Free Traffic Legal Advice

On that basis, shouldn't the rectangular speed camera warning signs like the one below be unlawful when they are placed on roads with no speed cameras? If that's not misleading I don't know what is.
<br>
<br>

Is that technically a "warning sign"?  Warning signs, in the Highway Code, are usually (not always) triangular with red borders. I think this is an informationsign.

https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/information-signs.html

Also, I don't think it actually means "there are definitely speed cameras here".  I think it means, as the site above says, that you're entering an area where speed cameras are used. Could that include temporary or mobile ones?

As others have said, there isn't enough information here for meaningful advice.

What I'm hearing is a sense of injustice: some employees seem to use this space without any problem, but you (OP) have not only been told not to use it, but told that doing so would be contrary to the employee Code of Conduct.

So one question is: what part of the code of conduct are you being threatened with?  Failure to follow a reasonable management instruction is a common provision in such a code.  Or perhaps the code even has a provision dealing with car parking.  Either way, we need to know what it says and what exactly has been said (verbally? in writing?).

Is there anything in your contract of employment relating to car parking?  Or anything in corporate policies about it?  Employers have wide latitude for controlling employer behaviour contractually.  There is nothing in principle, as far as I know, that would prevent them from instructing employees where they were allowed to park during working hours, and they may be able to do so outside working hours if doing so would damage or be a risk to the company somehow.   But we don't know whether there are real issues about parking where you want to park, or whether management are making it up for some reason.

If there are lots of employees, I could imagine car parking in the area being controversial with local residents or visitors, and complaints from them might be a reason for a policy. And it seems to be that it wouldn't be an unreasonable management instruction to ask employees not to park in such a way as to cause complaints.

And these other car parkers?  Do they have allocated spaces too, or not?  I could imagine a company telling employees to use their private car park during working hours, if they have a space allocated, so as not to take spaces away from either members of the public or other employees who don't have an allocated space. 

"Unfairness" isn't necessarily something you can take an employer to employment tribunal over. Not all unfairness is unlawful - you'd need to show that you've been treated unfairly because of a protected characteristic. For example, being able to park outside the car park but closer to the exit might be a reasonable adjustment due to disability.

But it could be grounds for internal grievance if a policy is being applied inconsistently (but we don't know if there is such a written policy, or that it is being applied inconsistently - the sparse info provided leaves this open).

I notice you've mentioned the Equality Act.  How does the Equality Act apply?

With my Computing lecturer hat on, I see no cause for concern. An IP address does not identify an individual (both factually and legally, according to case law from file sharing cases). Unless you've specifically paid for a fixed one and never use a mobile device or a different wifi network, they can change arbitrarily.

Although you are of course correct that an IP address doesn't identify an individual, on its own, it is regarded as an "online identifier" under GDPR, and "online identifiers" do legally constitute personal data. 

An IP address, combined with other information, can after all be used to distinguish one person from another, and thus to identify an individual.

After all, if you think about it, a name doesn't identify an individual.   There are thousands of John Smiths, to take the usual example.  But combine the name with an address, or a telephone number, or height, or birthdate, and you can tell one from John Smith from another and thus identify an individual.

The point being that "personal data" isn't necessarily data that identifies a person on its own.

I don't think this is true.

You can claim refunds via the Government website: https://www.gov.uk/tax-overpayments-and-underpayments/if-youre-due-a-refund

Fairsfair are a company who will act as an intermediary and charge for that service. There is no need to use them at all.

No mention of them here: https://www.gov.uk/tax-overpayments-and-underpayments/if-youre-due-a-refund

I am skeptical that HRMC directed anyone to use an intermediary company - is there any evidence of this?

Wouldn't have thought you'd find it pasted up anywhere, no.

Dan

My wife bid for and won a silent auction for charity, the proceeds of which go to a  hospice.  The auction was for two EasyJet tickets to anywhere that EasyJet flys.

She looked at the Terms and Conditions and the only exclusions were that you cannot fly on a bank holiday or during school holidays.

She bought them because we want to go to Israel, however when she came to book the flights EasyJet said that Israel is excluded.

Where do we stand.  It appears to me that because there was nothing in the Terms and Conditions about flying to Israel, EasyJet are under an obligation to honour the vouchers.

Can anyone advise please?

Easyjet flights to Tel Aviv have been suspended for a while now.  They were going to resume flights from 1 June, but that is now postponed to July 1.

https://www.easyjet.com/en/help/preparing-to-fly/latest-travel-information

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/easyjet-postpones-resumption-of-tel-aviv-flights-until-july-1/

Thus, while the charity tickets might be for anywhere to which easyjet flies, Israel is currently not somewhere to which easyjet is flying.