I didn't see your last response, so didn't get that you had suggested ignoring them until after I had responded. They did have photographs of the car, and the driver. Popla has denied the appeal, which I fully expected, because they state that it was daylight when she entered the car park, and so she could easily see the signs. They ignored the claims about their being positioned in such a way that she could not get close enough to see them in order to see them. I am not surprised that it was denied, I believe Popla is a waste of time. I also haven't ignored all what has been said. I followed DragonFly1967 advice, about contacting Cienworld and complaining direct, etc. You and he seem to disagree and then you have a go at me as if I am at fault. Let me be clear, this is not my parking charge, and this woman isn't the only person I care for who is disabled, she is one of several. I am doing this as a favour, and have very little spare time for it. I have a teenage daughter who is taking her GCSEs and cannot be expected to be perfect with this. I am doing the best I can, with what very little time I have for it. It is just part of me doing what I can for disabled people, so it doesn't help if you are abrupt and unforgiving of me, because I struggle to cope as it is! How have I been damned by my own words when all I did was follow the advice given, collect info on signs, post them here, complaint to local businesses, etc? The parking co had all the info they needed when they sent the charge, car info, her details, and all photos of her entering and leaving, including her face. It's not like it was a big secret!! We simply answered what they already knew and could prove. I will focus on the signs. I never agreed any contract for her, because I wasn't with her when she got the charge, she was alone. I simply went there another time, and gathered the information that people on here asked me to, so how have I agreed a contract for her, and if by doing that I did so, then why was I told on this forum to go get photos of the site?! That's ridiculous. Asking the Council for input on the positioning of the signs, well surely this is nothing to do with contract law, and entirely on the reasonable treatment of disabled people? Otherwise are you saying the law doesn't insist that disabled people are given special treatment for their needs? Given what I do full time, I can assure you in everyday life that their needs are treated very differently, legally and otherwise in British society. They have protections which are not just about simply discriminating against them, but about protecting them from being denied access to anything due to their inability to function as we do. So if you're still interested in dealing with this, please do advise on what aspects of the signs I should focus on, or whether she should just pay up. I didn't need to identify the driver, they had her car info, photos of her face, of her entering and leaving. In all appeal letters, they were not signed and nothing was attached, except a photocopy of their parking charge. It states the case, and nothing to confirm identity. I didn't see the note to ignore until now, and was following DragonFly1967's advice, to take photos and carry out complaint to local businesses. If you read through the responses on this thread, you will see some say to do one thing, and others say to do another thing, and clearly for someone not used to dealing with it, it can be confusing what to do.

OK, I will attach here pdfs of first the original appeal, which is as it was, using no identifiable terms, and was not signed. It had a photocopy of the PCN, that was all. Also attached their useless response. Then the Popla appeal we used, and then our comments to their defence documents. their defence did include photographs of the drivers face, so they have that anyway, plus all her information. I do fully appreciate what you're saying about the legality of the signs being the most important element, and will for sure read more about it now. However my position is looking at the rights of the disabled, and how signs that are 7 foot high up, with a lot of small print, nobody in a wheelchair could access them to read them, and in that respect they do discriminate. I intend to contact Wigan Council to find out the planning permission for the signs, and then to challenge them on the grounds that they discriminate against disabled. As far as this parking notice go, it may not be relevant, but with regards disabled rights it is important. Anything else you think you might need from us please just say. I'm also writing to her local MP, to complain about all of this, the placement of the signs, the lack of being able to pay for extended stays, etc. I'll keep going until someone takes notice, and will continue to follow advice given here. Thanks. CEL Combined.pdf

OK I didn't see your response to this until it was too late. Sorry. I did do an appeal. I will attach what I wrote, and their response here. We have also appealed to Popla too. What I'm saying is reasonable though, because the signs are all over 7 feet above ground, and anyone in a wheelchair honestly has no chance whatsoever of seeing them. Which I would imagine if it came to a court case, surely would have to be considered by the judge. A person in a wheelchair has no chance whatsoever of being able to read the small print. Absolutely impossible. Surely if you can't possibly access the small print to read it you cannot be expected to have entered into a contract? We also complained to Cineworld, but they have refused to assist, and have now just replied that from now on they will ignore us! Awful company. As part of the cpmpany's defence to Popla, they enclosed photographs of the car, registration, and one has her photographs, her face in the car, driving. I'll get the things I have, letters etc, and attach them as PDFs. Thanks for the assistance.

