Hospital Complaint For Breach Of Equality Act 2010

A question about : Hospital Complaint For Breach Of Equality Act 2010

Finally got my NtK for 'Parking without displaying valid proof of payment'. The driver was parked in a normal bay displaying a blue badge, as there were no disabled bays available.

I am complaining to the hospital as there is so much wrong with their website. I have drafted a letter, but would like the regulars to quality assure it, to make sure I have it right and not omitting any big points?

The hospital website is here - https://www.nwlh.nhs.uk/patients-visi...rks-hospitals/

Thanks in advance:

Good afternoon,

I wish to make a formal complaint about a breach of the Equality Act 2010 (EA10) and APCOA Parking at Northwick Park and St Marks Hospitals.

I believe you are discriminating therefore breaching the EA10 against disabled patients and visitors. Your website states:

There are no charges for disabled drivers parking in designated bays at the hospital, whether in the multi-storey car park (enter via the main entrance/A&E/outpatients) or car parks 2-4. Vehicles must display a valid Blue Badge and time recorder, and must park in designated disabled bays.

The usual pay and display charges are payable by disabled drivers when parking in non-designated bays.

Vehicles not driven by disabled persons, irrespective of whether they display a Blue Badge or time recorder, are not entitled to park in designated blue bays and may be issued with a penalty notice.

If you require assistance in finding a place to park, please contact the parking office on 020 8869 3803.

By not allowing free parking in all bays, I feel you are not allowing reasonable adjustment for disabled people as is required by EA10 and are therefore discriminating. Disabled people take longer getting in and out of their cars due to the nature of their conditions and therefore as a consequence maybe charged more for parking than an able bodied person.

You may be interested to know that Medway NHS Trust have been forced to alter their parking charges policy for Blue Badge Holders after a legal case was brought against them by Unity Law - https://www.disabledmotoring.org/camp...arking-charges

By stating that only cars driven by the disabled person are entitled to use disabled bays, you are discriminating against disabled people that do not drive and many will not be able to drive due to their disability. Do you really think a disabled person cannot use a disabled bay unless they are actually the driver?

You state that people “not entitled to park in designated blue bays and may be issued with a penalty notice”. Under what authority are you issuing these penalties? Can you please point me to the relevant legislation? As far as I am aware, only Councils and the Police can issue penalties and only Courts can issue fines.

On your table of charges you state that these penalty charges are Ј30, why then has the Notice To Keeper from APCOA parking trying to claim Ј60?

What I would like to happen as a result of this claim is:

1. Instruct your agent APCOA to cancel my penalty charge.
2. Extend free parking to all public parking spaces if a blue badge is displayed.
3. Update your website to conform with the Law.

I am extremely disappointed that a public body feels that they are above the law and can breach it in this way.

I look forward to hearing from you,

Regards,

Best answers:

