Who do blue badge holders think they are.

pfpf

fluffnutter wrote: »

1. You were quite entitled to park there as the blue badge scheme doesn't operate on private land.....

is that accurate?

my sister last year was unable to park in the kids spaces so parked in a disabled bay in a tesco store.

when she returned she had got a ticket and a £100 fine. she had 4 children with her under 7 years old.

savvyme_4

geordieracer wrote: »

Ahh so now your saying that you have to be assessed when your elderly as to whether or not you get a blue badge... But before you made the bold statement that if your were elderly you would still get one.. So really as luckylucky has said your typing out false information arent you.

Sorry if my wording was incorrect!! should have said "could" or "may" get one!! .. not too sure whether there is an age limit but my 86 year old mum got one straight away .. anyway it's worth applying for... you have to be assessed though.

lucylucky

pfpf wrote: »

is that accurate? Yes it is

my sister last year was unable to park in the kids spaces so parked in a disabled bay in a tesco store.

when she returned she had got a ticket and a £100 fine. she had 4 children with her under 7 years old.

If this is a private car park then she will not have received a "fine" and she would have no need to pay it.

fluffnutter

Paul_Varjak wrote: »

And, of course, not all disabled spaces are specifically for blue badge holders. Tesco car parks make no mention that their disabled bays are for blue badge holders; they merely have a disability sign, with no wording whatsoever. At least that is the case with my local store.

One wonders how this is 'policed' then? Private car parks may well not mention BB at all; after all they're an irrelevancy on private land. However, it's a convenient way of 'policing' whether someone's 'entitled' to use that space. The car park attendants can wander round and look for a BB. (I assume they look for car seats in P&C bays although you might either a) have taken your seat with you, e.g. in the case of small babies or b) have children who no longer use a seat (I think I remember one supermarket suggesting children up to 12 'qualify')).

You can bet that they will 'fine' you if they think you've no 'right' to use that particular space. If you don't display a BB, how on earth can you 'prove' you're disabled?

I don't park in disabled bays, nor would I be silly enough to pay a private car parking 'fine' (if I ever did get one). But there'll be plenty of people who are disabled, don't qualify for a BB, but still use the disabled bays (morally speaking they're perfectly entitled to) and so run the risk of an intimidating 'fine'.

There's a proposal to regulate private car parks. These car park sharks try to pass themselves off as legitimate and that their 'rules' are clear, blah blah. So if you're going to 'fine' people for using bays when they're not 'entitled' there has to be a cast iron way to prove entitlement. The more you think about private car parks and their nonsense, the more ridiculous it all becomes.

lucylucky

fluffnutter wrote: »

One wonders how this is 'policed' then? Private car parks may well not mention BB at all; after all they're an irrelevancy on private land. However, it's a convenient way of 'policing' whether someone's 'entitled' to use that space. The car park attendants can wander round and look for a BB. (I assume they look for car seats in P&C bays although you might either a) have taken your seat with you, e.g. in the case of small babies or b) have children who no longer use a seat (I think I remember one supermarket suggesting children up to 12 'qualify')).

You can bet that they will 'fine' you if they think you've no 'right' to use that particular space. If you don't display a BB, how on earth can you 'prove' you're disabled?

I don't park in disabled bays, nor would I be silly enough to pay a private car parking 'fine' (if I ever did get one). But there'll be plenty of people who are disabled, don't qualify for a BB, but still use the disabled bays (morally speaking they're perfectly entitled to) and so run the risk of an intimidating 'fine'.

There's a proposal to regulate private car parks. These car park sharks try to pass themselves off as legitimate and that their 'rules' are clear, blah blah. So if you're going to 'fine' people for using bays when they're not 'entitled' there has to be a cast iron way to prove entitlement. The more you think about private car parks and their nonsense, the more ridiculous it all becomes.

How true

Sadly a lot of scum PPCs will use tactics to make people believe that they have received a fine and that if it is ignored they will be taken to court. They will lie and intimidate people as they try to extort money from them.

Arthurian

gregg1 wrote: »

Of course it is being abused but that should not mean that everyone with a disabled badge should be treated in a suspicious manner. I would guess that the majority of blue badge holders are genuine.

I would guess that the majority of blue badge holders are not genuine, and that is why the subject raises so many hackles. By not genuine, I mean they might well have some illness, but that doctors should be stricter in approving the badges, so badges are only issued to those whose illness genuinely prevents them from walking from 'normal' car park spaces.

geordieracer

savvyme wrote: »

Sorry if my wording was incorrect!! should have said "could" or "may" get one!! .. not too sure whether there is an age limit but my 86 year old mum got one straight away .. anyway it's worth applying for... you have to be assessed though.

Thank you. luckylucky did ask you that 3 pages back but you failed to answer.

All is good though.. No need to carry on this discussion really because everyone has many views on this and its just a silly arguement because you will never get to the end of it really.

go have a drink everyone

Oopsadaisy

Oh come on..... don't spoil the fun of the BB 'handbags'.

gregg1

geordieracer wrote: »

My last sentence was based on the parent and child spaces which was also my question when you previously quoted me but you seemed to have missed that completely.

And i also never said you implied all disabled people are confined to a wheelchair. I was making a generalisation with this whole thread and how certain people who are disabled and not confined to a wheelchair and can walk and do things as much as possibly close to an abled bodied person(i.e non disabled to make it clearer for you) dont have to park close to the store at all. As i pointed out using my parents as an example. And neither do parents and children.

Does that make it any clearer for you o great one?

Yes you did!

And no - it does not make it clearer for me - in fact your whole post is about as clear as mud. You are not making any sense at all. If you had been a little more coherent I may have been able to attempt to get the gist of what you are trying to say.

But you are right on one thing - lets leave it at that - we all have our own thoughts on this issue and are never going to agree.

gregg1

Arthurian wrote: »

I would guess that the majority of blue badge holders are not genuine, and that is why the subject raises so many hackles. By not genuine, I mean they might well have some illness, but that doctors should be stricter in approving the badges, so badges are only issued to those whose illness genuinely prevents them from walking from 'normal' car park spaces.

We will have to agree to disagree on that one as I believe most are probably genuine. However, I think there is some talk at the moment about making it tougher to get these badges. Genuine cases will not have problem hopefully.