Thank you for that very kind reply. I was thinking along the same lines. Obviously dealing with disabled people a lot, I do tend to be very aware of discrimination, and looking at the signs, and their height, I am certain they are inappropriately positioned for disabled users, especially wheelchair users. There are no low signs whatsoever, and all of the signs are in areas that are very poorly lit. In respect of that small car park, one sign is stuck the other side of where cars park, and the other is blocked by trees and a trolley shelter. The disabled parking bays are right at the other end, and were all full so unsuitable to be used, and besides the front entrance to the cinema is on the corner of the car park where she parked, so much more suitable for her needs. She still has 2 weeks left to appeal, so I will draft a letter for her later today to appeal, and we will take it all the way to court if necessary. If they do take it to court, I will come back here for advice on it, but I will also enlist support from other agencies that deal specifically with discrimination against disabled, to support her case against the parking company. Thank you again.

OK. well I have attached photos. I'll add an explanation for each page to the pdf, which explains what each photo represents, and you can decide if you can figure out what is meant. This isn't my ticket, I am simply supporting and caring for a disabled person, one of several I support. I live in Warrington, she lives in the area the ticket was given, but the Council for that area is actually Wigan, so it is complicated, and I struggle with time to deal with this. Making comments such as stop waffling and giving attitude isn't the least bit helpful. I Showed her your response, and she got very upset. You talk of signage, and I am aware of the contract supposedly being entered into, but that doesn't preclude the rights of the disabled, and considerations of discrimination. The woman in question uses a wheelchair, so when I say the position of the signs matters, to her it does, because when they are 7 feet high up, on a post that has poor lighting, and is obstructed by a kerb, and all of them are like that, then it lacks consideration for her disability, and that of others, and is clearly discriminatory. If she cannot approach the kerb and get sufficiently close to the sign to be able to read it, then again she is being discriminated against, because there should be signs lower down and easier access for disabled people in wheelchairs to see properly. Can you see what I am getting at? Beyond that, as a matter of contract, isn't there a thing such as unfair contracts? If Cineworld are offer an unlimited card, and encouraging us to sign up to see as many films as we like, knowing full well the car parks outside their cinemas are time limited, isn't this a conflict of interest? Isn't this an unfair contract? Somebody has to be liable in this respect, surely? I will past here, my explanation of the photos I took, hopefully you can see what they refer to from this, from the pdf attached in a previous post. If it comes to court, I would be happy to attend court and argue against what I see as blatant discrimination, given the lack of suitable signage for people who due to disability cannot read them in the position they are set at. Also, can you given an indication of what the worst costs could be if we lost in court? Is it the £100 charge, plus £80 court costs, or would they likely be higher? -- Page 1 road into car park from very outside, there are no others signs facing outside of the car park page 2 is the car park she was parked in, at the back of there. There are no signs there, except to the left of the edge of the car park which is shown in another photo I'll list here. page 3 this is the sign itself. They are all like this. page 4 this is to the left on the slip road as you go in, there are no other roads in or out. page 5 this is the actual slip road into the main car park. Straight ahead at the bottom of there, is the small car park where she parked. There is the sign listed on page 4. page 6 A parking sign, shown on page 3. page 7 Cineworld, view from the small side car park where she parked. Hidden within the trolley shelter, on that tall light, is a sign, also obstructed by trees. page 8 Another view, front on to the small car park she parked in. page 10 The sign attached to the lamp is the to the actual left side of the small car park she was parked in. Facing towards the car park. -- Hopefully you will find something from this which is useful. I would love to know how they got all her details so fast.

I'm a bit confused by this response. Waffling? You asked for photos, and I went and got them, and added them as a post above yours. Then you say stop waffling, and then go on about having identified the driver. Where did I do that? Sorry but this reply makes no sense. I did post each image individually, and noted what each meant, in relation to where we parked and how well lit it was etc. Have you not even seen the post above yours? I mean look at this: "However the signs are tiny, 30cms wide and 60cms tall, they are attached to the large street lighting, and have no proper lighting above any of them. They are very hard to see, and at night, impossible. As I said it was dark, and raining when we went in." Which is a quote from the post above yours, in which I said lighting was poor etc. So what are you on about?