• I see no discrimination here. There are a certain number of bays where BB holder can park for free. If they are all occupied then BB holders will have to find a space elsewhere and pay, just as everyone else does. Why is this a problem?
  Remember, an empty BB space is barred to other taxpayers.
• Only disabled drivers can use disabled bays. How is that not discrimination?
• Indeed, it is gross discrimination against the able bodied, but I do not think that is the point the OP is trying to make.
  I think that he/she would like to see all the bays reserved for BB holders.
• ignoring the above which I wont comment on, going back to post #1
  I would make sure in the letter (good letter by the way) that you emphasise that their discrimination also extends to their use of the BB as a permit , whereas the EA 2010 does not stipulate that any BB is required, just that the landowner has to make reasonable adjustments for these protected persons under the act , whoever they are and however the number they may be
  a BB is not relevant on private land and so they are discriminating against those protected people who do not qualify for a BB , so doesnt really matter if anyone displays the BB or not as the landowner has other obligations
  plus the BPA CoP tells a ppc not to pursue BB owners once the BB is known about and they have special guidance for the NHS too
  sometimes this BB issue tends to sideline the real purpose of the act and its the discrimination by the landowner to provide for the protected persons by limiting it to BB owners or just BB drivers which is just as bad
  my family used to ferry my mum to hospital a lot when she had cancer, they are drivers, they do not have a BB , but the passenger did, so yes it discriminates against passengers that have a BB by making it a requirement on the driver, when its not a requirement AT ALL (because the EA 2010 is what is relevant here)
  you only have to look at the cases against meadowhall by the blue dragon, trubster, rsclark and others to see how bad this is (I complained to my MP about this recently too)
  have a read of these threads and then maybe adapt your letter accordingly
  https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=5048966
  so that one and those in my post inside it
  dont be sidetracked by retired uncivil servants just add them to your ignore list
  Jeremy Hunt also issued guidelines to all health trusts the other week, stating they need to be more accommodating to these people with disabilities etc, never mind BB holders
  https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Cut-par...ail/story.html
  and I quote
  Quote:
• no problem m8
  just cherry pick the info from what I have said and do as you see fit , clearly the signage is worse at your hospital compared to the ones in Bristol, but in my opinion there is a lot of work to be done nationwide on this, but if more people did as you did we may actually see compliance within the next few years , although I think it will take a few MCOL`s before action is taken pro-actively rather than a knee jerk response as it seems now
  good luck and let us know how you get on
• Why does that reply not surprise me!
  My stance CM is that either everyone should pay for parking, or no-one should. The point of BBs is not to save the holder money, but to give him/her the best parking spots.
  Why should a Bentley driving BB holder get free parking, when this poor chap has to pay?
  https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...denied-4131087
  As I said elsewhere yesterday, you involve yourself so deeply in the minutiae that you are unable to see the wider picture.
• The wider picture is that hospitals should not discriminate, it's primary legislation the Equality Act, and breaching it in the way this hospital is quite breathtaking! The fact that they are picking and choosing what must be followed is sheer arrogance, saying for example that only blue badge holders who are driving can use the disabled bays is discrimination and illegal, nowhere does the Equality Act state such thing!
  And the whole point of having these bays is not to disadvantage disabled people, by setting tariffs and time limits the same as people who don't need these bays is discrimination, the fact is that it can take longer for someone with a wheelchair for example to do the same thing as others. The Equality Act is about removing barriers!
  It's not about erecting barriers so parking companies and hospitals can make money out of other people's health problems ! And by the way the blue badge scheme is not even mentioned in the Equality Act, this person is disabled and can use disabled bays in hospitals and on private land!
• In an ideal world no doubt hospital car parks wouldn't charge for parking and would get rid of the unpleasant slimy parking companies but if they
  a. have some marked bays close to entrances which are reserved for the disabled because their passage across the car park will be more difficult than for the able bodied
  b. seek to have a sufficient number (difficult to always do perhaps)
  c. charge in all bays because it is access not cost that is relevant here
  then I don't think they are operating a discriminatory policy. You can find disabled people who will find this expensive perhaps because they have to attend the hospital a lot but the hospital can adapt by offering a pass system to reduce the total cost.
• But public bodies shouldn't be charging in the first place. This is what is on the NHS website
  Quote:
• I have slightly amended my letter. Does it read ok or have I started waffling? I am going to email it tonight, so it is there for them in the morning.
  Quote:
• A point I think you have missed out is that in displaying a BB APCOA cannot argue that they were unaware of the fact that a disabled person, someone having protected characteristics within the meaning of the Act, was likely to be using the vehicle and thereby entitled to the provisions of the EA. The use of the BB should properly have prompted them to make further enquiries in furtherance of their (and their principal's) duties under the Act.
  A "reasonable adjustment" may amount to additional time, easier access, greater space to board or alight from a vehicle etc and not simply an offsetting of any charge. Furthermore, in this respect, the Trust are liable for the actions of their agent.
• Although I agree that discriminating against non-disabled drivers of BB holder passengers is ridiculous, I think that you are flogging a dead horse by asking for more free parking. The purpose of a BB is not to save the holder money, it is to facilitate access, and to allow the holder extra time to conduct their business
  In my own town, Reading, there is an oversupply of BB spaces in the town centre. After about 8 pm most of them are empty, and the Traffic Stasi come out in force to ticket the restaurant goers who park in them. It appears to be a deliberate revenue raising policy. (as are the deserted bus lanes).
  https://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversio...hp/t65129.html
  Blue badges are notoriously difficult to obtain legally and there are many people, (I am one), who have difficulty walking, but do not qualify. This causes resentment, especially as a great many BB holders are members of the "bad back" brigade.
  https://benefitfraud.org.uk/bluebadgefraud/index.html
  Other than that, it is a good letter.
• One would think that even those in hospital management might expect a significant number of visitors to the hospital who were entitled to an EA "reasonable adjustment" - and specifically those who no longer qualify for a BB as well as those with one - and that their parking policy might reflect that. It seems not.
  Given how common this lack of provision is at hospitals one must question the training these managers are given, their imagination (or seeming absence of it) or perhaps the policy is simply a manifestation of their desire to see car parks make money - by whatever means?
• Sweep, sweep.
  Had a reply back from the hospital:
  Still waiting on reply to FOI despite it being over the 20 working days timescale for a reply.
  When I receive that, I will write a response, all suggestions welcome, especially from C-M on the Equality Act aspects. I know the act does not mention that parking has to be free for disabled people, but as far as I can see, they are not making any reasonable adjustments for disable people who are not parked in a disabled bay.
  Also I didn't say APCOA were breaching the Equality Act, I said the hospital were, so a nice bit of deflection there.