mother and toddler parking in disabled bay got ticket

Coupon-mad

kevanf1 wrote: »

The use of a blue badge may be legally irrelevant but it is one way in a noway perfect world of at least showing the person using it is entitled to do so. While acknowledging the fact that there is abuse in the system.

Yes, I can see why it seems on the surface to be one way of identifying disabled motorists/passengers. And sadly, there's bound to be an element of abuse as there are toe-rags in Society.

But it is nothing like the amount mentioned in the national papers, whose information was based on a flawed campaign ('Baywatch' several years ago) which was organised by a 'disabled charity' who also have strong business connections with...private parking companies!

kevanf1 wrote: »

The ones I mentioned using disabled bays never seem to show a blue badge. They don't 'seem' to be driving for a disabled person either.

They wouldn't. Neither you nor I are in a position to judge.

Sorry it's not that easy but then again nor do we ask for 'proof' in any other aspect of disability provision. If someone needs to use a wheelchair in a Supermarket the CS staff do not ask for proof of disability, nor do they say you can only use one if you have a Blue Badge.

Before she got her own wheelchair, my old Mum used to sometimes wait with me for half an hour at the CS desk until a previous customer had finished with one of the few wheelchairs provided. But we didn't judge the other people using them (who would?).

The problem is that people have been told by the nationals that there is widespread 'bay abuse' and also people actually believe that a private firm can 'fine' a person for using a disabled bay without a badge. So they will look at and judge a person leaving a car in one of those bays but would never look at and judge someone using another disability provision like a loan wheelchair.

kevanf1 wrote: »

How can you say who should morally have the use of disabled bays without having some form of showing that entitlement? Should somebody who has broken a leg be entitled to use a disabled bay?

This is a bit like Groundhog Day as I have answered this sort of query lots of times on here. But no, a passenger with a broken leg does not convey an entitlement under the Equality Act to use a disabled bay. No-one here said it did.

You just need to look up the definition of disability to see what sort of conditions I am talking about - and even then I always add that 'their condition has to also cause them to need the bay close to the store'. So probably not someone with a facial disfigurement but probably yes to someone with cataracts, or flare-ups of an invisible but debilitating condition like ME or crohn's disease.

Yes to someone with arthritis like you have - whether they have a Badge to prove it or not - as long as they need that close bay.

kevanf1 wrote: »

What if they are taking away the bay from somebody who is crippled up with arthritis (as I am actually). I have had to wait in a normal parking bay because I could not walk into the store and my wife has gone to do the shopping. While on other occasions I've had to drive off the car park because there were no disabled bays available for me to use. Those times I was on my own so I ended up having to go without the goods I needed.

Yes, I know, I used to do the same with my Mum.

But the failing is with the number of disabled bays. As I already said, you are ranting about a perception of bay abuse (unknown and unproven) whereas IMHO it's quite likely to be simply a lack of disabled bays.

The issue - lack of disabled bays, which is not the case everywhere of course - should be taken up with the Store Managers. But somehow people seem more drawn into a 'blame culture' in this Country, like to have a rant at others.

I don't read that at all from your posts by the way - but you are actually repeating a lot of stuff that I fundamentally disagree with, due to my previous jobs in disability advice and personal experience of caring for disabled relatives. A lot of stuff is wrongly assumed because there are so many conditions that are invisible and there's a lot of misinformation out there about 'bay abuse'.

Coupon-mad

mikey72 wrote: »

What do you do when you finish up with so many (full) bays that the further ones are so far away the users can't walk the distance to the store any more, as the closer ones are full of none blue badge disabled users?

Would you like to point out anywhere that has happened? Never known it!

Thinking about my local Supermarkets there are plenty of other spaces near to a store which could be swapped to disabled bays if the need was there. Such as parent & child bays for example - as I have said before - it would be great for Supermarkets to get rid of the gimmick and just concentrate on complying with the law for disabled people who need the close bays.

But they won't do this U turn because it's the families who are often the most lucrative customers, and the gimmick has evolved into an expectation, a 'presumed right'. Which takes us back to the OP of this thread. The mother had an expectation of a right to a special bay so just took 'another one'.

WRONG.

mikey72

Coupon-mad wrote: »

........................The issue - lack of disabled bays, which is not the case everywhere of course - should be taken up with the Store Managers. But somehow people seem more drawn into a 'blame culture' in this Country, like to have a rant at others. ...........

It's very easy simply to point the finger at the supermarket.

But if they have filled the car park with bays, how can you blame them if they are all full, and where do you put more?

There is no point is simply increasing the number if they are so far away the ends of the rows are unusable.
And the ones here are now.