OK, can I first apologize, but the signs actually say 5 hour time limit. The disabled person had never noticed a time limit or signs before, most people around there had no idea they were there. I only ever saw a large sign outside the far front of the cinema and thought it said 3 hours, but that sign no longer exists. There are a lot of smaller signs all over, as my attached photos will show. However the signs are tiny, 30cms wide and 60cms tall, they are attached to the large street lighting, and have no proper lighting above any of them. They are very hard to see, and at night, impossible. As I said it was dark, and raining when we went in. The road going into the car park from outside has 2 small signs, shown in Doc3.pdf Doc6.pdf. Doc7 and 8 are the small car par we parked in. To the left is a small sign, and to the right is another, Doc12 and 13 showing clearest from where we parked, a small sign, which is at an odd angle and is single sided (They all are) but it is obscured by trees, and hardly lit at all at night. From there you can see the cinema, the door is to the near front and we went straight in. Hopefully from these you can get a picture of the signs and what not, and I have attached also one of the actual parking sign close up, very close, because from more than a few feet they are hard to see, and as I say single sided, so impossible to know what they are if you are not looking straight on. I also saw this on the CAB website: you take longer than others to buy your ticket or return to your car because you're older, disabled, pregnant or have a very young baby. You could argue you've been discriminated against under equality law. I would expect that disabled people have a right to take longer and this could surely be argued in court if necessary, that no allowance has been made for a disabled person needing much more time, especially if attending all of the facilities onsite. There is now a gym there too, so gym, tesco, cinema, restaurant, how could one use all of those facilities and expect a ticket? Seems impossible. I'll post more photos in follow up post now. Thank you. Doc7 is as you drive into the small car park. They are angled and positioned so you cannot see them, and again at night are impossible to see. It is worth saying the disabled person has very thick glasses, beyond which she has a large range if disabilities, and uses a wheelchair. Doc11 shows the sign in the small car park, facing towards the cinema. There is no sign facing outwards for as you drive in. It is not lit at all. Doc13 shows the other sign in the small car park, obscured by trees, and again reliant on the main street light to see, and again it is very difficult to see at night. Anything else you need from me, please let me know. I will continue to complain to the outlets onsite, especially given the person is disabled and that it is affecting our ability to use their facilities. Thanks. 15 pdfs merged to one multipage pdf else people will be here all night downloading single pixs 3 posts containing them merged - dx pixs.pdf

OK, I will take photographs on Thursday, and upload them here. I can't be 100% certain, but I'm sure the car park we went into, the small one at the side has no signs, and besides has little lighting, and it was very dark and raining, so wouldn't be clear anyway. I'll double check, photograph the whole area, and upload them and take it from there. Thanks.

OK, that sounds great. I will take photos of the signs at the site, but no there aren't many there. I can only ever recall seeing one sign, and that is right outside the cinema, but I will double check. Going into the lot, there is Tesco petrol station, and slip road to side of that, and I'm pretty sure there are no signs on entry, but I will double check and photo if so. I think I will write to Cineworld manager in Leigh, and to their head office, as well as Tesco local manager and head office, so I have a written record that I have complained. I will chase up with Council also about whether they had planning permission for the signs, and if further permission for the variation. I wondered if either going through her local councillor, or disabled person's local MP to get them to check for us and at the same time complain to them about this worthless 3 hour time limit. Other car parks have such a limit, but have machines where you can pay for more time. Surely if this car park has no such machines, then the only option is to either up and leave, perhaps halfway through a meal or film, or accept a £100 parking charge. Either option is patently absurd. Thank you for your help and advice.

Thank you. I was thinking it was odd that they didn't provide any photographs, but upon leaving it was very dark and raining heavy, so they may not have it clearly. It also does seem odd that they got the details so quickly, but I guess they have to to comply. I figured I would go through the appeal, in the manner I described, and also request photographic evidence that the car was parked in violation of their terms. We will try to find out the landowner, and will complain to Cineworld head office and Tesco head office, about the 3 hour time limit, not to mention the several restaurants that use the car park. How we are supposed to be able to shop, use a restaurant and go to the cinema is beyond me. Regardless of the outcome, we will complain to the council, as it is clearly being used to make money in an unfair manner. We were parked the entire time in the small side car park at the side of the cinema, which is not part of the main car park. I will do the appeal, and wait for their rejection, and then update on this once we know more. Thank you for your help!

Hopefully this is correct. I have edited out all the information. It has her correct name and address, and full vehicle information. This is the only letter she received, no photos or anything else. Hopefully it is legible. Any problems let me know. Thanks. There are no barriers in the car park, anywhere. It is a free customer car park. parkingticketce05032018.pdf

It is an NTK, sent in post, and arrived around 11 days after the date when we were parked there.

