Sick of it

DirectDebacle

anewman wrote: »

I am sure most of us would be in agreement that if an able-bodied person parked up in a Disabled space leaving no other space available for a disabled person, this would be morally wrong. But we also believe the PPC's are morally wrong. Do two moral wrongs make a moral right?

You are asking the wrong question.

I am sure most of us would be in agreement that if an able-bodied person parked up in a Disabled space leaving no other space available for a disabled person, this would be morally wrong.

I agree with this statement. It is morally right.

But we also believe the PPC's are morally wrong.

I agree that this statement is morally right.

Your question should be asking what two moral rights make.

You have avoided addressing this point.

It would also be sensible to advise the able bodied who abuse disabled parking, that despite the fact they may not be legally required to pay PPC charges, nevertheless their behaviour is wrong.

HO87

DirectDebacle wrote: »

It would also be sensible to advise the able bodied who abuse disabled parking, that despite the fact they may not be legally required to pay PPC charges, nevertheless their behaviour is wrong.

I would like to address the point if I may.

I do not disagree with you at all, and I doubt anyone else would, at a moral level. That the disabled should have reasonable access to facilities is a given. There is however another issue that is inextricably tied up with this subject and that is whether supermarkets are really fulfilling their duties in the way they provide disabled parking.

I contend that, in general terms, they are not and have sought what might be described as an easy (not to say cheap) means of doing so by arbitrarily establishing possession of a Blue Badge as the single criterion for use of their disabled spaces. As has been discussed on numerous other threads previously, by using this sole determinant a whole raft of those who are disabled within the terms of the Disabled Discrimination Act are excluded simply because they cannot fulfil the requirements of the Blue Badge scheme although they are no less restricted than those who do.

Some supermarkets seem to understand this and have ceased enforcing so-called misuse but are reluctant to tackle the substantive issue for fear of the backwash not to say financial implications.

I would further contend that whilst supermarkets have a legal duty to make adequate provision for the disabled that by adopting the standard they have - and seeking to make money out of the enforcement of it (or allowing others to do so) by highly questionable quasi-legal means - any moral arguement that may exist is effectively nullified.

Whilst I would not wish to set aside the morally questionable position of the able-bodied who misuse disabled spaces one should not ignore the widespread abuse of the Blue Badge scheme either.

By the same token I am not suggesting that two wrongs make a right but attempting to claim a moral position on the one hand whilst adopting an arguably immoral one on the other is not, in my view, the action of a responsible organisation who is concerned with anything other than its profits. The connivance of councils (who should be seeking to enforcement the DDA) in allowing this widespread situation to continue, in my view, demonstrates the moral bankruptcy of our local government. But that is another matter altogether.....

taxiphil

DirectDebacle wrote: »

It would also be sensible to advise the able bodied who abuse disabled parking, that despite the fact they may not be legally required to pay PPC charges, nevertheless their behaviour is wrong.

If you trawl through all the threads on PPC disabled parking space charges, you'll find that many of us have made this point. This isn't the first time there's been a thread on the issue.

But ultimately this is a Money Saving forum, so it's perfectly reasonable for us to inform people that PPC disabled penalty charges have no basis in law and shouldn't be paid. Even if you look at it on a moral level, enriching a pondlife PPC scam artist to the tune of £80 does not "right the wrong" in any way, shape or form.

Hadeon

DirectDebacle wrote: »

It would also be sensible to advise the able bodied who abuse disabled parking, that despite the fact they may not be legally required to pay PPC charges, nevertheless their behaviour is wrong.

To morally lecture or not to morally lecture, that is the question......

Well, that would be totally my call, my choice & my business.

..........as it would be yours may I add.

Coupon-mad

It's very simple, DirectDebacle, this tells everyone exactly who can use these bays:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople/RightsAndObligations/DisabilityRights/DG_4001069

Anyone who fits the definition given in the link can expect reasonable adjustments to be provided by retailers, service providers etc. If not then the retailers or service providers break the law. Notice that the definition doesn't include 'having a Blue Badge' because many of those who 'fit the bill' would have no reason, requirement or opportunity to get one.

