your bank account 

That local civil court receives the case and will write to your address by post, this can take several months , so check your MCOL claim history online and wait for the postal letter 

savergrant

swebb99 said:

Just a bit of an update. I had a mediation call several weeks ago where the claimant said they would accept £270. I said I wasn't paying anything. They then said they would accept £100, and again I said I wasn't prepared to pay anything as I hadn't done anything that warrantied me paying anything. The claimant then said they would take it to court. 

I haven't heard anything else so far. Oh apart from DCB legal calling me several times and then being placed in a queue whereby I immediately hang up because I don't have time as I'm caring for my mother.

What exactly did the signage say?
It is arguable whether the bays are policed to ensure they are available for people who genuinely need them, or as a way of tempting people into paying extortionate fines. If the bays say that blue badges must be displayed and you didn't then imo you should not expect them to be out of pocket for having to chase you. The police are publicly funded, this is private land not the public street. If however the signage simply said 'blue badge holders only' then they should have no case as you can prove that you are her carer and the blue badge is used exclusively for your vehicle (and wasn't being used by someone else at that time.)

Gr1pr

Points of note 

These are not fines,  it's an Invoice from a private parking company , namely Group Nexus

The police are not involved here,  so no public money was spent 

A blue badge is issued to a person,  not a specific vehicle,  any vehicle can be used to assist the blue badge holder 

The Equality Act 2010 applies to the use of the bay,  the BB is just an indicator of need

Half_way

The blue badge scheme does not apply on private land, however it can be used to show that an occupant of a vehicle has a protected characteristic and needs to use/make a reasonable adjustment to use the facilities.

The correct course of action is that as soon as the so-called parking company.is made aware that the vehicle was left as it was to make use of said adjustments , the parking charge would be cancelled immediately.

 But the alleged parking company just wants to make money, and disabled people and their carers are easy prey.

As the "court process" has started you need to follow the advice above, however you also need to get in touch with the landowner and tell them what has happened m you need to add in that the actions of the parking company are putting the landowner at risk of breaching the equality act and that the landowner needs to instruct ( not ask) the parking company to discontinue the legal action that they are taking against you, and you need to remind them that they are jointly liable for the actions of their agents ( the parking company)

Often, the excuse used is that they can not cancel as debt collection and/or court proceedings have been initiated, this is nonsense as a claimant can discontinue/withdraw at any time unto a hearing ( and possibly just before a judgement is made) so you will need to counter that in a landowner complaint and instruction ( not a request do not beat around the bush) to cancel hence the word discontinue.

Parking companies are not regulated, they make up their own rules to suit themselves - and to make money they could state that only magenta coloured cars can park in certain bays and you parked a red car in one of those bays so you owe £100 in a "parking charge notice" likewise with other over things such as parking in a disabled bay with a tyre slightly touching the line, or a disabled driver parking across two bays as they need extra room to get in/out and nothing else is available and so on.

 The mitigating factors you suggested wont mean a thing - but you do have the equality act to bash them, and the landowner with