Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • deshulina
    • By deshulina 7th Sep 17, 1:12 PM
    • 40Posts
    • 32Thanks
    deshulina
    PArking CCJ over 10 in a car park
    • #1
    • 7th Sep 17, 1:12 PM
    PArking CCJ over 10 in a car park 7th Sep 17 at 1:12 PM
    Good afternoon everyone,
    Thank you for stopping by to read my post.


    So this is how it all started , last Friday my partner and I decided to open a joint bank account an error occurred and the lady at the bank said that it was on my said. Confused by her statement I logged on to experian and was shocked on how my credit rating has gone down upon researching I found out i was issued a CCJ.


    I called the court and figured out it was Parking eye that had filled the CCJ against me. I rang them up and got to the bottom of the matter:


    On the 27th of January I parked at a car park in London, discovered I have no change and no debit card I left the car in the car park with the hazard lights on to find a place to get change from, however was reluctant so returned to the car park after 10 minutes and drove my car off.*

    Couple of days after I received a parking ticket for illegally parking at the same car park mentioned above, I challenged the fine explaining the circumstances and got a letter with rejection.*

    At the time we were moving house while I was going serious medical issues there forward this completely slip my mind until couple of days ago when i discovered the CCJ because of it.*


    ( The rejection letter from parking eye was send 15th of February.

    (We moved house on the 06th of March.

    My license was changed on the 15th of March. (changed to the new address)

    The papers of the V5 were send off 15th of April (changed to the new address)

    Received on the 3rd of May (with the new address)


    However non of this was reflected and all the papers were send to the old address.



    I contacted parking eye today the 1st of September and spoke with a very rude lady on the other side of the phone which informed me that there is nothing they can do I need to file a N244 form and pray for the best !


    I read that you could email parking eye and ask them if they would be prepared to sign a consent order if I paid the charges in full. However I am struggling to find their legal teams email and to structure this right.



    I know there is many people how are going through this and i highly appreciate any assistance, I only want the CCJ set aside. I don't mind paying I just want the CCJ removed.I beg you for any advice and help I will be very grateful .


    Thank you !
Page 5
    • deshulina
    • By deshulina 27th Jan 18, 1:07 AM
    • 40 Posts
    • 32 Thanks
    deshulina
    Hi coupon mad,
    I did apply for the CCJ to be put aside and submitted the information as I have previously posted here.

    I just got the papers from PE today so I have to idea and I'm really confused as what will follow.

    I just double checked as well in the court papers is to set the can aside.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 27th Jan 18, 9:56 AM
    • 35,136 Posts
    • 19,238 Thanks
    Quentin
    This is PE's response to the set aside application.


    The hearing mentioned in #79 is the set aside hearing


    You cannot alter your initial statement now, but will be given the opportunity to rebut their arguments at the hearing
    • deshulina
    • By deshulina 27th Jan 18, 10:00 AM
    • 40 Posts
    • 32 Thanks
    deshulina
    Thank you ,

    Is there anything I could say or mention on top of my initial statement that could somehow benefit me.

    I must admit I am really scared now as they are arguing the set aside.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 27th Jan 18, 3:05 PM
    • 56,275 Posts
    • 69,906 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Just to summarise here from your OP, because I choose not to use the blue forum view that shows the OP at the top of every page:

    On the 27th of January I parked at a car park in London, discovered I have no change and no debit card I left the car in the car park with the hazard lights on to find a place to get change from, however was reluctant so returned to the car park after 10 minutes and drove my car off.*

    Couple of days after I received a parking ticket for illegally parking at the same car park mentioned above, I challenged the fine explaining the circumstances and got a letter with rejection.*

    At the time we were moving house while I was going serious medical issues there forward this completely slip my mind until couple of days ago when i discovered the CCJ because of it.*

    The rejection letter from parking eye was send 15th of February.

    We moved house on the 06th of March.

    My license was changed on the 15th of March. (changed to the new address)

    The papers of the V5 were send off 15th of April (changed to the new address)

    Received on the 3rd of May (with the new address)

    However non of this was reflected and all the papers were send to the old address.
    The main argument you MUST win at this hearing is that the CCJ should be set aside because it was a fact that you did NOT receive any claim form. So concentrate your efforts on showing that:

    - you did move house

    - you did update the DVLA quickly (prove it with paperwork)

    - you were 'there to be found' (i.e. on the electoral roll? Facebook etc.)

