Charged £20 to renew Blue Disabled Parking Badge

jetta_wales

sunnyone wrote: »

You dare to mention moral fiber when you allow your VED exemption to be abused on a daily basis!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The sooner your "partner" gets caught and fined, the better for us all because he and you are giving disabled people a bad name and the previous poster is also right, you allow him to break the law daily so you wouldnt blink an eye for moral judgements like using your BB on private land.

You know the law and choose to ignore it because it suits you too, a person who gets HRMC cannot claim vehicle excise duty exemption if the car is used by someone else for any reason at all unless you are their and you dont go to work everyday with your "partner" or everywhere else the car goes either so he is breaking the law with your permission everyday.

Enjoy your tantrum all you like but Motability dissagree vehemently and the DVLA and DWP both have no issue with any use that comes under the Motability scheme who will also add busines use to the insurance policy (within reason obviously) if needed by partners or parents of a disabled person or child if they are the main breadwinner in their household. Using the tax exemption by itself will likely be treated differently but there's thousands of parents and partners with Motability cars that have the same usage and have been given nothing but deleted assurance that this is perfectly acceptable.

Brassedoff

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

You have said this reference photo's before, you can't really select from a menu which good bits you like and which bits you [ a minuscule minority ] don't want.

The new BB Proposals due later this year will allow traffic wardens and parking attendants the power to confiscate badges. Bobbies have had this power since 2006.

People in this group who say "" what about someone that is doing the shopping for the badge holder, who is at home "" the law is clear if the person who the badge is registered to is not in the vehicle, then the badge should not be being used.

Putting the photograph on the ' new rules ' badge therefore means that the police and later this year traffic wardens can instantly and without any need for extra checks or resource's prove the BB is being misused and confiscate it on the spot. Additionally the new BB will have a central dBASE, a bit like the centralised DVLA and insurance dBASE any police of traffic warden will only need to make one quick phone contact instead of for example in London having to telephone the blue badge department of all 32 London boroughs.

The BB is then returned to the issuing authority with details of why it was removed, it remains to be seen whether all rather than the current some will adopt the three strikes” basis before permanently confiscating the badge. Personally I'm against the three strikes rule, I think confiscation should be instant except for specified ' certain ' types ' of illness.

The following 3 strike safeguards were proposed:

a) That the badge holder be given the benefit of doubt
b) That badge holders and any carers receive written notification of cancellation
c) That a simple and robust means of appeal be introduced.
d) That the “three strikes rule” be retained

I agree, confiscate it, no need to fine. If the family lack moral fibre, they should not have access to the badge or car in the first place without the holder. Simple as. No excuses.

jetta_wales

Brassedoff wrote: »

I agree, confiscate it, no need to fine. If the family lack moral fibre, they should not have access to the badge or car in the first place without the holder. Simple as. No excuses.

There's plenty of people that through mental health or old age etc are very vulnerable. Do you really think it right to punish them and thus give no actual punishment to the person who committed the offence?

They would be no more responsible for it's miss use than if it had stolen and misused.

sunnyone

jetta_wales wrote: »

Enjoy your tantrum all you like but Motability dissagree vehemently and the DVLA and DWP both have no issue with any use that comes under the Motability scheme who will also add busines use to the insurance policy (within reason obviously) if needed by partners or parents of a disabled person or child if they are the main breadwinner in their household. Using the tax exemption by itself will likely be treated differently but there's thousands of parents and partners with Motability cars that have the same usage and have been given nothing but deleted assurance that this is perfectly acceptable.

Motability want your custom, they tell lies to get it not because they deliberatly want to mislead you but because they dont have a clue about the disabled tax disc laws and your rose tinted glasses make you believe that its ok to break the law by your "partner" having the car but you are wrong, there is no motability exception to the law or any other exception, the disabled person must be in the car to make the vehicle excise duty exemption legal.

We had a visit from HMCE over this because a neighbour reported us as breaking the law but we were not and never have done, my husband has two cars of his own that are legally taxed and my car is my is just that, my car.

I hope you get a visit soon, you are breaking the law daily and you are doing it blatently and deserve to be caught and fined, if your BB is in the car he/you should also be fined for that because when you break the law for one you will certainly do it for others because you have no respect for the law.

jetta_wales

sunnyone wrote: »

Motability want your custom, they tell lies to get it not because they deliberatly want to mislead you but because they dont have a clue about the disabled tax disc laws and your rose tinted glasses make you believe that its ok to break the law by your "partner" having the car but you are wrong, there is no motability exception to the law or any other exception, the disabled person must be in the car to make the vehicle excise duty exemption legal.

We had a visit from HMCE over this because a neighbour reported us as breaking the law but we were not and never have done, my husband has two cars of his own that are legally taxed and my car is my is just that, my car.

