Premier Parking - parked outside bay

sunman33

Hello, has anyone had any joy winning an appeal for parking outside the bay? Admittedly the car was slightly outside of the bay but I appealed on 1 main ground (signage does not comply with Equality Act 2010 sections 20, 21 and 29) and 2 other grounds.

The summary is that I appealed and they rejected and they've quoted section 13 in their rejection of the appeal but my actual grounds were sections 20–21 and 29. Essentially the duty to make anticipatory and reasonable adjustments. Apologies for the lengthy post but more detailed information about my appeal and their response is below!

Key points from my appeal

1. Failure to make reasonable adjustments for a hidden disability — Equality Act 2010

Quite often, I got bowel issues so there are times where I can't always spend ages making sure car is exactly within lines. Especially if parking bays are quite narrow. If it was a busy car park I always would try to though. Anyway, there's nothing on signage that says if you have any issues with parking then contact us here.

Under sections 20, 21 and 29 of the Equality Act 2010, service providers (including car park operators) owe an anticipatory duty to disabled service users to make reasonable adjustments. This duty applies in advance, not only on request or after a breach has already been penalised.

2. Disproportionate charge / no legitimate interest

The car park was virtually empty, a £50 fine (rising to £120) seems very disproportionate!

3. Minor and technical nature of the breach

I didn't impact upon any car park users. Adding to the disproportionality I guess.

Premier Parking's appeal response

Premier Parking have rejected on ground 1 and not even bothered to address points 2 and 3.

Response was "We do not believe that our actions contravene the Equality Act 2010, nor do we discriminate against individuals with any of the protected characteristics defined by the Act. Section 13 of the Equality Act states: 
 
“A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others.” 
 
At the time the Parking Charge Notice was issued, we had no knowledge of the appellant’s personal circumstances or any protected characteristic. Our processes are applied consistently to all motorists, and there is no evidence to suggest that the appellant was treated less favourably than others in similar circumstances. 
 
We remain committed to ensuring that our practices comply fully with the Equality Act 2010 and that all individuals are treated fairly and without discrimination."

Any guidance about likelihood of success as POPLA would be helpful!

Thanks

TooManyPoints

The adjudicator may wonder what “reasonable adjustments” you expect the car park operator to make in your circumstances. What do you expect them to do (other than simply ignore it when you fail to comply with their conditions)?

The adjudicator may also wonder whether, if you are unable to accurately park in a virtually empty car park, whether you ought to be driving at all.

I’m unsurprised they have not responded to your points 2 and 3. They could apply to anybody using the car park. You seem to be suggesting that their conditions should only be enforced when the car park is busy. So with that in mind, are you sure it was not likely to get busier after you had arrived?

sunman33

Thanks for the feedback. Definitely good too hear what the pushback could be.

I guess in terms of "reasonable adjustments" it's quite simply a question if the signage says if you have an issue with our contract and rules and we haven't anticipated this then contact us here at this phone number/email/social media etc and we can try to adjust for you. That is surely the point of the Equality Act.

It moves the conversation from a "me" thing to a global "any person" who might have an issue where they have slightly strayed from their contract rules and simply couldn't comply at the time. People who aren't Blue Badge disabled but do have issues sometimes can't play by the rules all the time.

sunman33

P.s. This car park is rarely busy! But yeah I guess I am kind of suggesting a bit of common sense and proportionality when it comes to "punishment"! Like come on guys, who was this inconsiderate parking even harming?! Taking a picture of a car next to the sign in view but perhaps not taking pictures of other cars who might have also slightly transgressed seems more financially motivated. I could be wrong but was that not a factor in the Beavis case?

TooManyPoints

I guess in terms of "reasonable adjustments" it's quite simply a question if the signage says if you have an issue with our contract and rules and we haven't anticipated this then contact us here at this phone number/email/social media etc and we can try to adjust for you.

But you didn't have time to park properly. How would you have had time to do that? You could only make representations after the event, and you’ve done that without success.

The only effective adjustment I can see that could be made to accommodate your problem would be to allow you to contravene the operator’s requirements. I do not believe that would be reasonable. It may have been in the empty car park you used. But car parks are often busy and it cannot be reasonable in all circumstances. I really cannot see that flying.

Apart from that, with the car park virtually empty I cannot see how I would take you significantly longer to park accurately than it would to park out of a bay as you did. I believe that is the view an adjudicator will take.

I have to say that my area of expertise is not parking issues. But I can take a reasoned guess on how I believe an adjudicator would view this. But others may have a different opinion.

Mildly_Miffed

If your driving is of sufficient competence to pass the driving test, parking WITHIN the lines takes precisely zero extra time.

If the carpark was heaving, and your excuse was that you didn't have time to find a spot so dumped it in the middle of a hatched area or similar, you MIGHT have an argument, but I suspect you would need to produce medical proof to stand the faintest chance.

But in a free bay, almost within the lines? No.

C'mon, let's see a photo of just how far out you were…

LightFlare

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82129108#Comment_82129108

where do you draw the line though - is it ok therefore to drive at 100 if there are no other cars ?

You will probably get a more “technical” defence suggestion if you post in the sub forum dedicated to parking

Here it tends to be less sympathetic/more realistic

I look forward to the day when parking companies dot the i and cross the t and sort out their signage/contract etc to remove technical arguments against very basic and simple actions

Herzlos

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82129108#Comment_82129108

Could the drivers parking outside of the lines cause difficulty for anyone else? For example, was the car preventing the next space being accessed or was it overlapping the end of the row? In the latter, depending on how much overlap we're talking about here, you could argue that it couldn't have caused any inconvenience.

I think your best avenue of success is focusing on whether they have any standing to be issuing invoices, if any contract is legally binding, and if the charge is proportional.

For reference their business model comes solely from issuing tickets, they've got no incentive to accept an appeal or apply any kind of common sense. Their appeals system is completely biased as is the 'independent' appeals they'll suggest next.

So your left with either paying up or waiting to see if they'll take you to a small claims court. It'll cost them more than they make so there's a chance they'll just write some scary letters and then give up, but if they do go down that route then you'll waste a day explaining to the judge why the whole thing is predatory.

Okell

This should be on the parking board…

Car1980

1. They'll almost never allow "appeals". It's a sham.

2. Popla do not consider the Equality Act 2010. It too is a sham.

3. Because you posted in the wrong section you have unfortunately received replies from some idiots who do not understand parking contract law.

4. Ignore them and come back if you receive a Letter Before Claim in the post from a bulk litigator. This is usually BW Legal with Premier Park.

5. in the meantime, try complaining to the landowner. They have to power to instruct Premier to cancel, even if they pretend they don't.