Hi, I am writing this on behalf of a disabled friend, who has received a Parking Charge Notice through the post from Civil Enforcement, mid last week, around the 26th of Feb. Some info: Date of infringement: 15th Feb 2018 Issue Date 22nd Feb 2018 Date Received 26th or 27th Feb 2018 No photo evidence mentioned, but possibly auto cameras. Cannot see any Section 4 mention on the letter. Just says Maximum Parking Allowance Exceeded. Not appealed yet, we will, and I will detail in a moment what we are thinking to say. Parking Company is Civil Enforcement Spinning Gate, Leigh. Says they have appeal procedure, and if unsuccessful, then Popla. So most importantly, the car park in question is shared by Cineworld, Tesco, and several other food chains such as Frankie and Benny's. The entire car park has a 3 hour parking time limit. We were parked at the side of the cinema, and during the 6 hours we stayed, we went into Tesco, and into their restaurant, and stayed well in excess of an hour as the disabled person was not feeling well (Primarily pain). Once she recovered sufficiently well, we then shopped in Tesco for around 45 minutes to shop. After that we attended a screening of the new Black Panther film. We went into the cinema early so that the disabled person could sit a while. This was around 45 minutes, including purchasing tickets, and getting sweets. We then watched the film, which has a running time of 2 hours and 14 minutes, but including trailers and advertising was closer to 3 hours, for the film alone. As such the film alone would have taken much more than the three hours allowed, inclusive of obtaining tickets, food and seeing the entire film, so on the basis of this, we would have incurred a parking charge, simply for attending the film at the cinema and parking in their car park! Given my friend is disabled, I thought to provide proof of her disability, with a copy of her blue badge, numbers redacted. The letter they have sent already has her name and address in full so they know who drove, and she is the sole driver. I also intended to provide a photocopy of the cinema ticket to prove our attendance. This and a covering appeal letter stating exactly what I have written here. Should we appeal? I figured CE will just decline it anyway, and likely Popla too. What happened if it is declined, and we don't pay? Surely if they took her to court they would lose, simply based on the fact we were parked to see a film in their car park, and in order to see that film we would have to be there longer than 3 hours, or miss the end of the film Given the person being claimed against is disabled, obviously she is slow to move around, and needs a lot of help and support. She is naturally very upset about all this absurdity. Any advice on how to proceed would be most welcome. Thank you.

Thanks for that kind reply. Since I got involved they had pretty much folded on all issues. Admitting they didn't realise they had actually fitted a meter, and then not reading it for 18 months, which they acknowledge. They further admit they overbilled her, and UU have offer just £25 compensation. I figured I might as well push it to the Ombudsman, because the primary issue for us is that neither side is willing to issue proper, itemized bills. Also they refuse to allow us access to an online water account, to check our billing. I am pushing this because I see it as discrimination, that all of UU's other customers have twice yearly detailed billing, and tenants of GGHT get told what total to pay, and refuse to provide any breakdown. If they had always done this my mother would never have massively overpaid, and never been wrongly threatened with eviction. As accounts are either hugely in credit or up to date, there are no further threats of eviction, but I want to know if they can legally evict over this. You make an interesting point, about what we as tenants have accepted as a service charge. When both of us got our properties we were both Warrington Council, and eventually the housing association took over the stock. I still have my original tenancy agreement from the council, and there wasn't much to it. I'll have to dig it out and see what it says specifically about service charges. The issue though that I am pushing for, is that if we have water meters, we should get proper itemized bills, and they flatly refuse to do this, saying it is too expensive! Both sides have claimed that to me. The issue of being able to evict tenants for not paying water charges seems to me to be immoral, and I am pushing for a decision on it higher up, externally because given how little information they are willing to provide us, it is clearly wrong.

I've actually been embroiled in this for years! My LA is Golden Gates Housing Trust, they have a deal with United Utilities where they handle all water accounts and payments and charges. I am close to taking the matter to the Housing Ombudsman, and am in the process also of complaining direct to UU. It will likely also go external with that complaint. What has happened is my disabled mother had a water meter fitted in her bungalow, as did I in my flat. She was still being charged the old rateable value on the property, so I cancelled her direct debit, and mine, realizing we were overpaying. My mother ended up getting all sorts of threats, but every time they threatened her we advised them she was on a meter and they denied it! So, after years of this, finally I got access to my water supplier, because until recently they refused to talk to us, and they admitted they have been overbilling her, even on the old rateable system! She was £300 in credit. But, while she was in credit Golden Gates Housing Trust were insisting she was £325 in arrears, and get this, threatening her with eviction. This is the crux of my case: Can a LA such as Golden Gates Housing Trust, legally evict tenants solely for none payment of water rates? That's what I'm trying to find out. She got loads of letters, phone calls and visits, insisting they were going to evict her if she didn't pay, even though she only owed for water rates, and as it turns out she didn't actually owe anything. Anyone know if they can legally evict people like this? Because I know GGHT are doing this, they added my niece's water charges to her account, reclassified it as rent, and then took her to court, purely for RENT arrears. Is this legal? I'm going to take both sides of this to the respective Ombudsman service, and see the outcome. It doesn't help my mother is severely disabled and was in very poor health when GGHT rep called on her and threatened her. It would be interesting to get some feedback on this from anyone that might be able to offer any useful advice. I kept all of the letters which I have got and she, showing all sorts of wild calculations and billing and demands. Thanks for any feedback.