We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Another pm from firebird20
Coupon-mad
Posts: 155,731 Forumite
The phoenix 'firebird20' has risen again and pm'd me about disabled bay use - at least some thought process is going on about the matter, which is a good thing:
QUOTE
Disabled rights Hello Coupon-mad.
I am pm'ing you because i think this will be boring for general forum use.
You obviously make claims to be protecting disabled people and promoting their rights. You must recognise that there are many forms of disability - not just those affecting mobility. Lets suppose I am profoundly deaf - I am therefore by all recognised criteria 'disabled'. Now i do not have mobility problems therefore I do not need a disabled bay. Are you saying I can use one? I do however need somebody in the stores who has sign language qualifications to help me with my purchases. Am I entitled to this and equally can any disabled person demand the use of a skilled sign language person?
Your comemnts would be really appreciated.
If you feel the need to post this on the forums - please could you make sure this is quoted in full.
I await your comments with interest.
QUOTE
To firebird20, my answer is here in a thread rather than by pm as I have no wish whatsoever to engage in pm's with PPCs. But as you can see I have quoted your pm in full, boring or not!
This is my view as an ex-disability advice manager (not an expert of course but with some knowledge of the subject and the law). As I see it, the Equality Act 'reasonable adjustment' provision is there for anyone who has the need for that provision. Disabled bays are NOT just about the fact they are wider. In almost every case they are also nearer the store (so, they are safer).
So if a deaf driver (or blind, or epileptic, etc., passenger) felt that they NEEDED to use a bay as close to a store as possible then I personally cannot see how a retailer could possibly argue that they are not entitled to use the adjustment. In practice I suspect many deaf people would say 'don't be daft, of course I don't need to use a disabled bay!'.
But everyone's needs are different, and the DDA (Equality Act) is about making reasonable adjustment for NEED. So if just one deaf person in your area would feel that they need to use that disabled bay to feel safer when shopping - and they do after all fit the DDA definition of disability - then the Act allows them to use that bay, I believe.
It is NOT just about mobility - that's the thing that many people cannot get their heads around. Strangely enough, Mobilise seem to think the provision IS about mobility which is where I suspect the question has arisen in a little chat between Helen and some hasbeen from some PPC or other.
I DISAGREE.
There is nothing in the Equality Act that I know of, where it lists certain disabilities as allowing people to use certain provisions. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. I cannot see how they could, there is no line to be drawn between disabilities and no-one on private land has to 'prove' their need to a service provider! Why on earth should they? It's not as if every Tom, !!!!!! and Harry is going to ask for a braille version of every leaflet just as most able-bodied people never even think about parking in a disabled bay. There are some cars parked in Supermarket disabled bays without Blue Badges but as we know, this means nothing in truth. It doesn't tell you that there is 'disabled bay abuse' even though Mobilise would have it that it does...
As for your last question, if you need someone with sign language qualifications to help with your purchases then you are entitled to ask the store if they can meet that need. But you cannot demand it. If they cannot, my understanding would be they should reply and tell you why not - in most cases I should imagine they cannot because they don't have that expertise and they might argue it would not be 'reasonable' to expect them to provide this in stores.
They only have to make 'reasonable adjustments' not 'any and every adjustment that they are asked to provide'. But common practice is to provide disabled parking bays where they have a car park - because that is wholly reasonable and they'd fear a hefty fine otherwise.
Oh, and if a service provider happened to have made an interpreter available as a 'reasonable adjustment', then yes, in my view ANY disabled person who felt they needed that provision could make use of it. The service should allow it if the interpreter is available and a disabled person knows about the provision and requests it. What else is the service to do - carry out a hearing test first?!
So sorry to break it to you, firebird20, that identifying disability need is not a matter of labelling certain people as being eligible for certain things. Except in the case of the Blue Badge scheme on public highways but that's a different matter!
