Another pm from firebird20

trisontana

firebird20 wrote: »

Very sad that this thread should degenerate so quickly but there you go.

Are you proud of the fact that your pet debt collectors go by the very misleading name of "Court Proceedings Ltd" complete with a "scales of justice" logo. Go on admit it, it's designed to fool people into thinking its some sort of official body. This is why we hold your "ethical" company in such contempt. Surely you have got the message now?

trisontana

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

This is the case you won against a severely disabled driver:-

UKCPS v Oxenham, Exeter County Court 17-01-2011 case reference 0QZ11447

Proud of yourself?

ripped_off_driver

The sooner the Charity Commission investigate why the so called charity Mobilise have done a grubby deal with the private parking company that most delights in persecuting disabled drivers the better.

That good enough for you Mr Peter Hasbeen/Halfwit?

Coupon-mad

firebird20 wrote: »

Thank you coupon mad - but why do you see disabled bays on private land as 'advisory only'?

Because they are. Did you not realise that your friend Helen says so too (second answer):

http://www.disabilitynow.org.uk/have-your-say/ask-the-experts-folder/ask-the-experts-27

firebird20 wrote: »

- 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.

A contractual condition also has to be fair - you cannot just slap on a penalty. And winning a case in Small Claims - such as the astonishing case where you harassed that genuine disabled driver to Court in Exeter - doesn't stop such drivers then bringing a counter claim against the retailer/managing agent and YOUR FIRM under the Equality Act. Such a counter claim will make any Small Claim look like peanuts in comparison. It will happen, I am sure, it's just a matter of time.

firebird20 wrote: »

Now they are meeting their obligations under the DDA by providing suitable bays for those with a mobility disability.

It's not the DDA any more, didn't Helen tell you?

And strangely I see NOTHING in the current law which says that disabled bays are for those with MOBILITY disabilities. As I said above, already, they are for genuine NEED for ANY person who meets the definition of longterm disability (actually a broken leg wouldn't count).

firebird20 wrote: »

i would hope they meet their obligations for other kinds of disability - indeed some of our managing agents provide informational signs in braille etc.

:T:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:What's braille 'etc'. anyway - is there another sort of braille?

firebird20 wrote: »

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.

I think disabled people should be able to use disabled bays without harassment. But why would I campaign vigorously for a change in the regulations on public highways when the very worst harassment and intimidation is being carried out daily in private car parks?

firebird20 wrote: »

If the 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 motorists do not care that they park in disabled bays when they are perfectly fit and healthy.

How do you know that abuse is very common? Have you carried out an unbiased survey of motorists using such bays? Or have you just gone by the lack of Blue Badges? Don't tell me you have read the results of the PATHETIC - and IMHO discriminatory - Baywatch campaign!

OK, until a year ago I used to park in private land disabled bays REGULARLY, some Supermarket ones and some residential flats etc. If you had watched me every time you would have seen me - alone - park up and walk away (and I am perfectly fit and healthy). Personally I have NEVER had a Blue Badge or a disability. Your car park saddo would have pounced, thinking 'she cannot park there, she can have one of our fake PCNs!'

But...in every case I was either collecting my late disabled Mum from somewhere or I was picking up disabled service users for a job I had then. My Mum used a wheelchair. The service users did not but were, in most cases, mentally disabled. They often took 10 or 15 minutes to be ready to come out to the car with me.

So, do you think I could/should have parked there under the DDA (the law at the time)? I would like to know what you honestly think about that scenario? Do you really think - 'yes' to collect a wheelchair user but 'no' to collect mentally disabled people? Or do you really think 'no' in either case because I could not display a Blue Badge which doesn't even flippin' apply on private land? :mad:

It may surprise you to learn that my Mum and, IIRC, most of the service users had Blue Badges (but of course I didn't carry their badges, why would I?). I also have a teenage relative with epilepsy. She has a Blue Badge - did you not realise that people have these badges for disabilities OTHER than mobility issues?!

