A Disabled Charity And A PPC

HO87

grmc wrote: »

But, nobody has yet offered an alternative to the incorporation of Blue Badge Scheme terms in the use of a private parking facility. If you can't offer an alternative solution, you really oughtn't criticise current practice.

grmc - with respect I believe your research, on this forum at least, is lacking insofar as it relates to an alternative to the BBS as a standard-.

Your post presupposes that there is a single solution to the problem of defining who is a disabled driver when the use of the BBS as the sole yardstick immediately discriminates against those who can legitimately claim to be disabled by virtue of the Disability Discrimination Act but who do not qualify for a Blue Badge.

Judging eligibility to use a disabled space in, for example, a supermarket car park, solely on the basis of membership, or otherwise, of the Blue Badge Scheme arguably renders the operator liable to proceedings for breach of the DDA. The real irony of the situation is that more often than not the argument advanced by the local authority (when granting planning permission for the supermarket in respect of the number of disabled spaces they must provide) is the obligation the DDA places upon the operator to provide access.

So, happily accepting the benefits the DDA confers in respect of additional car park spaces (and thus access) on the one hand only to set the Act to one side on the other seems, at best, iniquitous although it is fully accepted that the situation is far from straightforward.

It would seem, therefore, that some recognisable and easily evidenced measure could be designed to identify those who are disabled but are not captured by the BBS. Or, perhaps, more simply supermarkets could just designate restricted mobility spaces as well as disabled (i.e. Blue Badge Scheme) spaces - in much the same way as they have created family and mother & child spaces all of which suffer from the same type of abuse.

lucylucky

HO87 wrote: »

grmc - with respect I believe your research, on this forum at least, is lacking insofar as it relates to an alternative to the BBS as a standard-.

Your post presupposes that there is a single solution to the problem of defining who is a disabled driver when the use of the BBS as the sole yardstick immediately discriminates against those who can legitimately claim to be disabled by virtue of the Disability Discrimination Act but who do not qualify for a Blue Badge.

Judging eligibility to use a disabled space in, for example, a supermarket car park, solely on the basis of membership, or otherwise, of the Blue Badge Scheme arguably renders the operator liable to proceedings for breach of the DDA. The real irony of the situation is that more often than not the argument advanced by the local authority (when granting planning permission for the supermarket in respect of the number of disabled spaces they must provide) is the obligation the DDA places upon the operator to provide access.

So, happily accepting the benefits the DDA confers in respect of additional car park spaces (and thus access) on the one hand only to set the Act to one side on the other seems, at best, iniquitous although it is fully accepted that the situation is far from straightforward.

It would seem, therefore, that some recognisable and easily evidenced measure could be designed to identify those who are disabled but are not captured by the BBS. Or, perhaps, more simply supermarkets could just designate restricted mobility spaces as well as disabled (i.e. Blue Badge Scheme) spaces - in much the same way as they have created family and mother & child spaces all of which suffer from the same type of abuse.

The above is a sensible and reasoned post.

I have not read any post on the various threads regarding private parking where it is advocated that the abuse of disabled spaces is condoned.

I would hope that my fellow posters would abhor those who have no consideration for those less fortunate than themselves.

You (gmrc) ask the question as to how places can be provided, policed and kept for those with a disability.

I personally doubt that there is a method that would keep spaces for people with disabilities which would not be abused by others.

Those who own private car parks could make all spaces wider to accommodate those who are less able, and may need a wheelchair, or indeed extra room to get their children out of the car.

Sadly the provision of "disabled spaces" in private car parks is no more than a marketing gesture.

anewman

gmrc also misses the abuse of blue badges, i.e. people who use their nan's when she's not even with them because they're too lazy to walk from a parking space, which is far worse than a non-disabled person using a disabled space - yet they cannot be given a pointless parking invoice because they're displaying a blue badge. This kind of abuse is unfortunately very widespread as the blue badges don't display a name or photo on the side that you're supposed to display.

taffy056

I think Lucy's suggestion of making parking bays wider is a sensuble answer to be honest, lets face it most supermarkets car parks are almost always not fully utilised, and its only on holidays that they seem to be full.