I hope you get a visit soon, you are breaking the law daily and you are doing it blatently and deserve to be caught and fined, if your BB is in the car he/you should also be fined for that because when you break the law for one you will certainly do it for others because you have no respect for the law.

Oh get over yourself.

Sure sure, Motability tell blatant lies to thousands of their customers just to sell their cars for their non profit organisation. Better make sure I don't have any knives in my kitchen either because I'd blatantly think nothing of using them as a weapon because I am willing to do something that Motability, the DWP and the DVLA have all told me repedly is fine but you believe is wrong so I think nothing of the law. Got a rifle upstairs too, woo lawbreakers with guns too, better hide we've got no regard for the law after all lol. :rotfl:

Go on you can call my partner a toy boy again too if you like because of the huge 6 year gap between us, swear a bit too if you want and get your posts deleted again. Or just get a handle on your spiteful tantrums.

Richie-from-the-Boro

jetta_wales wrote: »

There's plenty of people that through mental health or old age etc are very vulnerable. Do you really think it right to punish them and thus give no actual punishment to the person who committed the offence?

They would be no more responsible for it's miss use than if it had stolen and misused.

Jetta, I did say in #63 """ specified ' certain ' types ' of illness """. Its not illness but wilful intent that causes most misuse, and most misuse occurs where the registered BB holder is complicit in that misuse.

Under the ' no strike ' rule its immediately confiscated [ not cancelled.. .. yet ! ] and the holder instantly knows they have ' pushed their luck, but can appeal it back.

Under the ' 3 strike ' rule its not cancelled or confiscated, and they receive the first of 3 warnings, the holder instantly knows they have ' pushed their luck, after the third it confiscated but can not appeal it back and are heavily fined.

Its a difficult balance to ensure that the Blue Badge Scheme is ' it for purpose ', and it clearly is not at the moment, a way has to be found to make sure those in need of a Blue Badge are eligible and protected while at the same time reducing misuse of the Scheme by those who are not.

The [ evidence based ] common misuse issues are :

- family members or carers using a badge, with or without the knowledge of the badge holder
- family members using badges after the badge holder has died
- applications being made using a deceased person's name and details
- applications made by people using false identities or who misrepresent themselves or who make false statements about their disability
- badges being copied and forged
- badges being tampered with to alter the expiry date
- badges being falsely reported as "lost", so that holders can be issued with replacements that are then used in more than one car or by family members
- badges being stolen from cars for illegal re-sale

Take an average outside ASDA scenario tomorrow morning. An enforcement officer believes that a badge is being used by someone other than the badge holder - should he give it back to that person ? .. .. no, in those circumstances its more appropriate for the enforcement officer to confiscate the badge and return it to the issuing local authority without delay.

The authority may then want to return it to the badge holder with a letter stressing the importance of them looking after the badge and making sure as far as possible that it is only used when they are present in the vehicle.

On~the~spot confiscation following an inspection, when the badge is already in the authorised officer's hands, or in cases where a third party has voluntarily handed it over is the right way to instantly begin to clear up the misuse. No one is proposing that vehicles are forcibly entered.

jetta_wales

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

Jetta, I did say in #63 """ specified ' certain ' types ' of illness """. Its not illness but wilful intent that causes most misuse, and most misuse occurs where the registered BB holder is complicit in that misuse.

Under the ' no strike ' rule its immediately confiscated [ not cancelled.. .. yet ! ] and the holder instantly knows they have ' pushed their luck, but can appeal it back.

Under the ' 3 strike ' rule its not cancelled or confiscated, and they receive the first of 3 warnings, the holder instantly knows they have ' pushed their luck, after the third it confiscated but can not appeal it back and are heavily fined.

Its a difficult balance to ensure that the Blue Badge Scheme is ' it for purpose ', and it clearly is not at the moment, a way has to be found to make sure those in need of a Blue Badge are eligible and protected while at the same time reducing misuse of the Scheme by those who are not.

The [ evidence based ] common misuse issues are :

- family members or carers using a badge, with or without the knowledge of the badge holder
- family members using badges after the badge holder has died
- applications being made using a deceased person's name and details
- applications made by people using false identities or who misrepresent themselves or who make false statements about their disability
- badges being copied and forged
- badges being tampered with to alter the expiry date
- badges being falsely reported as "lost", so that holders can be issued with replacements that are then used in more than one car or by family members
- badges being stolen from cars for illegal re-sale

Take an average outside ASDA scenario tomorrow morning. An enforcement officer believes that a badge is being used by someone other than the badge holder - should he give it back to that person ? .. .. no, in those circumstances its more appropriate for the enforcement officer to confiscate the badge and return it to the issuing local authority without delay.

The authority may then want to return it to the badge holder with a letter stressing the importance of them looking after the badge and making sure as far as possible that it is only used when they are present in the vehicle.

On~the~spot confiscation following an inspection, when the badge is already in the authorised officer's hands, or in cases where a third party has voluntarily handed it over is the right way to instantly begin to clear up the misuse. No one is proposing that vehicles are forcibly entered.

