POPLA Rejected

delandrodders

Good morning everyone, 
I was helping a friend with a PCN, she is a Blue Badge holder, when we explained to the parking company ( Smart Parking) and POPLA, they have completely ignored what the Equality Act 2010, is and how it applies to disabled people, nobody is exempt from complying with the ACT. 

I will, with the permission of the the other person defend this in a court of law, I have posted this to highlight in my "opinion" what a corrupt organisation POPLA is, below is their response and rejection of the appeal, and they talk as if they are immune from the Equality Act, Parking Companies are classed as service providers and have to comply with the ACT by law, in not doing so is discriminatory. 

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • The appellant is disabled so the currently agreed 10-minute grace period (as per the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice) is not adequate for their needs. • This grace period does not take account of people with disabilities according to the Equality Act 2010. • The disabled motorist was 20 minutes over the allotted 2 hours at this car park, inclusive of the standard grace period. • The operator has not taken account of the motorist disabilities and has acted in a discriminatory manner in respect of the Equality Act. The appellant has provided the following evidence in support of their grounds: • Copy of motorist’s blue badge. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on their primary grounds and points out a discrepancy in the parking operator’s synopsis of this event. The operator did not make reasonable adjustments to avoid discrimination. The above will be considered in my determination of this appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. In this case I must firstly address the appellant’s comments to advise that I understand why they have made observations of discrepancies in the operator’s casefile, but this is not of any direct material bearing to my assessment of this specific event and charge. My decision must be based on the terms demonstrated in the signage of the site that clearly state: “Maximum stay 2 hours…Disabled concessions do not apply”. I must also advise that I am satisfied a PCN would be issued to any vehicle seen to exceed this allowance by a further 20 minutes by the cameras in place (as in this case), and that at the time of the PCN’s issue, the personal characteristics of the motorist would not be known the operator. In this regard, irrespective of the appellant’s grounds related to the Equality Act 2010, I am not able to consider the issuance of this charge was in anyway discriminatory or based on personal factors. Ultimately, my remit is to consider if the PCN was issued correctly at the point of issue and while I understand the appellant has challenged the operator’s continued pursuit of this PCN, how the operator proceeds after the first stage of appeal, is largely immaterial to my role. Similarly, any direct complaint about the general adequacy of the grace period provision as set by the current working code of practice, specifically in respect of disabled motorists, does not fall directly in my remit and would need to be put back to the BPA. Moreover, I am able to consider a discretionary extension to this minimum provision in my capacity, based on the evidence and grounds presented to me. In essence, the appellant’s primary case is that an extra 10 minutes (on top of the standard minimum grace period) should be allowed in this case. On this point I must assess the parking event itself, and the reasons given for the extra time used. While the appellant’s grounds to POPLA have not provided an account of the parking event of 2 hours and 20 minutes that took place, for me to understand how the additional time was used, at the first stage of appeal to the operator the motorist stated: “I have a valid blue badge and I honestly thought we are entitled to an extra hour”. On this basis, I am not able to consider this is a case whereby a disabled motorist required additional time to leave the site, rather I must now be satisfied this PCN is a result of the motorist being unaware that no disabled concessions (such as those providing up to 3 hours of parking in public areas) applied at this private car park. Section 5.2 of the Single Code of Practice requires a parking operator to allow a grace period in addition to the parking period. The Code advises that grace periods do not apply other than where a driver has parked in compliance with the terms and conditions of the area, nor is a grace period a free period of parking. In this case I am not able to consider a grace period (or an extension to such a period) can apply as the motorist had not parked in compliance with the terms and conditions, because they had considered a time limit of 3 hours was applicable. While the use of a blue badge may provide extra freedoms in public spaces this does not apply to all car parks, and this is covered in the blue badge handbook in respect of off-street parking as follows: “Off-street car park operators should provide parking spaces for disabled people. However, it is up to the car park owner to decide whether badge holders can park free of charge. Do not assume you can always park for free”. This may not have been a purposeful breach of the terms, but I must complete this decision in accordance with my scope and remit. After considering the evidence from both parties, the motorist exceeded 2 hours and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal.

Coupon-mad

Just ignore it. Don't let them pay! They will eventually get a claim form from the CNBC but they will not even need a hearing!