It is not just old people and wheelchair users who can use the advisory bays of which you speak.

Sirdan

" I also have a teenage relative with epilepsy. She has a Blue Badge "

Why is that , where is the genuine need to park in a disabled bay. ?

Like it or not disabled bays are always the spaces with the easiest access for anyone with mobility problems ..i.e. close to the store or a ramp instead of stairs etc.

I've several friends who are epileptic and they are all perfectly capable of walking unaided over the exact same distances that I can ..

Clearly the interpretation of a clear "need" is very broad indeed ..despite what the dft guidance says :-

http://www.dft.gov.uk/adobepdf/259428/281009/bluebadge.pdf


no getting away from it that guide is very much about people with mobility issues.

AND the only mention re epilepsy is in the section regarding children under two.

Not supporting PPCs by the way just striking a balance .."disabled" covers many many conditions and many of those don't have any need of a disabled parking space.

taffy056

Yes but what right does a ppc have to determine need ? What qualifications do they posses to say I don't need to use the advisory bay ? Most people are decent and honest and will not use these bays in any case, but as I mentioned above if I broke my leg and was on crutches I have a need, probably only for a couple of months, I am disabled temporarily and getting a blue badge is out of the question, but according to the ppc I have no need as I have no badge, that is discrimination .

Also as there is no independent appeals it means that no common sense approach is used, this is all about money generation to the ppc they don't give a monkeys about circumstances !

Sirdan

taffy056 wrote: »

Yes but what right does a ppc have to determine need ? What qualifications do they posses to say I don't need to use the advisory bay ? Most people are decent and honest and will not use these bays in any case, but as I mentioned above if I broke my leg and was on crutches I have a need, probably only for a couple of months, I am disabled temporarily and getting a blue badge is out of the question, but according to the ppc I have no need as I have no badge, that is discrimination .

Also as there is no independent appeals it means that no common sense approach is used, this is all about money generation to the ppc they don't give a monkeys about circumstances !

This where the law as it stands is flawed , they have to make a reasonable adjustment for disability. Providing disabled spaces is one of those adjustments , but as the blue badge is not strictly relevant then how can anyone assess the need ...this leaves the situation that anyone can park in the disabled space and no one can do anything about it ...somehow that doesn't seem right ..does it ?
In fact you could argue that as it stands private car park operators are not able to meet their obligations under the Equality Act as they can not effectively provide parking spaces that are solely for the use of disabled persons (or persons dropping off and collecting) .
Surely if a private landowner or their agent has as you put it "no right" and "no qualifications" then how can they possibbly be legislated to provide a reasonable adjustment. It is all subjective isn't it ?
That would lead me to conclude that there isn't really any point in private car parks marking bays as disabled at all..as they can't stop anyone parking in them and they can't assess disability BUT they have to provide them by law ..!!

PS Both my son and daughter have been on crutches at some time in their lives and we never once parked in a disabled bay.
They were both fit and young and perfectly capable of crutching their way into the store.
I didn't feel a need for a disabled space but some others may have done ..all too often in modern society people use the word" need" when what they mean is "want".
(As an aside child spaces are the same the PPC in my local supermarket reckons the child should be under 12 and still in a car seat..can anyone tell me why exactly someone carrying a 10 year old passenger who is 3'11" needs to be parked in a specially reserved child and parent space ???? I will tell you why NO REASON AT ALL)

Sirdan

Coupon Mad you have said

"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."

Sorry much as I detest PPCs and their methods i still can't agree with that statement.

Basically you are saying that if a disabled person feels a need ..then they have by default such a need regardless of their disability ?

So my son who has a behavioural condition which is classed as a disability in law and often as a teenager feels the need not to walk further than he has to ..is entitled to use a private car park disabled bay is he ?? He does not qualify for a blue badge and he can walk prefectly well but if he feels the need that's ok ??