It's very easy to forecast statistically how many bays are needed, so if they're full, instead of blaming the supermarket, simply address the excess of cars parked in them instead of ranting at the store manager.

You have been involved in this, so you must know what percentage of bays would be expected, and that's a very easy check you could do yourself.

mikey72

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Would you like to point out anywhere that has happened? Never known it!

Thinking about my local Supermarkets there are plenty of other spaces near to a store which could be swapped to disabled bays if the need was there. Such as parent & child bays for example - as I have said before - it would be great for Supermarkets to get rid of the gimmick and just concentrate on complying with the law for disabled people who need the close bays.

But they won't do this U turn because it's the families who are often the most lucrative customers, and the gimmick has evolved into an expectation, a 'presumed right'. Which takes us back to the OP of this thread. The mother had an expectation of a right to a special bay so just took 'another one'.

WRONG.

You'll have to post up the google map for your local then, as ours need a wheelchair to get from the end of the bays now. The kids spaces are further away, so I guess you are indeed WRONG as you say, but then I never bothered about cars next to me, so I didn't use the ones further away myself, I just pushed them seats down the cars next to me if they were too close.

taffy056

If the owners of car parks made bigger parking bays so people could open doors there would be no real need for disabled bays IMO , having bays close to the store front door reserved for disabled people is a good idea in theory but in practice I don't think it's needed.

I am not having a go here, but if they need to park close to the entrance for a disability , how do they manage in a supermarket that has a floor area larger than a football pitch ? It's controversial I know but it's my opinion only .

Coupon-mad

If they have provided as many disabled bays as would be deemed reasonable under the circumstances then a Supermarket has fulfilled part of their obligations under the EA.

There are standard percentages but these are not set in stone of course - a Supermarket in Eastbourne might need more than most!

And the retailers also have to review/adjust the provision or they could very easily later fall foul of the Act. Hence why I suggested a visual deterrent of a staff member doing a straightforward survey at the bays every so often, which would be a record in itself of 'proactive review' = compliance.

It would also serve to provide some useful info on what sort of disabilities or conditions the customers typically have (if they choose to say), and what their experiences are as regards how long they sometimes have to wait for a disabled bay, whether they have any improvements to suggest, anything else needed to make their shopping experience better.

mikey72

Coupon-mad wrote: »

If they have provided as many disabled bays as would be deemed reasonable under the circumstances then a Supermarket has fulfilled part of their obligations under the EA.

There are standard percentages but these are not set in stone of course - a Supermarket in Eastbourne might need more than most!

And the retailers also have to review/adjust the provision or they could very easily later fall foul of the Act. Hence why I suggested a visual deterrent of a staff member doing a straightforward survey at the bays every so often, which would be a record in itself of 'proactive review' = compliance.

It would also serve to provide some useful info on what sort of disabilities or conditions the customers typically have (if they choose to say), what their experiences are as regards how long they sometimes have to wait for a disabled bay, whether they have any improvements to suggest, anything else needed to make their shopping experience better.

The stats are fairly well set in stone, and would be an easy defence incourt.

Policing the car park with a third party as a deterrent would also stand up well as being proactive.

As to having a member of staff interrogate every driver that parked there……………

mikey72

taffy056 wrote: »

If the owners of car parks made bigger parking bays so people could open doors there would be no real need for disabled bays IMO , having bays close to the store front door reserved for disabled people is a good idea in theory but in practice I don't think it's needed.

I am not having a go here, but if they need to park close to the entrance for a disability , how do they manage in a supermarket that has a floor area larger than a football pitch ? It's controversial I know but it's my opinion only .

Our local has cars circling for spaces.
The last thing we want is less bays, and more empty space around the ones that have managed to park.
Smaller bays = more cars parked = good.

taffy056

Most supermarket car parks are not full at anytime beyond Christmas . I went into Carmarthen tesco today at about 1pm and it was a quarter full at most. That is the same in most places I go, I travel around the country and visit many Tesco's for fuel and food and have only seen me struggle in one place to get a space and that was in Swansea marina store where there is a small car park.

mikey72

taffy056 wrote: »

Most supermarket car parks are not full at anytime beyond Christmas . I went into Carmarthen tesco today at about 1pm and it was a quarter full at most. That is the same in most places I go, I travel around the country and visit many Tesco's for fuel and food and have only seen me struggle in one place to get a space and that was in Swansea marina store where there is a small car park.

I don't want to circle at christmas.
And I work in the day, I don't have the luxury of shopping at lunchtime in the week.
(Unless I have no lunch and don't mind a boot full of defrosted food)