Parking in Disabled bays

sarahg1969

Fergie76 wrote: »

Or if disabled person is not the driver, park as close to the door as possible, let out the disabled person and then driver can go and find a parking space elsewhere.

And if you are a disabled person who is entitled to use the bay, don't use it if you don't really need to on that occasion. Leave it free for someone who does.

Or if the disabled person IS the driver, and is not getting out, think about whether or not you really need to use a disabled bay.

Coupon-mad

halibut2209 wrote: »

What annoys me is that disabled bays and P+C bays were developed as a courtesy and a way of encouraging people to visit stores. Now people seem to act as though they have a legal right to have them (as in that article above). Can you imagine the hoo-haa if bus companies tried to fine people who didn't give up their seats for other people?

I think you'd get a lot further with signs saying "Please leave these spaces for those who need it more than you" than with silly threats and invoices.

You attract more flies with honey etc

Totally agree. That's almost exactly the wording used on the back of train seats, it even adds 'remember that the need for this seat may not always be obvious'.

fivetide

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Why?

Because people abuse them and as I said genuine users get treated the same as the abusers. There has to be a way to sort geniune need.

As some posters know, I used to work in a disability provision service

I know that too. I've been here a while. I'd have thought you'd be keen to stop abuse as much as anyone.

and my view would be that your store needs to consider adding extra disabled bays.

I actally think our store has lots of bays, more than most do to be honest. Why should they add even more? Surely that will only encourage more idle people and cash machine cripples to abuse them?

Eventually you'll end up with a car park that has more disabled bays than standard ones!

They will be relying on their USELESS PPC issuing fake 'fines' to people but that doesn't address the need, and the failure of the provision, does it?

Again, and with the utmost respect, you do not know this store. I don't agree with the PPC at all, indeed I've taken some pics to post here that I think you will find most amusing of their signs, definately not disabled friendly! However, there are those who allow their dislike os PPC's to cloud their judgement.

Note above the reference to disabled bays as nothing more thna graffitti. That, I am sure you will agree, is certainly not what they are to those who do need to use them.

There is no simple 'Blue Badge scheme' anywhere else in life! Do you suggest that employers, for example, have to be 'psychic' to know how many disabled employees they have (and what provision is or will need to be being made for them, best practice being to keep this under regular review)? Nope. A good employer will ask new and exisiting employees 'do you consider yourself to be disabled, and if so, what needs do you have that we need to know about'? Why do you think they word it that way? Because it is about an individual's needs, that's what the disabled part of the Equality Act 2010 is about. Not about who has this permit or that permit!

No they ask because that is the law. They have to make reasonable provision as you know but an emplyer is not going to take on a wheelchair user in a listed building that cannot be altered to have a lift installed for example. That is a bit of an extreme argument. To use the example above, the store should be interviewing everyone who comes in and asking that question. I am sure you will agree here too that is invasive and unncessary.

That does not necessarily mean that some people using them (bays or wheelchairs) are taking the mickey/lazy!

Again, I have not said that the ALL are. What I said is that SOME abuse it and can get away with it.

Do you honestly think that people should be allowed to do this without issue?

You may feel that the balance of abusers to those with a genuine need is right, I do not. That is all.

So why is this situation any different? Supermarkets should be paying more attention to the NEED and have a staff member responsible for the fair use of the disabled bays, whilst the store is open. The big Stores can CERTAINLY afford it and it will be cheaper than being sued - and all the bad publicity that will go along with a case started by a person who is disabled but has no Blue Badge, for harassment & Equality Act breaches by their agent. It's only a matter of time I am sure.

And yet here, right at the end, you suggest a solution to the issue! Would you not agree that the above would help "sort the wheat from the chaff" and does exactly as I suggested? Something the rest of the post argued quite vehemently against!


It is simply a topic I care about. I do not like references to disabled spaces as graffitti and I do not think that those who abuse the facility should be allowed to do so.

That does not mean I support PPCs or what they do. We've even had a ticket off one for using a disabled space without our badge (forgot to bring it out). I didn't pay it and was all geared up for a battle. Town and Country let me down there!

It did however bring home the point that people with a genuine need may be put off using the spaces they deserve because they are scared of getting a ticket while those who simply do not care rack up tickets without losing any sleep! I do not think that is fair at all!

