Disabled Motoring UK :

vax2002

give_them_FA wrote: »

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.....

A post of great wisdom. :beer:

give_them_FA

Well, here's my latest contribution; but I fear that we need to construct a short sentence using the words brick, wall, heads, banging.


I don't think this charity is being dishonest, merely naive in accepting the advice of interested parties as to the enforceability of private parking tickets. To listen to the parking companies- who grow rich perpetuating the myth that they will take non-payers to court- is taking the word of the VERY interested parties. It is indeed like asking a fox for advice on how to keep your hens safe.
Surely you owe it to your members to get unbiased and authoritative legal opinions. From people who do NOT have a vested interest. Like this one from a seniot solicitor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAIcdi9niHA
You may also want to seek advice as to how the latest Court decisions have effectively put the kybosh on even the very very few cases that WERE taken to court.
The British Parking Association, contrary to the image it seeks to project, is NOT any type of official body. It has no independence from the industry- senior members of its Board are parking firm owners

notts_phil

Right well i thought i would give this lot a call today and had a long chat with some one called Helen Dolphin. I shall summerise a 30 minute call:

*She said lots of people on these websites said very rude things and things that were libelous
*She called us Parking Terrorists
*They had to take their advice from the BPA because the was no one else to do so and they were helping people. The BPA were independent and could be trusted.
* She seemed to think these fines were enforceable, until i corrected her and advised they were invoices, not fines, she didnt like that being corrected, and she got very snotty when i told her the difference.
*When i accused them of being in bed with the BPA she also took umbridge.
*I advised her of the recent judgement and she said "well if that's the case why haven't the BPA publicised it. i explained that it wasnt in their interest to do so
* She disagreed with the "ignore" message as she said that could cause more problems, i explained how the PPcs systems worked and why ignoring was the best option.
*They weren't going to change thier advice until the BPA told them otherwise
* I told her the BPA were only interested in their members, that appeals were a sham and the sanctions (which she believed in) were nothing more sham.

So what i suggest people do is instead of posting comments on the website that most likely wont get posted is to phone Helen Dolphin on 01508 489449, give her facts not opinion and have a reasoned debate with her, which she seems to engage her.

I am not defending them or anything but i think the more people that do this and show reasoned argument may have a better effect

give_them_FA

Yes I am of the opinion that the officers of this charity are naive rather than malicious. Did you get an e mail address for her as I wanted to send her links for the decisions so she could see for herself and understand why the BPA are trying to keep them quiet.

notts_phil

well only the one thats on the website info@ but i also sent an email to helen@ and that didnt bounce back, tried others but they bounced

I emailed her the UTT decision and asked her to read it

Why dont you call her and speak to her, at least that way you actually get a response to the questions you ask rather then an email that can be ignored. Dont take this as any form of defence of this charity, but theres more then one way to skin a cat

AltheHibby

GTFA, niaive is true of loads of charities. I am an accountant specialising in charities and I see it all the time.

Coupon-mad

Please, don't email Helen Dolphin, please phone her as she has previously said she prefers to deal with matters over the phone (due to her own disability).

In 2010 when some of us here emailed her, Helen said:

''I’m more than happy to discuss your concerns but would prefer to do this by phone as typing is extremely difficult for me''.

The phone number given was the same then - but I didn't have time to set aside for a phone debate in office hours when I am work. So I let it slip and never actually spoke to her.

But am sure she is genuinely very keen to represent disabled motorists - but has spent a few years completely deluded by the BPA members she has been advised by.

So please keep any discussion to facts about the Equality Act 2010, facts about the Blue Badge scheme not being the 'be-all-and-end-all' and not even applying on private land (which she knows) and facts about the unenforceability of fake PCNs.

Helen has published quite a few relevant articles you may like to refer to!

http://www.disabilitynow.org.uk/living/motoring-section/blue-badge-argie-bargie

http://www.disabilitynow.org.uk/living/motoring-section/tv-advice-just-isnt-the-ticket

Interesting 'advice column' answer here given by Helen Dolphin about Advisory Bays, it's undated but must presumably have been before Mobilise (as they were called then) were brainwashed by UKCPS - I originally found this article 2 years ago:

http://www.disabilitynow.org.uk/have...the-experts-27

quote
Neighbours use my bay Q What do you have to do to make a disabled parking bay enforceable? My local housing association has put a disabled parking space in our car park but won't enforce it. This has made my life hell as I keep getting blocked in and can't go anywhere unless I know whose car is blocking me. Then I end up getting a mouthful of abuse when I ask them to move their car. It has taken five years to get a disabled bay marked out; what can I do to get it enforced?

Helen Dolphin answers:
I'm sorry to hear you have such thoughtless people living near you, as the disabled space that's marked outside your home relies to a certain degree on people's goodwill.
There are basically two types of bays and the bay outside your house is just an advisory bay, which means that the council doesn't formally restrict other vehicles from parking in them.
To enable this bay to be enforced would require a Traffic Regulatory Order (TRO). TROs can take a long time to implement and can cost a considerable amount of money, which in some areas local authorities are asking applicants to fund. I know that's not what you wanted to hear.
quote

Trebor16

notts_phil wrote: »

*They had to take their advice from the BPA because the was no one else to do so and they were helping people. The BPA were independent and could be trusted.

I have seen it all now!!!!:D:D:D

notts_phil

So can several people phone her next week(weds onwards) I know it won't make a lot of difference but if it means more reasoned people challanging then all the better.

So let's see what we can achieve!!

benham3160

Another industry mouthpiece; interesting she supports clamping too.

I'm torn between whether she is naive or whether Ms. Dolphin is actually aware of what she is doing.

The fact she won't change her opinion until the BPA tell her where she stands (an "authority" that runs itself, constructed of only industry members), ultimately she's only going to damage the reputation of her own organisation, something she seems hell-bent on doing. Clearly she doesn't want to take reasonable advice, and would rather see her members pay-up when they're "fined" for overstaying by two minutes, because the BPA tell her "it's for the best."


I quite like being a "Parking Terrorist"

Regards,
Andy