Disabled Motoring UK :

trisontana

I see that my latest comment has been deleted. If you are reading this DMUK shame on you ! you are just lackeys of the private parking companies.

ManxRed

And liars. Let's not forget that.

vax2002

Disabled Motoring UK are not allowing comments, they must be very busy at Disabled Motoring Uk with all that advice about "parking fines" and "private parking tickets" that Disabled Motoring UK advise its members to appeal and then pay when failed.

Have i written Disabled parking UK and parking fines or parking tickets correctly, I would not want Google showing mistakes ?

ManxRed

I think its Disabled Motoring UK.

That's Disabled Motoring UK.

Parking fines.

Lies. Misinformation.

malkyh

They never did publish my comments. Shame

give_them_FA

Let us do a little deductive reasoning on this one.

PPCs are the antithesis of charities. Their entire reason for existence is to make money. They therefore do not part with any of the money they make, unless they think it is advantageous to them- i.e. it will lead to their making even more money.

The fact that so many of them are buzzing around DMUK and are willing to give it money is a clear indicator that they believe it is a situation that can make money for them.

This is because DMUK- were it genuine- would have the power to reduce their profits by giving proper advice. PPCs make a substantial income from picking on disabled people. You know, requiring them to display a badge at all- illegal. Then there's badge upside down/not in right place/fell off dashboard/forgot to put it up.

All in all, a nice little earner. And we all know they don't cancel the charge if people prove they are disabled.

DMUK could cost them a lot of money if they gave members PROPER advice. So they cannot let that happen. They virtually take the charity over (they are the only homogenous bloc) and then use their propaganda wing- the BPA- to feed it duff information.

Now, it isn't terribly clear to me what this "charity" achieves. Most charities redistribute the money they make. What it certainly does, is to provide well paid jobs for its officers. To alienate half of its "associates" by telling the truth about them may upset that applecart.

It is a lot easier to sell out your membership who trust you to give them proper advice. Obviously, that means suppressing any information that tends to show the advice is bad.

This is, I would suggest, one of those "charities" that exists mainly to serve interests diverse from its apparent purposes.

And I would suggest that someone has fraudulently used Stephen Leak's name there for a comment. Unless you actually did write that, Stephen? As he is the only commentator on here who uses what appears to be a real name.....

trisontana

This is what DMUK should be campaigning about instead of being a PPC lickspittle :-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-18286627

Barrie James, from Torquay, had driven to Plymouth's Toys R Us to buy a present for one of his grandchildren when he became unwell.

The 75-year-old, who has had two heart attacks, received the £75 charge from G24, a parking management company that runs the Toys R Us car park.

Despite writing to G24 and explaining the full circumstances, the firm has refused to waive the fine (sic).

In a letter, the Buckinghamshire-based company said: "After consideration of the information provided by you, your dispute has been unsuccessful and the Contractual Parking Charge notice still applies."

pogofish

There are surely grounds here for involving the Charity Comissioners? Especially as the charity's reaction to posts does not look like they are dealing with the matter themselves.

The CC criteria for considering a complaint:

The issues we consider to be serious or significant and unacceptable for any charity, its trustees, employees or agents to be engaged in are set out in the list below. The issues are not listed in any order of priority:

• significant financial loss to the charity;
• serious harm to beneficiaries and, in particular, vulnerable beneficiaries;
• threats to national security, particularly terrorism;
• criminality within or involving a charity;
• sham charities set up for an illegal or improper purpose;
• charities deliberately being used for significant private advantage;
• where a charity's independence is seriously called into question;
• serious non-compliance in a charity that damages or has the potential to damage its reputation and/or the reputation of charities generally;
• serious non-compliance in a charity which, left unchecked, could damage public trust and confidence in the Charity Commission as an effective regulator.

I can see three that are applicable in that list, maybe four arguably?

give_them_FA

I'd agree; though aside from the darker influences, they have persuaded a rather impressive array of bigwigs to associate themselves including Royal in-laws, so it wouldn't be easy.

Trebor16

My comments have also disappeared. It is clear that they prefer to dance to the tune of the PPC's who give them cash rather than act in the best interests of their members.

Shame on Disabled Motoring UK.

Disabled Motoring UK

Big on taking cash from PPC's. small on protecting the interests of disabled motorists.....................allegedly;)