Help me settle an argument over Blue Badge/Private land

Coupon-mad

Stroma wrote: »

I would go as far as saying that having the requirement for a blue badge on private land is actually abuse of the blue badge scheme in itself. Because obviously the handbook says its for council car parks and on street parking only.

Yep I would agree. It discriminates against those people who are entitled to use the reasonable adjustment but who may not have an (irrelevant to the Equality Act) Blue Badge at all.

interstellaflyer wrote: »

Bit of a discussion going on at work at the moment regards Blue Badge scheme and private car parks, under what Acts are the requirements to display a Blue Badge in a private car park un-enforcable?

The Equality Act 2010 is silent on Blue Badges or permits of course because the emphasis is on need alone, and it covers everything in daily life (not just parking of course!). There are so many diverse conditions which might give rise to a person needing to use a 'reasonable adjustment' that you can't label the people nor restrict their access to the provision they need.

Tesco wouldn't stop a frail person from using a wheelchair instore - or dare to demand proof of disability from that person and ban them from using a wheelchair if they had 'the wrong type of disability' - so why they think they can pretend to have statutory powers in their car park is anyone's guess. To me it's patently obvious that someone like HO87's mum has a right to the car she's arrived/collected in, being parked in a disabled bay nice and close to the store. No discussion needed, the Act certainly covers her and grants her that legal right - it's just that people are blinded by the made-up terms on the PPC signs!

If the argument from your friends is 'how can a PPC know who is disabled and who isn't?' I would partially agree that it must make life difficult. TOUGH!! Yes, an operative could consider a Blue Badge as 'proof' if you like. But IMHO the discrimination comes where PPCs rely on the Council scheme in isolation and declines appeals which show the person had a right to park there. A Badge is certainly not the only indicator of disability need and people have had fake PCNs even when their BB is upside down, out of date, or where the car has a zero (disabled) tax disc, or where they have put a clear note on the dash about the disabled passenger. All of which are just as valid as a Blue Badge might be in communicating the need to use the bay.

A disabled person doesn't have to communicate their need of course but in practice - to avoid fake PCNs and hassle - something on the dash telling the operative about the disability isn't a bad idea. But tell your friends that this doesn't have to be a Blue Badge despite the signage used by PPCs.

HO87

I agree entirely C-M. Your argument is well honed. I fully accept that PPC's are in a difficult position, indeed an almost impossible one in some senses. Unfortunately the BPA seems locked into the BBS as a yardstick and excludes anything else. Whilst it wrings its hands and witters on about EA obligations it nevertheless leaves matters squarely decided on the possession or otherwise of a blue badge.

I'm still quite taken aback that DM seem to believe that there is no issue with those excluded from the BBS but still entitled to EA "reasonable adjustment". And of course a DM representative sits on the BPA board and it receives a rake-off of PPC "receipts' (does that actually mean profits?) from PCN's issued for disabled bay "abuse".

Supermarkets have pushed Mother & Toddler / Family spaces with stickers that must be displayed. Is it really beyond the wit of these remarkably rich organisations to come up with an alternative to the BBS which would see them fulfil their EA obligations in a far more considered, less arbitrary and importantly meaningful way?