According to the law, it is a consideration period"According to [___] of the BPA Code of Practice"
It also makes it difficult to turn into to park and dangerous.Probably a Health and Safety issue.I'd be tempted to leave this sentence out. Whilst it's no doubt a fair point, it's arguably not directly related to whether or not the parking charge is owed. It's perhaps better to focus on the point immediately preceeding it, that the positioning of the bollards makes it difficult for wheelchair users to manoeuvre around their cars.
I think it may be limited to 10,000 characters so you may want to format your response in a text editor that can do a character count for you.With this is mind, be concise and factual. As b789 suggests, list (as numbered or bulleted points) each point they have not addressed, pointing out that as they have not addressed this point they seemingly do not dispute it. And if you disagree with any of the points they have made, explain your disagreements.
POPLA ref: [POPLA Reference Code]
Premier Park Ltd ref: [PCN Reference Number]
Vehicle registration: [Vehicle Registration Mark]
I am the Registered Keeper (RK) of the vehicle. I dispute the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the following grounds:
1. Non-Compliant Disabled Parking Bay Dimensions
2. Failure to Comply with BPA Code of Practice Section 16.5
3. Discrimination under the Equality Act 2010
4. De Minimis Principle
5. Inadequate Signage Leading to Breach of BPA Code of Practice Section 16.2
6. No Evidence of Landholder Authority
7. Operator has not shown that it has a contract to issue PCNs in its own name
1. Non-Compliant Disabled Parking Bay Dimensions:
The parking bay in question is a disabled parking bay that does not conform to the dimensions required by the "Inclusive Mobility" section of the Equality Act 2010. According to these guidelines, disabled parking bays should provide an extra 1200mm on each side to allow occupants with disabilities to safely access their vehicles.
In this instance, the bay in question is an end bay in a row of disabled parking bays. It only has the additional 1200mm space on one side, while the other side is obstructed by bollards, significantly restricting access. As the driver required access to both sides of the vehicle to accommodate a wheelchair, they parked with the vehicle slightly touching the edge of the bay marking. This was necessary to ensure safe access, as the photos provided clearly show that the vehicle was still wholly within the bay, with only the edge of the tyres touching the marking.
2. Failure to Comply with BPA Code of Practice Section 16.5:
Premier Parking Ltd, as an operator, is required to have regard for their duties under the Equality Act 2010, as stipulated by the BPA Code of Practice Section 16.5. By managing a disabled parking bay that does not meet the standards set out in the "Inclusive Mobility" guidelines, Premier Parking Ltd has failed to comply with these requirements. The inadequate dimensions of the bay directly resulted in the alleged infringement, as it was impossible to park fully within the bay while ensuring necessary access for the disabled driver.
3. Discrimination under the Equality Act 2010:
By failing to provide a disabled parking bay that conforms to the required standards, Premier Parking Ltd has discriminated against me as a disabled person. The Equality Act 2010 mandates that reasonable adjustments be made to avoid placing disabled persons at a substantial disadvantage. The parking bay's non-compliance with the stipulated dimensions placed me at such a disadvantage, necessitating the minor deviation in parking.
4. De Minimis Principle:
The alleged infringement is de minimis, meaning it is too minor to warrant action. The slight touching of the tyre on the bay marking did not obstruct other vehicles or pedestrians and was necessary due to the non-compliant bay dimensions. The principle of de minimis non curat lex (the law does not concern itself with trifles) should apply here, especially given the mitigating circumstances of the bay's non-compliance with the Equality Act 2010.
5. Inadequate Signage Leading to Breach of BPA Code of Practice Section 16.2:
The signage at the location fails to adequately bring to the attention of the driver the terms and conditions, including the charge for not complying. BPA Code of Practice Section 16.2 states that signs must be clearly readable without the driver needing to leave the vehicle. The signs at this location are not prominent, clear, or legible from all parking spaces, meaning that the terms were not properly communicated to the driver.
6. No Evidence of Landholder Authority:
Premier Parking Ltd has not shown that it has the authority from the landowner to issue and enforce parking charges. As stipulated in the BPA Code of Practice, operators must have clear authorization from the landowner to manage and enforce parking rules. Without such evidence, the PCN is invalid.
7. Operator Has Not Shown That It Has a Contract to Issue PCNs in Its Own Name:
There is no evidence that Premier Parking Ltd has a contract that entitles them to issue PCNs in their own name. This raises questions about the legitimacy of their operations and their authority to enforce parking regulations at this location.
Conclusion:
Given these points, I request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel the PCN. The operators failure to provide a disabled parking bay that meets the required standards directly impacted the situation, and the operator has not adhered to the legal and procedural requirements necessary to issue a valid PCN.
Dear Sir/Madam,
Re: Formal Complaint Against Premier Parking Ltd for Non-Compliance and Discrimination
I am writing to formally lodge a complaint against Premier Parking Ltd, an AOS member of the BPA, regarding the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued to me on [Date], PCN reference number [PCN Number], and their subsequent handling of my complaint.
Discrimination and Non-Compliance with the Equality Act
The PCN was issued for the alleged infringement of "not parked fully within the bay". The parking bay in question does not conform to the required standards set out in the “Inclusive Mobility” section of the Equality Act 2010 (EA) and as such, is a breach of the BPA Code of Practice section 16.5. As a disabled person, I require bays that meet the required standards to ensure I can safely and effectively access my vehicle. The inadequate width of the bay, due to it not having the extra 1,200mm width and with bollards on the edge, forced me to park with a minor and unavoidable deviation, with my tyre marginally touching the edge of the bay marking. This minor infringement was deemed de minimis and did not obstruct or inconvenience others.
By failing to provide disabled parking bays that meet the necessary standards, Premier Park Ltd has discriminated against me as a disabled person. Discrimination under the Equality Act is an offence in law. While Premier Park Ltd may not own the land, they are responsible for the management of the car park and must ensure that the disabled bays conform to legal requirements. A similar complaint is being lodged with the landowner, Torbay Council.
Breach of BPA Code of Practice and Inadequate Response
Moreover, the failure of Premier Park Ltd to adequately respond to my complaint, separate from my appeal, constitutes a breach of the BPA Code of Practice section 9.7. Section 16.5 of the BPA Code of Practice stipulates that operators must have regard to their duties under the Equality Act. Issuing a PCN for a de minimis infringement in a non-compliant disabled parking bay, and then ignoring a legitimate complaint about this issue, is neither reasonable nor proportionate.
Request for BPA Review and Action
In light of these points, I request the BPA to:
1. Conduct a thorough investigation into this matter.
2. Take appropriate action against Premier Park Ltd for non-compliance with the Equality Act and the BPA Code of Practice.
3. Mandate the cancellation of the unjust PCN.
4. Ensure that Premier Park Ltd rectifies the bay dimensions to comply with the “Inclusive Mobility” standards.
I would appreciate your attention to this matter. I look forward to your prompt response and a resolution to this issue.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
I have attached photos of area below, not my car but someone else did exactly teh same as me to try and get access to the left side of their car too, you can see bolder/posts are smack in way of door access and no space for anyone to get in and out of car
Should I complain to parking at council and not bother with Premier parking?If you don't get anywhere with the landowner/council/managing agent then in my view you definitely should bother with Premier Parking. If you've not heard back from anyone before Premier's arbitrary appeal deadline then appeal to them - you may wish to compile a draft appeal and share here for comment.