Easy to see off as long as they don't ignore a Claim Form.

Please also post this outcome in POPLA DECISIONS.

They'd have won if you'd told them to appeal as keeper. Not driver! It was easy...

delandrodders

Hi Coupon-mad,
many thanks, they appealed to the parking company before they asked me.

Coupon-mad

delandrodders said:

Hi Coupon-mad,
many thanks, they appealed to the parking company before they asked me. 

Ooh I hate it when that happens!

Car1980

Send an email to this rather notorious organisation:

https://www.disabledmotoring.org/

They'll either give you some supporting words that you may be able to use one day (!)

or more likely, they'll show their true colours in supporting "fines" for disabled drivers, undermining their entire raison d'être.

Generally interested to see what they come back with. This case is a real Sophie's Choice for them.

Their logo is plastered all over a lot of PPC websites. You never know, they might even tell UKPC to wind their neck in.

delandrodders

This is their reply to my complaint

Thank you for your email outlining the reason why you are unhappy with the decision that has been reached by the assessor in your appeal. This was passed to me by the POPLA team as I am responsible for investigating complaints.

 

It is worth pointing out that before submitting an appeal, our website informs appellants that POPLA is a one-stage appeal service and we cannot reconsider your appeal if you disagree with our decision.

 

Clearly, the crux of your complaint is that you are unhappy with the outcome reached in the assessment of your appeal; you believe that the assessor has failed to protect the motorist and discriminated against them under the Equality Act 2010.

 

I refer to the assessor’s rationale, which explains:

 

“I am able to consider a discretionary extension to this minimum provision in my capacity, based on the evidence and grounds presented to me. In essence, the appellant’s primary case is that an extra 10 minutes (on top of the standard minimum grace period) should be allowed in this case. On this point I must assess the parking event itself, and the reasons given for the extra time used. While the appellant’s grounds to POPLA have not provided an account of the parking event of 2 hours and 20 minutes that took place, for me to understand how the additional time was used, at the first stage of appeal to the operator the motorist stated: “I have a valid blue badge and I honestly thought we are entitled to an extra hour”.

 

On this basis, I am not able to consider this is a case whereby a disabled motorist required additional time to leave the site, rather I must now be satisfied this PCN is a result of the motorist being unaware that no disabled concessions (such as those providing up to 3 hours of parking in public areas) applied at this private car park.”

 

Please see a copy of the motorist’s appeal to the operator for reference:

In this case, I can see that the assessor considered the relevant law but deemed there to be insufficient information regarding the nature of the overstay to determine whether a 20-minute grace period was applicable; the motorist’s appeal to the operator indicated that they simply overstayed by mistake as they believed they were entitled to park for longer.

 

For further information, section 4 of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice recognises the Equality Act 2010 and advises that parking operators must make parking accessible. While operators must make reasonable adjustments for disabled motorists/passengers, there isn’t a requirement that it allow a breach of its parking terms and conditions. In this case, the evidence suggests that the motorist simply exceeded the maximum stay time.

 

Overall, having reviewed both the appeal and your complaint, I am satisfied the decision reached is appropriate based on the evidence presented.

 

As POPLA’s role is solely to assess the validity of the parking charge notice, we are unable to address any operator complaints. Should you wish to raise a complaint regarding the operator’s conduct, then you may wish to raise it with Smart Parking directly. Please see the following link to its internal complaints procedure: UK Complaints Policy | Smart Parking

 

In closing, I am sorry that your experience of using our service has not been positive. However, POPLA’s involvement in your appeal has now ended and this response concludes our complaints process. It will not be appropriate for us to correspond further on this matter and all further correspondence will be noted on your case, but not responded to.

 

You are of course, free to pursue this matter further through other means, such as the Courts. For independent advice, you may wish to contact Citizens Advice at: www.citizensadvice.org.uk or call 0345 404 05 06 (English) or 0345 404 0505 (Welsh).

 

Yours sincerely,

 

[Removed by Forum Team]

POPLA Complaints Team

 

 

POPLA Complaints complaints@popla.co.uk

Coupon-mad

Just ignore it, tell them if you move house and come back when the claim form arrives.