P.S. Next time you talk to Helen do tell her how much we detest the stupid 'Baywatch scheme'. NOT because anyone able-bodied wants to park in disabled bays randomly - most people do not and never would! But because it has a LOT to answer for in encouraging Disability Now readers and Mobilise members to snoop around accusing others where they see no Blue Badge displayed - never knowing the disability of that driver or passenger, or maybe the person they are collecting!
The whole premise of the Baywatch scheme is WRONG. A lack of a Blue Badge on display in a private disabled bay does NOT mean that there is 'disabled bay abuse' going on. It might do - but to assume so is ridiculous and frankly astonishing for a disability charity to encourage!
QUOTE
Disabled rights Hello Coupon-mad.
I am pm'ing you because i think this will be boring for general forum use.
You obviously make claims to be protecting disabled people and promoting their rights. You must recognise that there are many forms of disability - not just those affecting mobility. Lets suppose I am profoundly deaf - I am therefore by all recognised criteria 'disabled'. Now i do not have mobility problems therefore I do not need a disabled bay. Are you saying I can use one? I do however need somebody in the stores who has sign language qualifications to help me with my purchases. Am I entitled to this and equally can any disabled person demand the use of a skilled sign language person?
Your comemnts would be really appreciated.
If you feel the need to post this on the forums - please could you make sure this is quoted in full.
I await your comments with interest.
QUOTE
To firebird20, my answer is here in a thread rather than by pm as I have no wish whatsoever to engage in pm's with PPCs. But as you can see I have quoted your pm in full, boring or not!
This is my view as an ex-disability advice manager (not an expert of course but with some knowledge of the subject and the law). As I see it, the Equality Act 'reasonable adjustment' provision is there for anyone who has the need for that provision. Disabled bays are NOT just about the fact they are wider. In almost every case they are also nearer the store (so, they are safer).
So if a deaf driver (or blind, or epileptic, etc., passenger) felt that they NEEDED to use a bay as close to a store as possible then I personally cannot see how a retailer could possibly argue that they are not entitled to use the adjustment. In practice I suspect many deaf people would say 'don't be daft, of course I don't need to use a disabled bay!'.
But everyone's needs are different, and the DDA (Equality Act) is about making reasonable adjustment for NEED. So if just one deaf person in your area would feel that they need to use that disabled bay to feel safer when shopping - and they do after all fit the DDA definition of disability - then the Act allows them to use that bay, I believe.
It is NOT just about mobility - that's the thing that many people cannot get their heads around. Strangely enough, Mobilise seem to think the provision IS about mobility which is where I suspect the question has arisen in a little chat between Helen and some hasbeen from some PPC or other.
I DISAGREE.
There is nothing in the Equality Act that I know of, where it lists certain disabilities as allowing people to use certain provisions. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. I cannot see how they could, there is no line to be drawn between disabilities and no-one on private land has to 'prove' their need to a service provider! Why on earth should they? It's not as if every Tom, !!!!!! and Harry is going to ask for a braille version of every leaflet just as most able-bodied people never even think about parking in a disabled bay. There are some cars parked in Supermarket disabled bays without Blue Badges but as we know, this means nothing in truth. It doesn't tell you that there is 'disabled bay abuse' even though Mobilise would have it that it does...
As for your last question, if you need someone with sign language qualifications to help with your purchases then you are entitled to ask the store if they can meet that need. But you cannot demand it. If they cannot, my understanding would be they should reply and tell you why not - in most cases I should imagine they cannot because they don't have that expertise and they might argue it would not be 'reasonable' to expect them to provide this in stores.
They only have to make 'reasonable adjustments' not 'any and every adjustment that they are asked to provide'. But common practice is to provide disabled parking bays where they have a car park - because that is wholly reasonable and they'd fear a hefty fine otherwise.
Oh, and if a service provider happened to have made an interpreter available as a 'reasonable adjustment', then yes, in my view ANY disabled person who felt they needed that provision could make use of it. The service should allow it if the interpreter is available and a disabled person knows about the provision and requests it. What else is the service to do - carry out a hearing test first?!