Coupon-mad

fivetide wrote: »

Because people abuse them and as I said genuine users get treated the same as the abusers. There has to be a way to sort genuine need.

Yes I agree there should be a way - but a PPC is never going to help as there's no money in it. It has to be the store themselves paying someone to oversee it.

fivetide wrote: »

I'd have thought you'd be keen to stop abuse as much as anyone.

I am! I just don't agree that there's much evidence of rife bay abuse. I also used these bays a lot when my mum was alive, and when I was a driver for the disabled. In my local car parks there was almost always a space, sometimes having to wait a few mins but that's normal when a store is busy (same as waiting for a wheelchair to become free).

fivetide wrote: »

I actally think our store has lots of bays, more than most do to be honest. Why should they add even more? Surely that will only encourage more idle people and cash machine cripples to abuse them?

I have never seen these 'idle people and cash machine cripples' at my local stores. I have seen people park badly or on hashed areas to go to a cashpoint but with no real inconvenience or obstruction. I would actually challenge someone nipping to the cashpoint from a disabled bay (I really would, I used to challenge people who parked in our disabled bay at the Disabled Advice Centre car park, but just with a question 'are you entitled to park there, as it's needed for disabled visitors...' Happened literally once in a blue moon and the person would blush and move!).

fivetide wrote: »

Note above the reference to disabled bays as nothing more than graffitti. That, I am sure you will agree, is certainly not what they are to those who do need to use them.

I have never called disabled bays 'graffiti' and have never posted that they 'mean nothing' either. I DO post exactly that about so-called parent and child bays because they are just a pathetic gimmick by stores to hook families in. Then some idiot parents think it's a right - possibly actually using a disabled bay if they think they 'have' to have a wider bay. Haven't seen it myself but I have answered posts about it and told such dim parents to park in a normal bay and never take a disabled bay!

fivetide wrote: »

No they ask because that is the law. They have to make reasonable provision as you know but an emplyer is not going to take on a wheelchair user in a listed building that cannot be altered...

I don't just mean new employees - existing employees too. Good practice is for HR Depts to update this info at the annual appraisal - and my point was the wording of the question 'do you consider yourself disabled?' as opposed to 'are you registered disabled?' (no such thing these days anyway).

And it's not out of the question for very large retailers/landowners to be able to show that they do carry out reviews of their disability provisions. Councils have a duty to review their policies & provisions, and private companies should be doing similar reviews or they could fall foul of the law. The law is essentially the same for employers as it is for any service open to the public. Heck, it would only need questionnaires on the tills, or at the CS desk, or put under the windscreen wipers of any cars parked in disabled bays (not tickets, just a friendly questionnaire saying 'how are we doing?' with a space for comments). Then they'd learn if most disabled people replied that the bays were always full.

In the Disabled Advice Centre we'd send out such questionnaires sometimes to known 'customers' who had had advice appointments with us and the replies were really helpful. Even without specific questionnaires, the big stores could easily just add a small feature in their magazine or in those mailshots to cardholders, it would be easy to show they were listening to the needs of their disabled customers and could show up some trends of local issues to address too.

fivetide wrote: »

Again, I have not said that the ALL are. What I said is that SOME abuse it and can get away with it. Do you honestly think that people should be allowed to do this without issue?

No I don't believe that at all! But I don't have any evidence that such abuse is rife. I believe it's rare. And the softly softly approach on clear signage would be better (like the train seats that say 'please let someone who needs it use this seat and remember that the need may not always be obvious').

fivetide wrote: »

And yet here, right at the end, you suggest a solution to the issue! Would you not agree that the above would help "sort the wheat from the chaff" and does exactly as I suggested? Something the rest of the post argued quite vehemently against!

Yes, that would be my suggestion to help show that a retailer had acted reasonably throughout - but they seem to prefer to get the 'policing' of the bays done very badly (with discrimination) but heck, it's all free!

fivetide wrote: »

It is simply a topic I care about. I do not like references to disabled spaces as graffitti and I do not think that those who abuse the facility should be allowed to do so.

Agreed.

fivetide wrote: »

It did however bring home the point that people with a genuine need may be put off using the spaces they deserve because they are scared of getting a ticket while those who simply do not care rack up tickets without losing any sleep! I do not think that is fair at all!

I agree.