    - PE had your email address all along (from online appeal) why didn't they use it?

    - you have been suffering long-term ongoing serious medical issues so this just was not at the forefront of your mind, but had you known about the claim, you would have defended it on 'no reasonable grace period' (same as you had appealed it, you are not the type to ignore such unfair charges)

    - they used an old address, and had not heard from you since February so should have carried out a simple trace. ParkingEye use a tracing agent in many cases so with something as significant and damaging financially, as filing a claim against a consumer, they should have done the same with you.

    Now they might say they could not have known you'd moved, and that you had appealed using the address they had. Maybe that's true but the fact remains they had your email address!

    And they could have found you easily, should have made an effort to make sure because the clues were there, you'd suddenly gone from responding, to silence, which was a pointer to a possible house move. And say that the Government highlighted parking firms as being among the very worst offenders in getting stealth CCJs just like this one, deemed unacceptable business practice (here, show a printout of the Government's press release from Sir Oliver Heald, as hosted by the Parking Prankster in a blog about the Government's statement on secret CCJs).

    Hi Half_way,
    I was present in the car park for 12 minutes, and the fine itself is issued for 12 minutes stay in a car park but no further information. You can have a look I have a scanned copy in the previous posts. As the car park it was in Maida vale.
    Originally posted by deshulina
    And secondly, you should have with you Kelvin Reynolds' article:

    http://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/good-car-parking-practice-includes-grace-periods

    ...which argues well against PE's version of the 'rules' which would be in their head, they 'allow' an inflexible ten minutes grace, regardless of circumstances, regardless of whether it's dark and the driver has to struggle to read the signs and find a shop open to get change...Kelvin Reynolds at the BPA made it clear that the BPA section on Grace Periods is NOT a set ten minutes.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Castle
    • By Castle 27th Jan 18, 3:20 PM
    • 1,641 Posts
    • 2,203 Thanks
    Castle

    ...which argues well against PE's version of the 'rules' which would be in their head, they 'allow' an inflexible ten minutes grace, regardless of circumstances, regardless of whether it's dark and the driver has to struggle to read the signs and find a shop open to get change...Kelvin Reynolds at the BPA made it clear that the BPA section on Grace Periods is NOT a set ten minutes.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    You may want to refer to the "driving around for 31 minutes" case, (PE v Mrs X; case 18), where PE conceded, (at point 23), that a 20 minute grace period applied:-
    http://www.parking-prankster.com/case-law.html
    • deshulina
    • By deshulina 27th Jan 18, 4:11 PM
    • 40 Posts
    • 32 Thanks
    deshulina
    Thank you all so so much !
    You have no idea how much of a help this is to me.

    I lost a whole year of my life in worry and I really appreciate everyone's efforts and advice.

    I will print out the articles and bring all the primal documents with me.

    All I can do now is pray this comes to justice !!!

    Thank you fron the bottom of my heart
    • deshulina
    • By deshulina 31st Jan 18, 1:07 PM
    • 40 Posts
    • 32 Thanks
    deshulina
    Hi guys,

    I sat the case yesterday. PE did not turn up as they stated.

    The judge was very brief and it seemed like he didn't want to spend the time to actually hear the case. He got much of the information wrong and I had to correct him, however I did manage to satisfy him that the court papers were served at the wrong address and he only wanted to see the copy of my driving license and the date of issue.

    he had a brief look through the rest of the paper and said that there is no witness statement, I pointed out to the one I have written down and he said, he can't accept it as it's missing a signature at the bottom.

    He said he will set the CCJ aside for now , but wants be to submit my new witness statement in 14 day period and to present a copy to PE as well.

    He also mentioned that the section of it being a unenforceable penalty does not work in my favor an this is the update so far.