Its not the answer for all car parks though admitally , but it would help greatly in general if car parking bays were wide enough to open doors without worrying about hitting the neighbouring vehicle, I would think that would be wide enough for most disabled people.

oldone_2

Policing supermarket bays is easy. The store should employ its own staff to patrol the car park and police the disabled bays, help motorists to park, give assistance in loading shopping and generally being a positive first contact for shoppers arriving.

lucylucky

oldone wrote: »

Policing supermarket bays is easy. The store should employ its own staff to patrol the car park and police the disabled bays, help motorists to park, give assistance in loading shopping and generally being a positive first contact for shoppers arriving.

How would supermarket staff be able to police the bays?

grmc

HO87 - by far the most sensible post I have read so far. The additional bays could operate on an honesty basis, unless the occupier is prepared to staff a policing policy as oldone suggests. However, it would depend on independent policing in some way as we all know that it is an irresistible human trait for many not to take advantage of a situation for their own selfish ends (which is the whole reason all of this - i.e.the ticketing of vehicles *anywhere* - started in the first place). The phenomenon of "oh, well, if HE's getting away with it, then I'll have a go too" spreads like a cancer if not kept in check.

anewman - I thought my stance was apparent in that I believe the well established Blue Badge scheme operating under statutory provision was a suitable benchmark for private land owners to base their conditions on. After all, if any driver wishes to take advantage of special parking provisions on council owned or operated land then all drivers accept those are the rules they may use them by (and you don't have to be a BB holder to understand what "reserved for BB holders" bays means). Why should it not be acceptable for private land owners to apply the same conditions? Again, I will make it clear that I do not condone the aggressive techniques used by most PPCs and I am yet to read about any who have a fair appeals process.

People here appear to have misinterpreted the guidelines regarding the extent of the BBS to read that they are specifically excluded from all areas the government does NOT police them in. This is correct in so far as the government will not take any action themselves, but incorrect in that they are terms that only the government may apply. As I already mentioned, any party to a contract may stipulate whatever terms they wish. Where a party finds they cannot accept the terms, they simply withdraw from the contract and the associated consideration. If a private land owner decides to offer spaces on their private land to drivers of only pink cars who hop on one leg, for example, it is entirely their right to do so (this example is deliberately silly to make the point). Think of it as all the public highways and council car parks are the government's "private car park" and they are simply their own terms, for which they apply statutory penalties when breached.

If people feel the BBS format is unacceptable then they ought to take that up with the government, as there are no other generic means (at least that I am aware of) for all UK citizens to assess the need for another to have special provision where parking or access is concerned. I thought I'd covered all fraudulent use of a BB in an earlier post, so forgive me for omitting it from the above post. The very fact the BBS is abused is the greatest factor in undermining the entire scheme and is also perplexing for the reason that these people are restricting others with needs they really ought to have the utmost sympathy for - and I find this quite disgusting.

Widening of bays is a sensible suggestion, but these abuses occur due to a lack of spaces in the first place. Granted, taffy056, some supermarkets and shopping malls are not always fully utilised, but the parking areas are generally calculated based on less than the maximum customer foot-fall capacity, so I would suggest that widening of bays will only compound that problem in the majority of places. To be an effective and indiscriminate solution, all bays would need to be widened to the extent required for wheelchair access or the need to open doors fully, and it doesn't solve the issue of reserving bays closest to building entrances exclusively for those with severe mobility restrictions which, as we have all seen, are thought of by the selfish able bodied who think their time is more precious than everyone else as being there for their exclusive use.

AlexisV

It's all fairly irrelevant when you think about it.

There are many more occasions where a disabled driver forgets their blue badge, or it falls down and they get bullied and ripped off by a scam parking company, than a disabled person not being able to park because people are abusing the spaces.