So sorry to break it to you, firebird20, that identifying disability need is not a matter of labelling certain people as being eligible for certain things. Except in the case of the Blue Badge scheme on public highways but that's a different matter!
P.S. Next time you talk to Helen do tell her how much we detest the stupid 'Baywatch scheme'. NOT because anyone able-bodied wants to park in disabled bays randomly - most people do not and never would! But because it has a LOT to answer for in encouraging Disability Now readers and Mobilise members to snoop around accusing others where they see no Blue Badge displayed - never knowing the disability of that driver or passenger, or maybe the person they are collecting!
The whole premise of the Baywatch scheme is WRONG. A lack of a Blue Badge on display in a private disabled bay does NOT mean that there is 'disabled bay abuse' going on. It might do - but to assume so is ridiculous and frankly astonishing for a disability charity to encourage!
PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
0
Comments
-
The distinction is this, if I break my leg and are using crutches to enable me to get around, so thereby temporally disabled, according to the PPCs I am not allowed to use the disabled bays, even though quite obviously I have plaster-cast on my leg, so by any right thinking person I have a need to use the disabled bay, but the PPC will say I have no right to use a bay that is there as an advisory measure only.
Now if you appeal to the PPC they will turn it down immediately, as the appeal is not independent and therefore its prejudiced to the PPC as they don't like turning down money, they do however like discriminating against disabled parkers by their pathetic rules, what damned right do they have determine if I need to use that bay, what are their qualifications to say that I have no need?
Basically the PPCs are using this as a cash cow, they damn well know it, and we bloody know it as well, the only people who can't seem to grasp this are the so called politicians that have been voted into office, and are supposed to do what we ask of them, obviously within in reason, and by the way tthis is within reason!Excel Parking, MET Parking, Combined Parking Solutions, VP Parking Solutions, ANPR PC Ltd, & Roxburghe Debt Collectors. What do they all have in common?
They are all or have been suspended from accessing the DVLA database for gross misconduct!
Do you really need to ask what kind of people run parking companies?0 -
Thank you coupon mad - but why do you see disabled bays on private land as 'advisory only' - you must know private land owners (thorugh their agents if necessary) control parking and activity on their land by contract nad if the contract says a valid blue badge must be displayed to park in a disabled bay then that is a contractual condition that can and has been enforced. Now they are meeting there obligations under the DDA by providing suitable bays for those with a mobility disability. i would hope they meet their obligations for other kinds of disability - indeed some of our managing agents provide informational signs in braille etc. With regard to public highways I cant quite see why that is different apart from the method of control - the needs of the disabled are the same. I have yet to see you campaign vigorously for general disabled use of disabled parking facilities in public highway systems. If hte blue badge scheme (which is far from perfect) is not used as an indicator of entitlement to use disabled parking facilities what do you suggest is used. I can assure you abuse of disabled bays by able bodied is very common and sadly many lotorists do not care that they park in disabled bays when they are perfectly fit and healthy. It would be good to keep this thread sensible without degeneration into the verbal abuse so often seen on these forums.0
-
firebird20 wrote: »Thank you coupon mad - but why do you see disabled bays on private land as 'advisory only' - you must know private land owners (thorugh their agents if necessary) control parking and activity on their land by contract nad if the contract says a valid blue badge must be displayed to park in a disabled bay then that is a contractual condition that can and has been enforced. Now they are meeting there obligations under the DDA by providing suitable bays for those with a mobility disability. i would hope they meet their obligations for other kinds of disability - indeed some of our managing agents provide informational signs in braille etc. With regard to public highways I cant quite see why that is different apart from the method of control - the needs of the disabled are the same. I have yet to see you campaign vigorously for general disabled use of disabled parking facilities in public highway systems. If hte blue badge scheme (which is far from perfect) is not used as an indicator of entitlement to use disabled parking facilities what do you suggest is used. I can assure you abuse of disabled bays by able bodied is very common and sadly many lotorists do not care that they park in disabled bays when they are perfectly fit and healthy. It would be good to keep this thread sensible without degeneration into the verbal abuse so often seen on these forums.
