TCP reported to DVLA

AltheHibby

I have just sent the following to DVLA:

"I have attached a photo of a TCP sign in Sainsburys newish store in Nairn, Highland. The photo was taken on Saturday 24th November.

There are 3 main issues with the sign:

1. The height of the sign from the ground makes it impossible to read the small print, breaching BPA guidelines;

2. The reference to blue badges breaches the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), and;

3. It clearly states "please observe the following conditions to avoid a FINE" (my capitals).

I have decided to draw this to your attention as it clearly breaches both BPA guidelines and, more importantly, the DDA.

I should be grateful if you could deal with this as I believe that signs such as this are regarded as reasons for banning companies from receiving details from DVLA due to their non-compliance with BPA guidelines.

I should also be grateful if you could e-mail me to let me know what action you propose taking.

Kind regards,

AltheHibby"

I can't figure out how to attach the photo. If someone can tell me how I will attach it tomorrow.

Crabman

AltheHibby wrote: »

I can't figure out how to attach the photo. If someone can tell me how I will attach it tomorrow.

This should help:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1690399

trisontana

Many TCP don't even comply with the BPA code. They are never sited at the entrance to the car-park, but only by the P&D machines, and many of them say "for full T&Cs" please contact TCP". So how can you agree to those T&Cs there and then, if you haven't full sight of them?

Not_to_be_messed_with

trisontana wrote: »

Many TCP don't even comply with the BPA code. They are never sited at the entrance to the car-park, but only by the P&D machines, and many of them say "for full T&Cs" please contact TCP". So how can you agree to those T&Cs there and then if you haven't full site of them?

Could the driver stick a notice on the inside of their windscreen, but visible on the outside, saying something to the effect that the driver has NOT accepted the terms and conditions of the relevant private parking company posted in the car park and that the driver has NOT accepted an implied offer by the landowner or any agent of the landowner to contract to park at the locus on the locus on the terms and conditions specified in the post. That would deal with any argument put forward in subsequent civil proceedings based on imputed acceptance by the driver of an offer to contract.

Coupon-mad

Not_to_be_messed_with wrote: »

Could the driver stick a notice on the inside of their windscreen, but visible on the outside, saying something to the effect that the driver has NOT accepted the terms and conditions of the relevant private parking company posted in the car park and that the driver has NOT accepted an implied offer by the landowner or any agent of the landowner to contract to park at the locus on the locus on the terms and conditions specified in the post. That would deal with any argument put forward in subsequent civil proceedings based on imputed acceptance by the driver of an offer to contract.

Sounds OK but who here would bother, we quite like PPC baiting and any Small Claim is so rare it's not worth littering your car windscreen about.

BTW to AltheHibby, unless Scotland is different then it's the Equality Act now; the DDA got incorporated into that in 2010. But I am sure they wil know what you mean by the Act). I suspect they won't understand why it's potentially discriminatory to say 'Blue Badge Holders Only' for disabled bays.

Interesting one, and it's good to see so many here trying out various complaints fairly regularly.

HO87

Like the idea.

The DVLA will argue that a landowner may set any conditions on those parking on his land he wishes. He may also use any criteria (subject to claims of discrimination) he sees fit with which to measure a group he wishes to restrict access to or to restrict the use of certain facilities for. A landowner is perfectly at liberty to specify that only holders of blue badges may use certain spaces in his car park in exactly the same way as he could say that drivers of red cars were not allowed to use his car park on Mondays if he wished.

The argument that landowners are advancing (apparently) is that the only reasonable means of assessing who might be entitled to use a disabled space and is readily identifiable is the blue badge.

Whether this "reasonable means" is sufficient to satisfy the 'reasonable adjustment' test (ex-DDA) and now Equality Act, remains to be seen.

Coupon-mad

HO87 wrote: »

The argument that landowners are advancing (apparently) is that the only reasonable means of assessing who might be entitled to use a disabled space and is readily identifiable is the blue badge.

Whether this "reasonable means" is sufficient to satisfy the 'reasonable adjustment' test (ex-DDA) and now Equality Act, remains to be seen.

IMHO it's only OK if they did not 'know' (or should have known) that a visitor who parks in a disabled bay was disabled. We've seen loads of cases on here where they certainly did know (such as a BB placed upside down or a PPC employee seeing the disabled person). And Asda have replied to a poster saying they are setting up a database in a store (presumably others as well) of car reg numbers used by disabled customers, so they don't get an overstay fake PCN. That's a huge leap forward.

We did have this thread (below) with a copy of the opinion of the EHRC which agrees with us, where a driver/passenger would otherwise be disadvantaged. Of course they do, it's not difficult to interpret a simple thing like who is disabled when there's a clear 'definition of disability' written into the law and there's no 'Badge' required, it's NEED (caused by a longterm debilitating condition) that is required.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4264803

I did a search to find that again and also found disability advice going back to 2005-7 (well before the Equality Act) which advised people asking about workplace law that there would be certain employees for whom a reasonable adjustment needs to be made even if they do not have a BB. Re-stated several times through this long thread:

http://www.workplacelaw.net/services/forum/thread?id=1073&asc=1

So this is nothing new, but widely misunderstood thanks to the horrendously flawed and wrongly publicised Baywatch scheme by DMUK (the charity in the pocket of several PPCs).

Oh look, the last Baywatch 'survey' had been in 2009 and they've just re-done it. Did they change the survey to consider whether the non BB drivers were actually disabled or collecting a disabled person?

Did DMUK suggest that their members take any steps to try to KNOW rather than look for a BB in empty, parked cars? What do you think?! :mad:

http://www.disabledmotoring.org/baywatch/

How about we contact the newspapers with our own explanation of why the Baywatch scheme is fatally flawed, before DMUK hit the tabloids with their latest 'survey findings' press release?

AltheHibby

Dear Mr Taylor,

Thank you for your email regarding this situation.

I have directed your concerns to the BPA as this is a matter for them to investigate and to take any required action against the company. I haven't got the photo up yet, but got a reply from DVLA:
"The reasons supplied do not warrant a suspension from accessing DVLA vehicle keeper data. The suspensions issued in the past to organisations such as this were for implying keeper liability prior to October 1st 2012.

I hope this explains the Agencies position in this matter"

Like the BPA will do anything!

ManxRed

They'll crack open some tins of Tennant's Super in celebration when they realise the DVLA are going to go back to being toothless.

AltheHibby

Tennant's Super. That sounds right for "people" at PPCs. I imagine they drink Buckie when things get really good for them.

ManxRed

And for those 'special occasions':