But equally, it CANNOT be just about Blue Badges, otherwise I could borrow my Auntie Madge's BB just to park lazily at Tesco. And according to a PPC I would be allowed to park there 'because I am displaying a Badge' (that they cannot check the details of). Whereas a genuine disabled person with an invisible condition (non Blue Badge) such as cancer, would get a fake ticket and threatograms.

Can't be right can it? :mad:

ManxRed

fivetide wrote: »

It is simply a topic I care about. I do not like references to disabled spaces as graffitti and I do not think that those who abuse the facility should be allowed to do so.

I take it you're referring to my post here?

Legally speaking, disabled bays on private land have the same legal standing as graffiti. This is true whether we are discussing abuse of these bays or not. Incidentally, I don't entirely disagree with many of your points, and as I posted no one on here (certainly not me) condones abuse of disabled bays, private or public.

However, the OP in this thread is not discussing Disabled Bay abuse here, they are discussing an improperly issued ticket. You have subsequently hijacked the thread and taken it off topic on a crusade against disabled bay abuse. My original 'graffiti' reference was to assure the OP that the ticket they have been issued has no legal basis and not to worry. This is primarily an advice forum and the OP was asking for advice, not a debate. I gave it accordingly.

If you want a debate on disabled bay abuse then I'm not sure that this thread is the place to have it, but if you're asking, I broadly agree with Coupon Mad's stance on this.

C_Mababejive

Do we really have to do this again...?

fivetide

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes I agree there should be a way - but a PPC is never going to help as there's no money in it. It has to be the store themselves paying someone to oversee it.

Totally agree there. I wasn't saying it was a PPC thing, I just think there needs to be a way for those in genuine need, like Trazy to use spaces without fear and those who abuse them, not to do so with impunity.

I am! I just don't agree that there's much evidence of rife bay abuse.

Sadly in the big Tesco near us (not the Morrisons in the other pictures) the disabled spaces are along the front of the shop. Also on the front of the shop are the cash machines (three of them) so my experience is somewhat different to yours.

It is not surprising we can have different views based on our own experiences.

Indeed, in the same Tesco car park, our car was damaged when the driver next to us managed to slam his door into out car - despite being in a disabled space! He didn't even have a badge and admitted he'd "just nipped in for a case of beer" and thought it would be "be ok for a few minutes" and "besides it's heavy" so I am basign my thoughts very much on what I have seen on a regular basis.

I used to challenge people who parked in our disabled bay at the Disabled Advice Centre car park, but just with a question 'are you entitled to park there, as it's needed for disabled visitors...' Happened literally once in a blue moon and the person would blush and move!).

My mrs has that becasue she's only late twenties. She has a stick but there are those out there who seem to think disabled must be either elderly or in a wheelchair. That is also a sad state of affairs!

I have never called disabled bays 'graffiti' and have never posted that they 'mean nothing' either.

I never said you did. However Manx did (yes Manx it was your post I was refering to) and you thanked Manx for it which to me is endorsing the viewpoint.

AsI said, I am simply trying to advocate better services for those who need them. Your experience is no abuse problem, mine is different.

Manx, I haven't hi-jacked anything. Post #15 by the OP says how they would be scared to use the bays without a badge and a number of other posters, including yourself, posted well before me around the topic.

I was simply carrying on the conversation and suggesting that if the OP does feel like that then they shouldn't do and a better system is needed. I am sure we can all agree on that.

But equally, it CANNOT be just about Blue Badges, otherwise I could borrow my Auntie Madge's BB just to park lazily at Tesco. And according to a PPC I would be allowed to park there 'because I am displaying a Badge' (that they cannot check the details of). Whereas a genuine disabled person with an invisible condition (non Blue Badge) such as cancer, would get a fake ticket and threatograms.

Can't be right can it? :mad:

No and the blue badge scheme itself isn't perfect

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1313428/Fraudsters-cost-taxpayers-14-7-million-using-unauthorised-disabled-parking-badges.html

A lot of people do exactly as you have just said but outwith private car parks.

The picture of the person should be on the front of the badge perhaps. That however, is an entirely different debate.

Trebor16

Oh dear Fivetide, up to your usual tricks again I see. Let's just stick to the original point of the thread and help the OP instead of hijacking the thread on your own agenda and taking it off at a tangent.

Stroma

Perhaps it can be split from this thread, as its really unfair on the OP as he wants advice that is separate from this