Abusers of Disabled Bays

FatAndy

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

Of course if they had anything about them, they could have said it did represent a loss to the landowner because it meant they may have potentially lost a disabled customer who could not park and they were keen to provide facilities for the disabled customer.

What would happen if it turned out the person in the disabled bay spent more than the "potentially lost" disabled customer would have spent so the "landowner" makes a gain? Would the "offender" be entitled to commission?

In any case the PPC can only attempt to recover it's own losses. If the "landowner" wanted to recover any losses it would be up to them to take the necessary action themselves.

mysterywoman10

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You are blinkered towards people with walking aids and mobility issues it seems to me!



Who says they can walk? What about any of these who may want to use a wheelchair when out:

- elderly/infirm with no Blue Badge
- people undergoing invasive treatment for cancer or similar conditions
- people with cardiac or respiratory or other serious conditions
- people with symptomatic ME or similar
- people who have been in an accident, maybe with a back condition where sitting is more comfortable


...that's just a few who might want to use a wheelchair instore - as is their right if the provision exists.


As for using private disabled bays, any of these might need a safer/closer bay - and this list is far from exhaustive:

- people recently diagnosed with any debilitating condition
- people already living with any debilitating condition
- people with severe mental impairment

and as well, same list as before, and more:

- elderly infirm with no Blue Badge
- people undergoing invasive treatment for cancer or similar conditions
- people with cardiac or respiratory or other serious conditions
- people with symptomatic ME or similar
- people who have been in an accident, maybe with a back condition where sitting is more comfortable


What I find more annoying is real 'Blue Badge abuse' which is people who use Blue badges which belong to others, or who sit in the car as already mentioned by sarah1969 and think that's OK.

So in 'PPC World' and maybe in your world, all those cars are OK to park in a disabled bay as the 'magic' Badge is there - and yet the car without the Blue Badge isn't OK even though the passenger has ME or cancer?

As Stroma says this is NOT the huge issue the press makes it out to be, not as far as parking in Store car parks is concerned. These bays can be 'regulated/overseen' purely by some polite signage making people think twice - and someone (trolley collectors) at the store being in charge of the disabled bay area, helping people find a bay, considering their individual needs, being a visual deterrent to chancers, etc. No penalising needed. Most people are in fact not the chancers that the stupid Baywatch scheme has brainwashed the press and the public into believing.

If they have ME or Cancer they should have a blue badge anyway and so should elderly infirm. I can't see anyone on your list who should not be entitled to get a badge. And they would need to use a wheelchair, a walking aid of some kind. We have had this situation with Mum-in-law who cannot walk hardly at all and she does need a space close to the entrance when she would then need to use an in store scooter or wheelchair.

I fully agree about those who just sit in a car and I those who are real abusers. That was what I started off trying to say. My next door neighbour got a blue badge a couple of years back when he had a dicky knee (fair enough) but he has now had surgery and there is nothing wrong with his ability to walk and if he can walk the dog to the park everyday and back then I'm sure he can walk around a supermarket and has no need to park in a "blue badge space". But he hasn't sent it back he still uses it.

How many parent and child claims have been on here (not for over staying) but for not having a child in the car? Because that isn't enforceable very easily. So how then would you keep spaces free for people who need them and who need them close to the entrance or a wide bay? Because otherwise it will be a free for all.

When you have someone disabled and you are going shopping there is nothing more annoying than trying to park when it's busy and being unable to do so because all the blue badge spaces are full and there are no other spaces. It might have taken you an hour to get the person ready to go out, you have to fit it in between meal times, changing etc. you have a wheelchair to get out, on board oxygen etc. so yes my next door neighbour taking a space is a tad annoying. But there is no one on your list that should not be entitled to park in one.

We are in total agreement about a "real" person monitoring these things rather than a PPC.

I wish I hadn't mentioned disabled spaces because it has totally detracted from the point I really wanted to bring up apart from the vehicle could be parked in the bay in the first place (assuming they could get one).

What I was trying to say is about an overstay by a seriously disabled keeper (not the driver) and that is where there is a serious oversight in changing the law to allow keepers to be pursued for payment.

Because someone with no capacity to understand the letter can be pursed by a PPC and may not have the capacity to name the driver.

