oohh im so excited

Coupon-mad

fivetide wrote: »

Agreed but those people wouldn't be driving would they? I doubt anyone with aflare up of IBS will want to risk sitting in a traffic jam for example.

Those people are very likely to be passengers visiting a Supermarket. Of course a driver can park in a disabled bay if they have a passenger which such a condition who needs the closest bay. The law says so.

fivetide wrote: »

This has happened to us. As I said, my Mrs has a blue badge and we forgot to put it in one day at the local retail park. I am actually waiting on them following it up.

With that in mind, I do agree, it's illegal as things stand and I have no truck with these companies...

You soon will have when they send you the threatograms and won't accept any sort of appeal (what's in it for them to allow appeals?).

fivetide wrote: »

There does need to be a way to protect these spaces for those who do need them.

As I said, how about regular surveys/checks to see that the bays are being used by people with a condition who need the bay. Could be every day even!

If that regular checking identifies that there is a need for more disabled bays then the retailer has to provide them if at all possible (can't see where it wouldn't be possible in a large Supermarket car park, for example).

If that regular checking identifies that there are a lot of chancers sheepishly avoiding the person doing the check then they have a duty to take further action to stop people doing this. Could be a change to signage to make people more aware, or a permanently manned area with a cheerful but EA knowledgeable staff member, and/or a barrier/chain system to those special bays. Or a name and shame thing over the tannoy, Store Manager having a word, if they know a person is NOT disabled (by asking them for instance, then seeing that person there again and again). Or a combo of all these or other actions.

The retailer complies with the law if they are proactive, provide suitable adjustments, review the effectiveness of them and act reasonably and regularly to continue to ensure their compliance with the Act.

fivetide wrote: »

It follows that there needs to be a way to tell who needs them and the blue badge is a good way to do it.

That is what my question was essentially about.

What else do we propose?

I do not agree that the blue badge scheme is a good way to do it as it restricts the provision unfairly and excludes people who have a legal right to use the bay.

It would be exactly like restricting another 'reasonable adjustment' such as wheelchairs (provided by lots of Supermarkets) to people who have a Blue Badge. Imagine if they asked for a Blue Badge before they will give a wheelchair to a customer! Thereby refusing a wheelchair to someone with, say, a respiratory or heart condition...a BIG NO-NO! And the same illegality as the unfairness of refusing a disabled bay to such customers.

What I think is needed is clearer signage and staff/customer knowledge as to who CAN use such bays. I also believe that most Supermarkets have far too many Parent & Child Bays (not needed by law, just a gimmick) and too few Disabled Bays.

heartbreak_star

nobby24 wrote: »

Qualifying for one and having a blue badge are two different things.

I know of someone that got given a blue badge after an op. They were back jogging after 2 months, back coaching and perfoming sports including gymnastics after 6 months, and still use their blue badge because it doesn't run out till next year :mad:

HBS x

ManxRed

fivetide wrote: »

Just to clarify I do think there is a serious debate to be had here. Aside from bashing the parking companies, how do you stop abuse of these spaces?

Not everyone has a strong moral compass...that's what the original post was about.

5t.

Its an interesting debate, and is not easy to answer.

However, please don't confuse the underlying message from advisors on here, what we are saying is that disabled people should not be penalised for using these bays.

We are NOT advocating that non-disabled people should abuse them.

dw85

"Aside from bashing the parking companies, how do you stop abuse of these spaces?

Not everyone has a strong moral compass...that's what the original post was about."


Indeed, not everyone does have a strong moral compass, just read The Sun/Daily Mail/ most media and their reports on benefit fraud etc.

There will always be some that abuse the system, and as stated MOST people play by the rules. But why should anyone be scaremongered into paying an overly inflated charge which is not justified, just for parking? Also, i should imagine that those parking in disabled spaces probably wouldnt pay the fake ticket either.

Sorry for hijack, but your comment caught my eye

bazster

fivetide wrote: »

Agreed. Not sure the sarcasm that preceeded this was necessary in response to a genuine question though.

Sarcasm? All in your head I'm afraid.

fivetide wrote: »

If one is driving one's own car a lot and needs to use disabled spaces then surely one should apply for a blue badge?

That's not what you asked, and anyway where does "should" come into it? It might seem to make sense to you or me, but there is no necessity for compulsion and no basis for drawing negative inferences from not doing so.

fivetide wrote: »

Severely is a rather loose term don't you think?

The criteria are much more tightly defined than that, it was just the introductory sentence for goodness' sake!

fivetide wrote: »

I do think if someone is capable of piloting a car, especially a manual car then it is very difficult for them to claim they need to be as near the door as possible because if they were in lots of pain it would potentially affect their drving would it not?

I don't think that's necessarily the case at all, and why does pain necessarily have to come into it? I'm sure there are lots of people who can drive OK but have difficulty walking very far. I certainly wouldn't presume to tell them otherwise with no knowledge of their medical history and no medical expertise.

fivetide wrote: »

Agreed but those people wouldn't be driving would they?

You are making so many baseless assumptions. My OH is epileptic and she drives (legally). And before you ask, no she doesn't have any mobility impairment and no she doesn't have a Blue Badge, I am simply taking issue with your claim that "these people" wouldn't be driving.

fivetide wrote: »

With that in mind, I do agree, it's illegal as things stand and I have no truck with these companies but there does need to be a way to protect these spaces for those who do need them. It follows that there needs to be a way to tell who needs them and the blue badge is a good way to do it.

That is what my question was essentially about.

What else do we propose?


5t.

Short of having a qualified doctor in every car park the only alternative is education and active warning mechanisms (e.g. technology that loudly tells you that you are parking in a disabled space). Not ideal, but misusing the Blue Badge scheme as a money-making scam is not the answer either.

Coupon-mad

heartbreak_star wrote: »

I know of someone that got given a blue badge after an op. They were back jogging after 2 months, back coaching and perfoming sports including gymnastics after 6 months, and still use their blue badge because it doesn't run out till next year :mad:

HBS x

A classic example of why the Equality Act quite rightly and clearly sets out the definition of disability and the duty of service providers to address need. Not 'whether a person has a Blue Badge, Blue Hat, Blue Car' or whatever.

There is a lot of Blue Badge abuse and the way the PPCs have the car parks set up, they would not issue a fake PCN to a person using their old Mum's Blue Badge (because the car park clueless goon would check the windscreen, see the BB and think 'that's OK then'). :mad:

But illegally, they WOULD issue a fake PCN to anyone parked in such a bay WITHOUT a Blue Badge - with no thought given at all to whether that person may meet the definition of disability or could be picking up a passenger with such a disability.

That's the point, PPCs don't know & don't care. All the time that people are willing to believe their misleading and Equality Act breaching signs 'Blue Badge or else!!' then it gives them carte blanche to intimidate people whose BB is the wrong way up or who are disabled but have no 'Badge' to somehow prove it.

fivetide

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Those people are very likely to be passengers visiting a Supermarket. Of course a driver can park in a disabled bay if they have a passenger which such a condition who needs the closest bay. The law says so.

Agree. I said that.

You soon will have when they send you the threatograms and won't accept any sort of appeal (what's in it for them to allow appeals?).

Totally hoping they do. I'll be posting them on here!

As I said, how about regular surveys/checks to see that the bays are being used by people with a condition who need the bay. Could be every day even!

And this is where we come back to the problem.

How do you know someone is entitled to use it? If you ask them they can lie. They don't need to prove anything and shouldn't have to really (other than that it is their blue badge they are using)

You simply can't demand medical histrories in the car park which is why the blue badge scheme is a useful one and why there needs to be an alternative.

I don't think 'being a bit sheepish' really qualfies.

What I think is needed is clearer signage and staff/customer knowledge as to who CAN use such bays. I also believe that most Supermarkets have far too many Parent & Child Bays (not needed by law, just a gimmick) and too few Disabled Bays.

agree (although i do think parent bays are a good idea for those of us who value a dent free car). trouble is, if the signs can be ignored, what's the point?

Lets have a look at bazster's rantings... i mean post...

bazster wrote:

I don't think that's necessarily the case at all, and why does pain necessarily have to come into it? I'm sure there are lots of people who can drive OK but have difficulty walking very far. I certainly wouldn't presume to tell them otherwise with no knowledge of their medical history and no medical expertise

Exactly my point above. thanks for agreeing!

You are making so many baseless assumptions. My OH is epileptic and she drives (legally). And before you ask, no she doesn't have any mobility impairment and no she doesn't have a Blue Badge, I am simply taking issue with your claim that "these people" wouldn't be driving.

She won't be needing a disabled bay either though will she? Fact is she could use one but she doesn't need one. That again, is my point.

Short of having a qualified doctor in every car park the only alternative is education and active warning mechanisms (e.g. technology that loudly tells you that you are parking in a disabled space).

Again, if this can be ignored, what is the point?

Not ideal, but misusing the Blue Badge scheme as a money-making scam is not the answer either.

Lost me here. Mis-use would be a money saving scam surely? This ia a money making scam ticketing people who don't have a badge but do need the space.

How do we stop that happening?

5t.

Coupon-mad

fivetide wrote: »

1. How do you know someone is entitled to use it?

2. If you ask them they can lie.

3. They don't need to prove anything and shouldn't have to really.

1. You don't! But then no-one asks a person asking for a wheelchair in a Supermarket whether they are entitled to use it either, do they? The point is that if a person needs a reasonable adjustment provision it's up to that person to identify their own need, and ask. And it's for the service provider...to provide.

2. They can lie!

3. You are right!

There is no easy answer, sorry PPCs, there isn't.

But a retailer, or any service provider, complies with the law (does their best for disabled people) if they provide reasonable adjustments and do their best to ensure they are suitable for the need and continue to be made available in enough quantity for those who need them. That's all.

No-one would argue if a retailer was seen to be proactive re their disabled bays and provided more if they were clearly always full, and 'policed' them if you like (but in a fair way by someone who knows a bit about disability law). That would be entirely reasonable and the retailer would remain untouchable - especially if they also addressed any complaints or issues raised by their disabled customers and acted to improve things if needed.

As things stand, retailers are exposed to being sued for harassment and EA breach (monetary damages). It just has not happened yet. It will if they carry on allowing the money-driven protection racketeers, PPCs, to call the shots.

bazster

Now who's being sarky? Hypocritical, much?

ashleypride

I wonder in reality if this is really a problem. Most people are not selfish, and won't park in disabled/family bays unless they require them. If the bays are full, to me it suggests they aren't enough disabled bays for legitmate usesr, or they are too little bays in general. I could be wrong but I would imagine those parking in disable bays are in a very small minority.