    I am about to ring citizen advice as I feel in a right muddle and would like o hear what they have to say., but just wanted to let you know the outcome of yesterday.
    • Ralph-y
    • By Ralph-y 31st Jan 18, 1:33 PM
    • 2,572 Posts
    • 3,201 Thanks
    Ralph-y
    "I am about to ring citizen advice as I feel in a right muddle"

    I would suggest not ....... unless you want further 'muddling'

    wait for further forum advice

    Ralph
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 31st Jan 18, 11:51 PM
    • 56,275 Posts
    • 69,906 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    DO NOT ring CAB. DO NOT ring CAB!! Sadly they are worse than clueless about private parking.

    Your WS needed signing under a 'statement of truth', as all examples here are. Nothing difficult.

    He also mentioned that the section of it being a unenforceable penalty does not work in my favor
    Depends if you understand what you are arguing, have read the Beavis case, an can point out the difference.

    But you no longer have a CCJ wrecking your credit file, it's lifted, gone completely - well done so far!
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 31-01-2018 at 11:55 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • deshulina
    • By deshulina 1st Feb 18, 1:15 PM
    • 40 Posts
    • 32 Thanks
    deshulina
    Hi guys,

    Thank you so much for your support !

    I got the message and I haven't called CAB. I have 12 days to rewrite my statement and to send it off now and will concentrate on that !

    I know Coupon-mad whit the reference he made to the Bavis case hence the reason why I grew so confused .

    I will past the rewritten statement here later on today and will send off ASAP to the court after !
    • deshulina
    • By deshulina 6th Feb 18, 10:27 PM
    • 40 Posts
    • 32 Thanks
    deshulina
    Hi guys,

    I will be hopefully printing this out tomorrow and have it recorder to both the court and PE.

    I will attached all the pictures, the copy of the CoP of BPA and the fine issued on the date. I rewrote my statement and it look would be very regretful if I can get just a final briefing before I send it off. I copy is posted below.

    Thank you !

    Claim No. D3XXXX



    Last edited by deshulina; 07-02-2018 at 10:29 PM. Reason: Clear derection easier to read forum space !
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 6th Feb 18, 10:36 PM
    • 56,275 Posts
    • 69,906 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    In the Northampton county court Claim number: D3XXXX5
    It's not in the Northampton County Court, unless that's where you happen to live.

    All online county court claims start at the CCBC in Northampton as a handling centre, nothing more. The Northampton Court doesn't come into the equation unless you live there.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • deshulina
    • By deshulina 7th Feb 18, 8:32 PM
    • 40 Posts
    • 32 Thanks
    deshulina
    Thank you @Coupon-mad I wasn't sure if it had to be the exact same at the top, shall I put the name of the court that the case will be dealt with (I know this could sound very silly but I am really confused at present)/

    Thank you !
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th Feb 18, 8:49 PM
    • 56,275 Posts
    • 69,906 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Don't send that Recorded Delivery, never ever send 'signed for' to a scum firm who won't sign!

    Email the final, signed/dated copy to PE:

    enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk

    Send by post (proof of posting) or personally hand deliver the court's copy to them.

    But this is ParkingEye and I am reading a load of stuff that has nothing to do with PE in that draft! Remove all the stuff about Gladstones cases, roboclaims, Hayes & Harlington, ''unenforceable penalty'' (don't go there!), none of which makes any sense for a ParkingEye case.

    The only part of #4 I like is:

    4.1. The signage cannot be safely read while driving. There can therefore be no meeting of minds and no contract by performance.
    Remove the rest of #4, which comes across as waffle not relevant to this case.

    The parts about no grace period, and what actually happened (that you left and didn't accept any contract) are good. Keep them in!

    As you have a chronic condition that affects your mobility in daily life, you are considered to meet the definition of disability, in the Equality Act 2010. Therefore the very fact that a service provider has attempted to charge you for the time taken, and not made any 'reasonable adjustment' for people with protected characteristics like you in the population at large, is illegal and discriminatory.

    You should have a section saying that, and please read the EHRC Equality Act Code of Practice for Service Providers (Google it).

    Search it for the word 'tours', which gives you an example of why an arbitrary time limit is illegal, even when the service provider does not know/could not have known about an individual's mobility problems. That's not a justified lawful excuse for indirect discrimination (arbitrary time limit), because INdirect discrimination does not need the service provider to know about an individual's condition, or mobility needs.