I suppose if it is possible for it to be returned to the disabled person after confiscation then that seems more reasonable but I do still think that there should be a fine given to the person it is confiscated from else they're getting off pretty lightly still.

The other issue though is when the disabled person is only with the driver for half the trip. For example it is currently fine for my partner to park in a disabled bay with me and we can go to the shopping centre, have lunch with my Mum and then decide to stay with my Mum for some extra shopping time while my OH goes home (just a randomly made up example) and that is fine under current rules. It's a situation that will occure often for some people being dropped off for an hour of physical therapy or even just being taken to church, lots of things. But if the person needs to be accompanied until they get to exactly their destination then the carer will be gone from the vehicle to then return alone. Then the reverse for their picking them up, parking without the disabled person then returning with them.

How would that be possible still with the BB enforcement being tightened? Any person parking without the disabled person would have to be observed both coming and going to be able to do anything or anybody wishing to miss use a BB will always just say they are picking up or have dropped off the badge holder.

I knew there were many people who misused them a lot when they have them but never realised quite how far people would go to get one like applying for one for a deceased person. That is sinking to a whole new kind of low.

sunnyone

jetta_wales wrote: »

Oh get over yourself.

Sure sure, Motability tell blatant lies to thousands of their customers just to sell their cars for their non profit organisation. Better make sure I don't have any knives in my kitchen either because I'd blatantly think nothing of using them as a weapon because I am willing to do something that Motability, the DWP and the DVLA have all told me repedly is fine but you believe is wrong so I think nothing of the law. Got a rifle upstairs too, woo lawbreakers with guns too, better hide we've got no regard for the law after all lol. :rotfl:

Go on you can call my partner a toy boy again too if you like because of the huge 6 year gap between us, swear a bit too if you want and get your posts deleted again. Or just get a handle on your spiteful tantrums.

The DVLA will never say its ok for your "partner" to abuse your VED exemption but you wont listen because it dosnt suit you but the rest of us all know its against the law, why else would they come to see if my husband was abusing mine?

And why were cars clamped in Newcastle in a crackdown when the disabled person wasnt with the car and someone else was abusing the disabled tax disc?

I asked yesterday when I was registering to drive at the motability roadshow and the DVLA staff told me it is illegal, I believe the DVLA staff as they have nothing to gain while you do because young drivers who have had accidents have to pay more insurance, good young drivers start to build up no claims and the insurance becomes affordable (though by getting a motability vehicle you lose any no claims discount you have).

There is no diffrence in someone getting a motability car for their teenage child and what you are doing, its purely because the insurance is included and its the cheapest way for them to get on the road and the disabled person dosnt have access to the car for most of the time which is totally wrong, morally and legally.

jetta_wales

sunnyone wrote: »

The DVLA will never say its ok for your "partner" to abuse your VED exemption but you wont listen because it dosnt suit you but the rest of us all know its against the law, why else would they come to see if my husband was abusing mine?

And why were cars clamped in Newcastle in a crackdown when the disabled person wasnt with the car and someone else was abusing the disabled tax disc?

I asked yesterday when I was registering to drive at the motability roadshow and the DVLA staff told me it is illegal, I believe the DVLA staff as they have nothing to gain while you do because young drivers who have had accidents have to pay more insurance, good young drivers start to build up no claims and the insurance becomes affordable (though by getting a motability vehicle you lose any no claims discount you have).

There is no diffrence in someone getting a motability car for their teenage child and what you are doing, its purely because the insurance is included and its the cheapest way for them to get on the road and the disabled person dosnt have access to the car for most of the time which is totally wrong, morally and legally.

Now you're just making stuff up, many insurers will take no claims proof from being on a Motability policy.

I am never without access to the vehicle at any time when I am actually able to use it.

It is the same as the thousands of parents who have disabled children and also have a job and that is why they have no problem with it and will even add business use to the policy if the place of work is not what is classed as a 'permanent place of work' ie one location one week another the next.

If you think thousands and thousands of Motability customers are breaking the law then go see your MP about it.

If you think Motability are actively encouraging people to break the law and knowingly and puposfuly lying to thousands of them then you should definitely contact your MP, heck call the police too

bifold

jetta_wales wrote: »

Now you're just making stuff up, many insurers will take no claims proof from being on a Motability policy.

I am never without access to the vehicle at any time when I am actually able to use it.

It is the same as the thousands of parents who have disabled children and also have a job and that is why they have no problem with it and will even add business use to the policy if the place of work is not what is classed as a 'permanent place of work' ie one location one week another the next.

If you think thousands and thousands of Motability customers are breaking the law then go see your MP about it.

If you think Motability are actively encouraging people to break the law and knowingly and puposfuly lying to thousands of them then you should definitely contact your MP, heck call the police too

I cant see the problem to be honest prehaps some links are required