Among the 'reasonable adjustments' the DDA requires, might be the provision of pseudo 'disabled bays' in private car parks. If that's what a retailer 'thinks' covers them as far as the DDA is concerned then they would have to ensure that the provisions they have made are available to those who need them (within reason, busy shopping times may mean the spaces are all taken).

Of course it's hard to know who is disabled and who isn't - but tough - that's the reality of disability! Retailers cannot be allowed to cop out just because it's easier to insist on a piece of card and then discriminate against those disabled people who don't have that piece of card!

The retailer cannot insist on a Blue Badge being shown, any more than they could insist on a disabled person using a wheelchair, or driving a particular type of car, or having grey hair - etc. Any such arbitrary additional requirements are outside of the DDA provisions - and therefore to insist on them would be (and is) discrimination.

By the way, I don't park in these bays, nor do I condone the behaviour of anyone parking in these bays if they or their passengers do not fit the DDA definition of disability. But nor do I prowl around the disabled bays looking for any car not displaying a blue badge. I have seen (invariably elderly) shoppers doing this and grumbling when they spy a car with no badge. Such pathetic behaviour is very sad and just perpetuates the discrimination!

sarahg1969

What about blue badge holders who do park in the bays (specifically at shopping centres/supermarkets) when they don't really need to, but do, because it's their right to do so?

We've all seen the drivers who park in these bays, let someone out and stay in the car themselves. They can't all NEED to be in the wider spaces. Can they?

DirectDebacle

My point still hasn't been answered.

We have been reminded that this is a money saving forum so I will put it in that context.

To advise an abuser of disabled parking facilities that they have done nothing wrong is not good money saving advice. The chances are that the reason they have received a PPC invoice is because they parked in a disabled bay.

Such a stupid and selfish person being told that all they have to do is ignore any demands for payment and in addition they have done nothing wrong, will be music to their ears.

They may well be so stupid they think if they park on any disabled parking bay they are doing nothing wrong. A big expensive surprise is heading their way if they ignore the paperwork they receive after they have been correctly ticketed for parking on a legally enforceable disabled parking bay.

If people parked in the appropriate spaces then this would perhaps reduce the opportunities for the PPC to issue their "fines". This simple action is potentially a money saver for the consumer.

As a bonus it could also help in starving the PPC of income. However I do appreciate that some PPC's would probably stick a ticket on a frog if it stopped hopping.

For the above reasons I will advise abusers of disabled facilities that their behaviour is wrong, on the rare occasions that they are told it isn't.

I do not see this as in any way supporting a PPC or contradictory to the aims of this site.

Coupon-mad

DirectDebacle wrote: »

To advise an abuser of disabled parking facilities that they have done nothing wrong is not good money saving advice. The chances are that the reason they have received a PPC invoice is because they parked in a disabled bay.

Aha, now I see where you are coming from, if that's why you are assuming that PPCs 'usually' issue invoices. I have highlighted your assumption in bold, and no doubt you'd be surprised to learn that's NOT why PPC invoices are issued, some 99.9% of the time.

I have been on this parking board for maybe a year. In that time, I think I can remember just TWO queries where the OP had parked in a disabled bay when they did not fit the DDA definition. And I think another two cases where they had parked in a parent and toddler bay when they shouldn't have.

To put that number in context, we get 1 or 2 new threads about PPC invoices pretty much every day of the year. So among many hundreds of threads on MSE about PPC invoices in the last year I can promise you that I can only recall two involving private disabled bays - and I have a very good memory for facts and figures as my work requires this sort of recall.

And in those cases, all the regulars clearly stated that the person was wrong and should not have parked there in the first place. Furthermore we always make it clear that we don't condone this sort of selfish parking at all. Of course we didn't advise those two people to pay the fake PCN (third party invoice) that had been slapped on their car though!

PPCs issue tickets most often for 'overstaying' by a few minutes when someone inadvertently takes longer in the retail shops they are visiting, than planned. Easy to do when you visit a site and want to look in several shops; many sites have a Supermarket, furniture store, electrical store, toy shop, book shop and fast food outlet, for example. That's why you'll see us show sympathy for the motorist and tell them they have done nothing wrong by overstaying by 5 minutes, because they have clearly not caused the retailers any loss.

In fact we agree with you in the point you are making about selfish parking in disabled bays, but happily it represents a minuscule percentage of PPC cases.