There is no fair system, only a scheme where innocent disabled people are scammed and able bodies abusers are scapegoated as cover for the scamsters.

lucylucky

grmc wrote: »

HO87 - by far the most sensible post I have read so far. The additional bays could operate on an honesty basis, as they currently in effect do unless the occupier is prepared to staff a policing policy as oldone suggests. And to re-iterate my question, how would staff police this? However, it would depend on independent policing in some way as we all know that it is an irresistible human trait for many not to take advantage of a situation for their own selfish ends (which is the whole reason all of this - i.e.the ticketing of vehicles *anywhere* - started in the first place). The phenomenon of "oh, well, if HE's getting away with it, then I'll have a go too" spreads like a cancer if not kept in check. In my experience the majority of drivers do not park unnecessarily in "disabled" spaces, therefore it has not "spread like a cancer"

anewman - I thought my stance was apparent in that I believe the well established Blue Badge scheme operating under statutory provision was a suitable benchmark for private land owners to base their conditions on. After all, if any driver wishes to take advantage of special parking provisions on council owned or operated land then all drivers accept those are the rules they may use them by (and you don't have to be a BB holder to understand what "reserved for BB holders" bays means). I suspect that if a successful action was raised against a council they could in fact be deemed to be in breach of DDA legislation with this policy Why should it not be acceptable for private land owners to apply the same conditions? Again, I will make it clear that I do not condone the aggressive techniques used by most PPCs and I am yet to read about any who have a fair appeals process.

People here appear to have misinterpreted the guidelines regarding the extent of the BBS to read that they are specifically excluded from all areas the government does NOT police them in. This is correct in so far as the government will not take any action themselves, but incorrect in that they are terms that only the government may apply. As I already mentioned, any party to a contract may stipulate whatever terms they wish. Where a party finds they cannot accept the terms, they simply withdraw from the contract and the associated consideration. If a private land owner decides to offer spaces on their private land to drivers of only pink cars who hop on one leg, for example, it is entirely their right to do so (this example is deliberately silly to make the point). If I drove a blue car and was unable to use the car park I could and would take the supermarket to court for discrimination Think of it as all the public highways and council car parks are the government's "private car park" and they are simply their own terms, for which they apply statutory penalties when breached.

If people feel the BBS format is unacceptable then they ought to take that up with the government, as there are no other generic means (at least that I am aware of) for all UK citizens to assess the need for another to have special provision where parking or access is concerned. I thought I'd covered all fraudulent use of a BB in an earlier post, so forgive me for omitting it from the above post. The very fact the BBS is abused is the greatest factor in undermining the entire scheme and is also perplexing for the reason that these people are restricting others with needs they really ought to have the utmost sympathy for - and I find this quite disgusting. As do we all I am sure

Widening of bays is a sensible suggestion, but these abuses occur due to a lack of spaces in the first place. Granted, taffy056, some supermarkets and shopping malls are not always fully utilised, but the parking areas are generally calculated based on less than the maximum customer foot-fall capacity, so I would suggest that widening of bays will only compound that problem in the majority of places. To be an effective and indiscriminate solution, all bays would need to be widened to the extent required for wheelchair access or the need to open doors fully, it would indeed and what a good idea it would be! and it doesn't solve the issue of reserving bays closest to building entrances exclusively for those with severe mobility restrictions which, as we have all seen, are thought of by the selfish able bodied who think their time is more precious than everyone else as being there for their exclusive use.There is currently no system in place which solves the issue of reserving spaces for those with mobility issues.

My comments in blue.

taffy056

Terms and conditions need to be fair, and I yet to see a PPC to have fair conditions because they try to enforce their rules on drivers by using a penalty, that is not lawful, also the way they interprete the rules are not fair, I parked my car at Sainsbury some months ago, one wheels was touching the line, now if I did another half a turn on my steering wheel it wouldn't have been, came back to my car after spending £130 in the shop to find a ticket for I think £50, is that a fair reflection of loss ?

There needs to be a loss to the landowner not the ppc who lurks in a car park for a court to consider a ticket, that ticket must reflect the loss to the land owner, if there is free parking where is the loss ?

Finally after many posts by disabled drivers on this forum, it appears that the ppc's give tickets to disabled drivers for the reasons above, also for simple mistakes like putting the badge the wrong way up, leaving the badge on car seats, by not having the clock next to it, clearly the PPCs are victimising not only the disabled but anyone who they can.

Today my brother got a ticket for using two parking bays, one a child and parent bay, and one a normal bay, he was with my niece in his van which is twice the length of a car, why can't he park there ? Does it stipulate no vans in the signage ? Is that fair ? I told him to ignore the scammers !