    It places a legal duty on them to extend 'anticipatory' policies in advance to make premises accessible for disabled people (and that doesn't mean bunging in some disabled bays, it covers EVERY aspect, including time limits). Failure to make a reasonable adjustment of time.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 07-02-2018 at 8:52 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • deshulina
    • By deshulina 7th Feb 18, 8:52 PM
    • 40 Posts
    • 32 Thanks
    deshulina
    @Cupon-mad you have been absolutely brilliant I will edit the statement and take all of your advice on board ! !

    Thank you so very much !
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th Feb 18, 9:30 PM
    • 56,275 Posts
    • 69,906 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Take the EHRC CoP re the Equality Act with you and highlight the bit about ''tours'' (time limit being discriminatory to people with mobility issues), and highlight the bit about INdirect discrimination.

    PE have pulled the wool over a Judge's eyes before about the EA and bleated that ''we could not have known'' about a medical condition, and so (they lied) ''there could be no discrimination''. That's only true of direct discrimination, where the person's condition is known. You need to read about 'INdirect discrimination' to understand the service provider's anticipatory duty to the (unknown, faceless) disabled population ''at large''. It is no justification to say 'waaah, we couldn't have known...'.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • deshulina
    • By deshulina 7th Feb 18, 10:27 PM
    • 40 Posts
    • 32 Thanks
    deshulina
    I just came up with the following but what got me thinking is the fact that there were no disabled bays to begin with and the fact that they have been guilty of both direct and indirect discrimination and they have used discrimination based on my disability..... I take longer to walk because of m cronic condition ..... they issue a fine....
    The Act says that treatment of a disabled person amounts to discrimination
    where:
    !!!8226; a service provider treats the disabled person unfavourably;
    !!!8226; this treatment is because of something arising in consequence of the
    disabled person!!!8217;s disability; and
    !!!8226; the service provider cannot show that


    There is an other side of things in which I could have been dyslexic and took longer to read the sign or couldn't understand the sign if I was foreign so on the given bases they are not considered in an shape of form of all disabilities in different shapes and sizes..... am I wrong ?



    Furthermore I believe that this parking charge notice was issued in beach with the equality act 2010. As I have as mentioned I suffer from a chronic condition that affects my mobility in daily life and I am considered to meet the definition of disability, in the Equality Act 2010.

    Therefore the very fact that a service provider has attempted to charge me for the time taken, and not made any 'reasonable adjustment' for people with protected characteristics like mine and the population at large, is illegal and discriminatory.



    I believe given the facts stated prior this parking charge notice is in direct breach of EHRC Equality Act Code of Practice for Service Providers underChapter 5:Indirect Discriminationand Chapter 6 Discrimination arising from disability of the code. (copies of which provided in Annex X ).

    The claimant has not complied with the EHRC Equality Act Code of Practice for Service Providers as the parking charge notice was issued for !!!8220;remaining in a car park for longer than permitted time!!!8221; and no consideration was made towards people with disabilities and the issue of this parking charge notice was made in a discriminating nature as the delay in my actions was due to my chronical condition which was used against me.

    What is discrimination arising from disability?
    What does the Act say?
    6.3

    !!!8220;The Act says that treatment of a disabled person amounts to discrimination
    where:
    !!!8226; a service provider treats the disabled person unfavourably;
    !!!8226; this treatment is because of something arising in consequence of the
    disabled person!!!8217;s disability; and
    !!!8226; the service provider cannot show that this treatment is a proportionate
    means of achieving a legitimate aim !!!8220;
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th Feb 18, 10:57 PM
    • 56,275 Posts
    • 69,906 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Furthermore I believe that this parking charge notice was issued in breach with of the Indirect Discrimination and 'reasonable adjustments' section of the Equality Act 2010.
    You need to refer to their anticipatory statutory duty to make and adjust policies in advance, to allow for the fact that people with protected characteristics will visit, and will take longer to get to a machine (in fact that's also in the BPA Code of Practice, go and read that too, take your time). Get the quote from the BPA CoP about disabled people taking longer...