But your company specialises in persecuting disabled motorists who make simple mistakes, such as forgetting to display their badge. Even when this is pointed out to your company via your "appeals" process, you turn down that appeal and take them to court. Are you proud of your win in Exeter where the disabled motorist was too ill to attend?What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?0 -
Impossible to comment on any case in Exeter as it is still on going so we are led to believe and you are not fully aware of the facts. However comments on my post earlier would be a useful way forwardtrisontana wrote: »But your company specialises in persecuting disabled motorists who make simple mistakes, such as forgetting to display their badge. Even when this is pointed out to your company via your "appeals" process, you turn down that appeal and take them to court. Are you proud of your win in Exeter where the disabled motorist was too ill to attend?0 -
firebird20 wrote: »Impossible to comment on any case in Exeter as it is still on going so we are led to believe and you are not fully aware of the facts. However comments on my post earlier would be a useful way forward
Why should we offer anything useful to you ? You serve no useful purpose here at all, we know who you are and what you represent , so sod off and take your company with you !Excel Parking, MET Parking, Combined Parking Solutions, VP Parking Solutions, ANPR PC Ltd, & Roxburghe Debt Collectors. What do they all have in common?
They are all or have been suspended from accessing the DVLA database for gross misconduct!
Do you really need to ask what kind of people run parking companies?0 -
You can add to your contract that only red cars can park in special red-car only bays, that carries as much weight as demanding that disabled people need to show a blue-badge to park in the disabled bays.0
-
Very sad that this thread should degenerate so quickly but there you go.0
-
firebird20 wrote: »Thank you coupon mad - but why do you see disabled bays on private land as 'advisory only' - you must know private land owners (thorugh their agents if necessary) control parking and activity on their land by contract nad if the contract says a valid blue badge must be displayed to park in a disabled bay then that is a contractual condition that can and has been enforced. Now they are meeting there obligations under the DDA by providing suitable bays for those with a mobility disability. i would hope they meet their obligations for other kinds of disability - indeed some of our managing agents provide informational signs in braille etc. With regard to public highways I cant quite see why that is different apart from the method of control - the needs of the disabled are the same. I have yet to see you campaign vigorously for general disabled use of disabled parking facilities in public highway systems. If hte blue badge scheme (which is far from perfect) is not used as an indicator of entitlement to use disabled parking facilities what do you suggest is used. I can assure you abuse of disabled bays by able bodied is very common and sadly many lotorists do not care that they park in disabled bays when they are perfectly fit and healthy. It would be good to keep this thread sensible without degeneration into the verbal abuse so often seen on these forums.
Braille signs in car parks? That really takes the prize for an idiotic quote of the year award to a PPC troll.
Your takings down again this week are they?0 -
firebird20 wrote: »Very sad that this thread should degenerate so quickly but there you go.
Very sad that you make a living out of discriminating disabled drivers, and turning down all appeals even when they provide proof of their badge to you, and your pets at mobilise get a commision out of you, a charity that profits out of invoices that they know damned well that they are not enforceable! Despicable the both of you !Excel Parking, MET Parking, Combined Parking Solutions, VP Parking Solutions, ANPR PC Ltd, & Roxburghe Debt Collectors. What do they all have in common?
They are all or have been suspended from accessing the DVLA database for gross misconduct!
Do you really need to ask what kind of people run parking companies?0 -
firebird20 wrote: »Impossible to comment on any case in Exeter as it is still on going so we are led to believe and you are not fully aware of the facts. However comments on my post earlier would be a useful way forward
Are you sure? I thought that your company had won that case and you logged onto various websites and bragged about it.What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards