PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Equality act (BB not displayed) win against PPC
The Rookie
post Fri, 26 Nov 2021 - 09:25
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 50,465
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



A BB holder was issued with a PCN just 83 seconds after parking despite showing the VCS attendant his BB but not displaying it while he read the signs.

https://www.itv.com/news/central/2021-11-23...just-83-seconds

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 - 09:26


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 8)
Advertisement
post Fri, 26 Nov 2021 - 09:25
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
DancingDad
post Fri, 26 Nov 2021 - 09:35
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24,081
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



Judge must have bin really upset with VCS if the report on costs is right.
If it is, fair play to him and a deserved kick in the wallet for VCS

End of the day, it is not only about the BB, disabled or display.
Reasonable time to read and digest contractual terms on the sign comes into it.
So much wrong and does seem to typify the PPC industry

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Fri, 26 Nov 2021 - 10:46
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 50,465
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Total award was £1000 made up of costs and a GDPR/EA counter claim. (I've had direct contact since posting with the defendant in the case).

The BPA CoP contradicts itself of course as it gives a 5 minute grace for
QUOTE
The driver must have the chance to consider the Terms and Conditions before entering into the ‘parking contract’ with you


But also says
QUOTE
Unauthorised motorists will not be entitled to the minimum time period of 5 minutes for a consideration period in spaces designated for specific users e.g Blue Badge holders

Thus creating a de-facto 'forbidding' situation as their own CoP says that to rely on a contractual basis they must allow you time to agree the contract yet denies you that time under certain circumstances.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Fri, 26 Nov 2021 - 12:06
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24,081
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



Devil's advocate on the CoP discrepancy.
In a way it is understandable and even sensible.
This is part of the parking area within Midland Way.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.9559969,-...6384!8i8192
Disabled bays seem clearly marked and right outside Subway, Greggs and Dominos.
The sort of places where chancers will use an empty disabled bay rather then park legitimately and walk.
Then claim CoP and 5 minutes grace to "read" the contract terms.
If the bay is clearly marked, then displaying a BB (if held) should be second nature and for that part of any terms, does not need 5 minutes.

Which is not defending VCS in the slightest, the moment it became clear that a BB was available and legitimately held, any parking charge should have been dropped..... but that makes them no money and is not their modus operandi
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 26 Nov 2021 - 13:07
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,803
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 26 Nov 2021 - 12:06) *
Which is not defending VCS in the slightest, the moment it became clear that a BB was available and legitimately held, any parking charge should have been dropped..... but that makes them no money and is not their modus operandi

Well not on this occasion, as it made them -£1,000.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative party member, this means some people think I am "scum". No, I am not a lawyer. I do not charge any fees, please stop asking me what my fees are.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Fri, 26 Nov 2021 - 16:42
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 50,465
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Sorry, the EA is clear that you don’t need a BB to be entitled to use the disabled bays.

If everyone charged for doing so fought back hard they would actually start to comply with the law perhaps.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Sun, 28 Nov 2021 - 22:53
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,069
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 26 Nov 2021 - 16:42) *
Sorry, the EA is clear that you don’t need a BB to be entitled to use the disabled bays.

No it doesn't.

In fact it is the exact opposite. The Equality Act requires people to take reasonable adjustments so that disabled people are not discriminated against.

It is not reasonable for a parking attendant to be psychic and know someone has a non-apparent disability if they don't display a blue badge.

It is reasonable and arguably required to provide enforcement where spaces are regularly blocked by non-disabled people meaning disabled people cannot use them.

Where VCS fell down was on the fact that it was reasonable for them to cancel the ticket once it was apparent the motorist was entitled to use the space.

Honestly as someone who is disabled this "the Equality Act gives me the right to be a demanding muppet" is highly annoying Daily Mail fodder.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mickR
post Sun, 28 Nov 2021 - 23:13
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,155
Joined: 5 Jan 2007
From: England
Member No.: 9,919



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 26 Nov 2021 - 10:46) *
Total award was £1000 made up of costs and a GDPR/EA counter claim. (I've had direct contact since posting with the defendant in the case).

The BPA CoP contradicts itself of course as it gives a 5 minute grace for
QUOTE
The driver must have the chance to consider the Terms and Conditions before entering into the ‘parking contract’ with you


But also says
QUOTE
Unauthorised motorists will not be entitled to the minimum time period of 5 minutes for a consideration period in spaces designated for specific users e.g Blue Badge holders

Thus creating a de-facto 'forbidding' situation as their own CoP says that to rely on a contractual basis they must allow you time to agree the contract yet denies you that time under certain circumstances.


but surely being a blue badge holder then makes the driver authoritied
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Mon, 29 Nov 2021 - 15:21
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 50,465
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sun, 28 Nov 2021 - 22:53) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 26 Nov 2021 - 16:42) *
Sorry, the EA is clear that you don’t need a BB to be entitled to use the disabled bays.

No it doesn't.

In fact it is the exact opposite. The Equality Act requires people to take reasonable adjustments so that disabled people are not discriminated against.

It is not reasonable for a parking attendant to be psychic and know someone has a non-apparent disability if they don't display a blue badge.

It is reasonable and arguably required to provide enforcement where spaces are regularly blocked by non-disabled people meaning disabled people cannot use them.

Where VCS fell down was on the fact that it was reasonable for them to cancel the ticket once it was apparent the motorist was entitled to use the space.

Honestly as someone who is disabled this "the Equality Act gives me the right to be a demanding muppet" is highly annoying Daily Mail fodder.

The parking attendant has no need to be psychic, the company should just cancel when they have the evidence someone with protected characteristics was in the car, a perfectly reasonable adjustment, as you then agree. Although in this instant case the attendant seemed to be fully aware and then decide to issue the ticket anyway, either an a-hole or badly trained or both.

I have no issue charging those without an SC for parking, and don’t contribute to threads helping those people, and I didn’t say they should be allowed off so suggest you get a ladder…..

I don’t think the EA gives them that right, and that wasn’t the case here, but under the EA VCS should both train its attendants properly AND/OR cancel as above. The judge with all the facts seems to agree with me.

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 - 16:08


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 20th January 2022 - 14:32
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.