DirectDebacle

sarahg1969 wrote: »

What about blue badge holders who do park in the bays (specifically at shopping centres/supermarkets) when they don't really need to, but do, because it's their right to do so?

We've all seen the drivers who park in these bays, let someone out and stay in the car themselves. They can't all NEED to be in the wider spaces. Can they?

This has no relevance to my point. In case you missed it, it is about able bodied people misusing disabled facilities, in particular parking bays marked for the use of disabled people.

The need for a BB is established during the application process. If genuine need is established then the BB is issued. The BB holder has the right to use the facilities as they see fit. Your narrow view of need is irrelevant.

Unless you are disabled or care for a disabled person then you probably have no real idea of what their needs are. Their needs may well extend beyond your limited view of going into a shop.

If a disabled driver parks in a disabled bay and an able bodied person alights it does not automatically mean that the disabled driver does not need that bay. Or if an able bodied driver alights and leaves the disabled person in the vehicle it does not automatically mean that the disabled bay is not needed.

DirectDebacle

As an experienced MSE member I am sure you would hold the view that the practice of taking a sentence or two out of context from a whole post with the aim of attempting to change its meaning in order to support a flawed assumption, is to say the least, not good form.

I am sure you would not do such a thing. I will therefore conclude that your post is based upon a misunderstanding of the thread and my posts.

In the interests of clarity I have highlighted in bold parts of your unedited post which I will comment upon in the order they arise.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Aha, now I see where you are coming from, if that's why you are assuming that PPCs 'usually' issue invoices. I have highlighted your assumption in bold, and no doubt you'd be surprised to learn that's NOT why PPC invoices are issued, some 99.9% of the time.

I have been on this parking board for maybe a year. In that time, I think I can remember just TWO queries where the OP had parked in a disabled bay when they did not fit the DDA definition. And I think another two cases where they had parked in a parent and toddler bay when they shouldn't have.

To put that number in context, we get 1 or 2 new threads about PPC invoices pretty much every day of the year. So among many hundreds of threads on MSE about PPC invoices in the last year I can promise you that I can only recall two involving private disabled bays - and I have a very good memory for facts and figures as my work requires this sort of recall.

And in those cases, all the regulars clearly stated that the person was wrong and should not have parked there in the first place. Furthermore we always make it clear that we don't condone this sort of selfish parking at all. Of course we didn't advise those two people to pay the fake PCN (third party invoice) that had been slapped on their car though!

PPCs issue tickets most often for 'overstaying' by a few minutes when someone inadvertently takes longer in the retail shops they are visiting, than planned. Easy to do when you visit a site and want to look in several shops; many sites have a Supermarket, furniture store, electrical store, toy shop, book shop and fast food outlet, for example. That's why you'll see us show sympathy for the motorist and tell them they have done nothing wrong by overstaying by 5 minutes, because they have clearly not caused the retailers any loss.

In fact we agree with you in the point you are making about selfish parking in disabled bays, but happily it represents a minuscule percentage of PPC cases.

Your assumption is wrong. My posts have been restricted to disabled parking issues.

Your memory may be good but I doubt you can recall every post you read or that you read every post.

Here is the post I refer to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by philblue
i need some reassuring plz guys i have just recived a parking notice charge stuck on my car windscreen for parking in a disabled parking space outside b&Q there was no other spaces btw it was issued by (UK CPS LTD HUDDERSFIELD) the fine is for £100 or £60 if payed within 14days on the ticket it says fist observed at 15.20 and the fine was issued at 1525 i dont have £60 as am not working and looking through some of the threads alot of other have had the same dealings with the same low life ppl who run and work for these companys advice on what to do would be reassuring thanx


The usual advice. Just ignore. It's not a fine and the blue badge scheme does not apply to private car parks. You have done nothing wrong and you have not broken any laws.

This post was from 26/2/2010. You may wish to read it so you can update your figures. Clearly it dropped under your radar as you were unaware that regular posters were giving such advice.

I agree your final sentence which is in accordance with the penultimate sentence of my post and also in respect of the amount of times it happens.

Edit.

I applaud the fact that you do not condone such parking practices and make that clear to those who do practice them.