    There is an other side of things in which I could have been dyslexic and took longer to read the sign or couldn't understand the sign if I was foreign so on the given bases they are not considered in an shape of form of all disabilities in different shapes and sizes.
    Not a good argument, it is speculative and signs only have to be readable to an average driver who is expected to be able to read a sign, in order to be driving. So forget that bit.

    Concentrate on your mobility issue when mentioning the EA but you MUST be very familiar with the fact that there is no excuse of them saying 'we didn't know and couldn't have known' about your condition. Quite right, they could not have known, but individual needs are not the point of indirect discrimination and their anticipatory duty under statute, to make provisions in advance so that premises are accessible (disabled bays and time allowances greater than an able-bodied person would need).
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • deshulina
    • By deshulina 7th Feb 18, 11:14 PM
    • 40 Posts
    • 32 Thanks
    deshulina
    Great,
    I will print everything out and read it on my way to work tomorrow including the bit of the CoP of BPA and will concentrate on my mobility issue.

    I will base the statement around the fact that :

    They have not met the reasonable adjustments duty stated by the Equality Act 2010 and how they failed to fulfill their anticipatory statutory duty to make and adjust policies in advance.

    I will print out the relevant information for the court as well so I can send the paper copies over too.


    Thank you Coupon-mad, you are a star !!

    Ps

    Please excuse my previous post I have been up from very early and it's starting to take it's toll on me !
    • deshulina
    • By deshulina 9th Feb 18, 9:42 PM
    • 40 Posts
    • 32 Thanks
    deshulina
    Hi everyone I managed to pull most of the statement together, I highly appreciate all of your support in this. I have very recently lost my grandad and have been overwhelmed with emotions so it has been a right struggle to put this together.

    I managed to come up with the statement bellow and I just hope the judge has some mercy, the only thing I am not quite sure about is how to structure the conclusion and would highly appreciate any feedback:


    I wish to appeal on the following reasons:

    1) No contract
    2) Lack of visible signage
    3) Breach of Pofa2012 and BPA CoP
    4) Breach of Equality Act 2010

    I was, at the relevant date, the registered keeper of the vehicle in question registration number
    XXXX. Below is a summary of my version of the events:

    The car park had a sign which was nearly at 3 meters height making it hard to read from the ground. So I had to pull in and get out of the car to try and read what the sign said to be able to understand the term and conditions of the car park.
    Unfortunately the print on the sign was too small and unclear for me to read so I walked to the entrance of the car park to in my attempt to find a readable signage.

    Once I realised that the car park doesn't take notes but only coins and phone payments I realised that I have to go back to my vehicle parked at the bottom of the car park 34 meters from the entrance to be able to obtain my debit card in order to make a payment. (Please note that I have a chronic condition which disables me from walking at normal speed so I take longer to walk a distance of such compare to an average adult.)

    Upon returning to the car I realised that my debit card was absent so I had to try and find change in order to be able to pay for the amount of time I was planning to leave my vehicle in the carpark for. Realising that I wasn't able to pay for the parking and unwilling to abuse the car park I got back into my vehicle and left the car park as I was unable to pay for the time I was initially planning to stay at the car park for.

    I was subsequently shocked to receive an unexpected Notice to Keeper from the Claimant, alleging that a charge of 100 was due. Whilst at my old address, I did send an appeal to the Claimant and appealed the parking charge in good faith, and expected it to be cancelled since the car was only actually stopped briefly to read the signs and decide whether to stay and accept the contract (I did not) or leave (which I did).

    1.
    No contract had ever been agreed and this case can be fully distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, a complex and completely different case, where the Defendant stayed, having read and accepted the parking licence and conditions.

    1.1
    The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist.


    1.2
    The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is barely legible, making it difficult to read.

    1.3
    The sign does not contain an obligation as to !!!8216;appropriate parking time!!!8217; nor the !!!8216;permitted time!!!8217;, therefore there was no breach of any !!!8216;relevant obligation!!!8217; or !!!8216;relevant contract!!!8217; as required under Schedule 4 of POFA.

    1.4
    In the absence of !!!8216;adequate notice!!!8217; of the terms and the charge (which must be in large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case)
    this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA.


    1.5
    I did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
    I deny that would have agreed to pay the original demand of 100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.

    (2)
    It is not possible that a valid parking charge exists for the following reasons:

    2.1
    The signage cannot be safely read while driving. There can therefore be no meeting of minds and no contract by performance.

    2.2
    The sign does not contain an obligation as to !!!8216;appropriate parking time!!!8217; nor the !!!8216;permitted time!!!8217;, therefore there was no breach of any !!!8216;relevant obligation!!!8217; or !!!8216;relevant contract!!!8217; as required under Schedule 4 of POFA.

    2.3
    Even if there was a contract the signage fails informational requirements for contracts established in the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, enacted 13 June 2014, and so any contract would be non-bindng on the consumer.

    2.4
    There was therefore no valid reason to apply for my keeper data from the DVLA.

    2.5
    Additionally the operator contract with the DVLA only allows them to obtain data for parking contraventions and not for briefly stopping.


    2.6.
    My name and address information (together with other information) is classified as personal data within the meaning of s1(1) of the Data Protections Act (DPA). The Claimant has misused this data by attempting to claim a charge when there is no possibility that a lawful reason exists. Additionally, this data may only obtained and used from the DVLA for parking, and not for stopping.

    2.7.
    This is therefore a breach of data principle 1 (data must be used lawfully) and 2 (data must only be used for the purpose provided)



    3.
    I rely upon the Grace Periods section within the British Parking Association Code of Practice, and the fact that this was agreed by the BPA to include at least eleven minutes merely for the action of leaving a car park ('the grace period') as stated in an official BPA published article, which is in addition to and separate from the 'observation period' on arrival, the extra minutes also to be added, to physically park the car then read the signs and decide whether to accept the contract.

    Both the observation period and the grace period are stated to be fluid, depending upon the facts of the case, and can be more than ten minutes each:

    Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking Association (BPA) says there is a difference between !!!8216;grace!!!8217; periods and !!!8216;observation!!!8217; periods in parking and that good practice allows for this:

    !!!8220;An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. The BPA!!!8217;s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator!!!8217;s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket,!!!8221;

    !!!8220;No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability. [...] If a motorist decides they do not want to comply and leaves the car park, then a reasonable period of time should be provided also.!!!8221;


    3.1
    Furthermore the grace period was been stated in the official BPA CoP page 10 section 18 Signs:

    Section 18.5
    !!!8216;If a driver is parking with your permission, they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the contract with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.!!!8216;
    A resealable grace period in any car park should be given from the period of stopping. /this grace period was not observed and therefore the operator is in breach of the industry code of practice. Additionally no contract can be in place by conduct until a reasonable period elapses.
    !!!8216;

    (4)
    Furthermore I believe that this parking charge notice was issued in breach of the Indirect Discrimination and 'reasonable adjustments' section of the Equality Act 2010.
    As I have as mentioned I suffer from a chronic condition that affects my mobility in daily life and I am considered to meet the definition of disability, in the Equality Act 2010.

    Therefore the very fact that a service provider has attempted to charge me for the time taken, and not made any 'reasonable adjustment' for people with protected characteristics like mine and the population at large, is illegal and discriminatory.


    I believe given the facts stated prior this parking charge notice is in direct breach of EHRC Equality Act Code of Practice for Service Providers under Chapter 5: Indirect Discrimination and Chapter 6 Discrimination arising from disability of the code. (Copies of which provided in Annex X ).

    The claimant has not complied with the EHRC Equality Act Code of Practice for Service Providers as the parking charge notice was issued for !!!8220;remaining in a car park for longer than permitted time!!!8221; and no consideration was made towards people with disabilities and the issue of this parking charge notice was made in a discriminating nature as the delay in my actions was due to my chronicle condition which was used against me.




    (5)
    Conclusion


    On the basis that the Beavis case can be fully distinguished, and that the BPA Code of Practice (considered akin to regulation, by the Supreme Court) renders this 12 minute 'charge' effectively unrecoverable, I contend that there are high prospects of this claim being successfully defended


    Thank you !
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

146Posts Today

2,429Users online

Martin's Twitter