Sometimes I feel that some posters here are so determined to rubbish anything and everything that a PPC poster says that they make ill judged statements that do them no justice at all :-(

Coupon-mad

Sirdan wrote: »

Coupon Mad you have said

"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."

Sorry much as I detest PPCs and their methods i still can't agree with that statement.

Basically you are saying that if a disabled person feels a need ..then they have by default such a need regardless of their disability ?

Yes, I am saying that.

IMHO a driver 'can' park there as long as they or a passenger meets the definition of disability (and please can we get away from the broken leg/crutches scenario as short term conditions do not fall within the Equality Act). Whether they would need or choose to park there is another matter.

The problem as I see it is with people who seem to think that every person is looking to use a disabled bay if they can get away with it! Don't make me laugh!

In my experience most people would prefer not to use 'special bays' even those who would be entitled to. And my experience comes from when I worked in Disability advice, working with service users, some elderly, some with sensory impairments, some physically and some mentally disabled.

In practice, someone who is deaf is obviously unlikely to consider using a disabled bay - but each person is different. What about someone who has recently gone deaf, and is also maybe elderly, frail and slow-moving, for example? The deafness would be a sudden and huge impact on their life, making them more vulnerable - would you say they cannot use a disabled bay to be nearer to the store and cross in front of fewer cars that they cannot hear and cannot easily avoid?

It is true to say that disabled bays are often - but not always - full. I think we all know that.

But that does not mean there is abuse going on - it MIGHT do but who are we to judge? It could simply be that the retailer or managing agent needs to provide MORE disabled bays - but I guess that hasn't entered their tiny minds...

IMHO it would be better to have a clear, large lettering advisory notice beside every single advisory bay (a bit like the notices that appear in buses by the front seats). 'At all times, please leave these bays clear for customers who have a genuine disability and need to use them. Thankyou'. There could also be a similar notice in front of every parent and child bay if Supermarkets want to do so (also advisory of course).

Try it, firebird20. A clear instruction in front of every bay with a 'thankyou' at the end. Trouble is you won't because you wouldn't be able to argue it was a 'contract' and get your ill-gotten gains would you? Never mind that it may actually have the desired effect that the retailer or managing agent wants, and keep that bay free as required for those who need it.

Sirdan wrote: »

So my son who has a behavioural condition which is classed as a disability in law and often as a teenager feels the need not to walk further than he has to ..is entitled to use a private car park disabled bay is he ??

Yep. Why not? But in practice I very much doubt you or he would want to draw attention to yourselves like that.

I used to transport teenagers with behavioural conditions, possibly like your son - some would want/need me to park in the disabled bay and others would have gone mad at me if I had made them look silly in doing so! Everyone is different, that's the point.

But it's not about laziness, nor about the wider bays - it's about safety. Same goes for when I transported people with mental disabilities, the Equality Act meant that we didn't have to wander all over the car park to reach my vehicle when I collected them.

And I have never asked, but I think the reason my niece with epilepsy has a Blue Badge is so the car can be parked near to where she is going and is easy to get back to if she feels the warning signs of a fit. There is also the fact that many people find their epilepsy can be triggered by fatigue and stress, my niece included. So if she's being driven a long way - say to a Uni open day or going to watch her team play an away footie match - then it's a relief to know after a long journey that they can arrive and park up on site without stress. FWIW when she goes with me or other relatives to the cinema or shopping, the car is NOT normally parked in a disabled bay, we don't use it 'because we can' and NOR DO MOST PEOPLE!

But who am I to question the need her GP has obviously seen? Why should anyone to question it?

trisontana

I think I have mentioned this before, but our local Sainsbury's has this notice by their disabled bays. :-

"If you are disabled, please feel free to use these bays. To our other customers, thank you for not parking here."

So no mention of blue badges, penalties or fines, and it seems to work. That's a much better approach and it stops PPCs fleecing people for breaking their silly rules.