Parking in a Disabled Bay

mikey72

bazster wrote: »

It's also a poor do when someone thinks they can do whatever the hell they like on someone else's land. If the landowner wants to lay down rules about who can park and where they can park then that is his right (and indeed, his obligation to some extent under the Equality Act). The fact that the landowner's legal remedies for breaching his rules are so limited doesn't make it right to breach his rules.

We're a democracy.
The law has decided that the private rules aren't enforcabe, and so can be ignored, regardless of what the landowner wants. So if a landowner wants to put down tarmac and paint it, that's an option to him, but no-one has to do any more than ignore them. If you don't agree, that's a personal choice. Not mine, but one that others find acceptable.
They have a right to park where they want to. I wish they didn't have that right, but at the momemnt, they do, so we'll have to respect it.

bazster

mikey72 wrote: »

We're a democracy.
The law has decided that the private rules aren't enforcabe, and so can be ignored, regardless of what the landowner wants. So if a landowner wants to put down tarmac and paint it, that's an option to him, but no-one has to do any more than ignore them. If you don't agree, that's a personal choice. Not mine, but one that others find acceptable.
They have a right to park where they want to. I wish they didn't have that right, but at the momemnt, they do, so we'll have to respect it.

They do not have the right to park where they want to. The absence of serious remedies does not amount to a right. Anyone who plays fast and loose with someone else's property and sticks two fingers up whilst doing it is an ignorant pig and certainly gets no respect from me.

grant_uk

mikey72 wrote: »

We're a democracy.
The law has decided that the private rules aren't enforcabe, and so can be ignored, regardless of what the landowner wants. So if a landowner wants to put down tarmac and paint it, that's an option to him, but no-one has to do any more than ignore them. If you don't agree, that's a personal choice. Not mine, but one that others find acceptable.
They have a right to park where they want to. I wish they didn't have that right, but at the momemnt, they do, so we'll have to respect it.

I certainly don't have to respect it.

In any case, the business owner has no obligation to serve someone who has no interest in adhering to reasonable conventions of behaviour, including respecting any disabled access that has been laid on.

bazster

grant_uk wrote: »

I certainly don't have to respect it.

In any case, the business owner has no obligation to serve someone who has no interest in adhering to reasonable conventions of behaviour, including respecting any disabled access that has been laid on.

They could also ask them to leave, and if they failed to do so then it would be trespass (I'm talking about the landowner or their properly appointed agent here, not some jumped-up PPC).

Once again the landowner runs into the issue of the absence of remedies for the trespass, but it would be utterly perverse to argue that this amounts to a right to trespass.

grant_uk

bazster wrote: »

They could also ask them to leave, and if they failed to do so then it would be trespass (I'm talking about the landowner or their properly appointed agent here, not some jumped-up PPC).

Once again the landowner runs into the issue of the absence of remedies for the trespass, but it would be utterly perverse to argue that this amounts to a right to trespass.

In any case, any 'right' someone may wish to invoke that allows them to park in a disabled spot without fear of legal redress is balanced by my 'right' to belittle the heck out of their sorry backsides on a public form.

mikey72

bazster wrote: »

They could also ask them to leave, and if they failed to do so then it would be trespass (I'm talking about the landowner or their properly appointed agent here, not some jumped-up PPC).

Once again the landowner runs into the issue of the absence of remedies for the trespass, but it would be utterly perverse to argue that this amounts to a right to trespass.

The manager of Tesco's will never be the landowner, so no rights at all to ask someone (who simply isn't obviously disabled. or displaying a blue badge) to leave.
Not even has the right to demand to know if they're disabled or not.

AltheHibby

Mikey,

If Tesco owns the land as a company then their manager, as an employee, is the owner's representative and does come with legal rights. Otherwise, only the shareholders would be able to take action as they own the company that owns the land.

mazza111

Surely this isn't a question of legality though, is it not a moral question?

We all know it's not enforceable on private land, but surely to god, common decency comes into play here. Why on earth would you want to see someone disabled struggle when you can walk the distance perfectly well.

I personally find it very selfish of able bodied people taking up those spaces near the door that could be of any help to a disabled person. Don't get me wrong, I have 2 badges in my car, one for mum and one for DD. I could easily abuse it, but I don't. It's more frustrating to have to walk the length of the car park with a disabled person, than having to walk the length of the car park as an able bodied person.

Please guys, show a bit of human decency.

Stephen_Leak

Having the right to do it doesn't mean that it's right to do it.

mikey72

AltheHibby wrote: »

Mikey,

If Tesco owns the land as a company then their manager, as an employee, is the owner's representative and does come with legal rights. Otherwise, only the shareholders would be able to take action as they own the company that owns the land.

He'd have to prove Tesco owned it, and his contract allowed him to control who parked there, as opposed to company policy dictating to him. Then there are all the covenants on the land, the council restrictions.......
That's before he took you to court to allege trespass, and gain the right to actually enforce your removal.

And if they merely rented on an estate, no rights at all.