They may not even have been in the car. Carer takes them to the day centre in their motability vehicle (they have an open insurance policy with Motability which you can get if you need 24/7 hour care and have lots of carers). On the way back they call into Aldi and do other shopping for them. They don't park in a disabled bay and no blue badge is displayed but they overstay by 15 minutes because they get held up in the chemist next door to Aldi waiting for their prescription.

So 14 days later the person with no capacity* gets the PCN from Parking Eye. What then happens?

*no capacity to understand or read the letter or deal with the situation I just wanted to clarify that.

Coupon-mad

If they have ME or Cancer they should have a blue badge anyway and so should
elderly infirm.

Totally wrong. You have missed the point and this is slightly annoying from someone who started the thread from a disabled family background.

An elderly person, a bit vulnerable and infirm from arthritis or summat does not have a blue badge but does have a long term condition and might need to park close to the door.

A person just diagnosed with cancer doesn't magically find a blue badge under their pillow that night. But the family still has to eat.

Not everyone has a blue badge or needs one if they don't drive.

Bored now. We've debated this before on here. The Equality Act 2010 covers the right to park there and your replies make it seem that you have really swallowed the 'disabled bay abuse' spiel you read in the papers which always muddles Council tickets with private bays and misses the entire point, as well as the small matter of the facts.

Stroma

custardy wrote: »

dunno what supermarkets/retail parks you use
however the ones round here can be packed at times
The idea of a bay wide enough to take a Passat(average size?,not to me) with doors fully open?
do you know what that equates to in loss of spaces?

I use various Tesco, Asda, Morrisons & retail parks in Morfa, Fforestfach, Bridgend, Tostra, and a myriad of other places in my travels around Wales and in south west England . I have yet to see any of them full apart from certain days up to Christmas , and then it's only a small wait for a space.

In relation to you other question, there would be some loss of space, most of it can be achieved with simple redesigns of the actual car park, and lets face it, they lose more from this now as people turn away from badly designed car parks. The old chestnut is disabled bays right next to ATMs , so ripe for abuse, and ripe for the scammers !

James_N

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Totally wrong. You have missed the point and this is slightly annoying from someone who started the thread from a disabled family background.

An elderly person, a bit vulnerable and infirm from arthritis or summat does not have a blue badge but does have a long term condition and might need to park close to the door.

A person just diagnosed with cancer doesn't magically find a blue badge under their pillow that night. But the family still has to eat.

Not everyone has a blue badge or needs one if they don't drive.

Bored now. We've debated this before on here. The Equality Act 2010 covers the right to park there and your replies make it seem that you have really swallowed the 'disabled bay abuse' spiel you read in the papers which always muddles Council tickets with private bays and misses the entire point, as well as the small matter of the facts.

Thank you for this CM - I am afraid the OP lost my sympathy way back, and seems - lets be generous - confused. It's more than just slightly annoying to find this sort of attitude, especially given the OP's background.

4consumerrights

Mysterywoman,

When I first read this thread - I really didn't trust myself to respond. It is clearly apparent that once again you post sweeping and unqualified statements on a subject matter you have very little understanding in - which is evident from reading this thread and other posts you have made.

You claim that you have a knowledge of disability after being a carer for so many years - so you really should understand the issues this can bring .

However your comments regarding disability on this thread clearly demonstrate that you have very little understanding of the Equality Act and the blue badge system.

The Equality Act makes provision for disabled persons that suppliers of goods and services are legally bound to make reasonable adjustments- these adjustments must be made free of charge to the disabled user. It is an offence to discriminate directly, indirectly or discriminate by connection to a disability. The blue badge is merely an indicator of a disability - therefore classed as an object connected to disability. The blue badge scheme does not operate on private land. The legal powers of inspection of a blue badge validity only extends to those in authority such as the police and council officials (civil enforcement officers - formerly known as traffic wardens) - and even these personnel can only inspect on public land and not private land.

I think sometimes one can get too detailed I actually would make the wider bays for people who need them i.e. wheelchair users or frames.I would have two types of disabled spaces those with narrow bays for those that can't walk very far and those who need to get a wheelchair out etc. but I would let the system rely on the users rather than penalties. Bit like parent and children spaces. Unless they didn't have an entitlement to a space at all.

It is also not really the point of the discussion because on that basis there is no point to disability spaces. I don't think it is very helpful to negate from the issue of harassing geninuely disabled people who get parking tickets what ever the circumstances. But I do see your point. And the bays do have a wheelchair on them. Maybe you have come up with the answer wheelchairs only?!

This proves that you do not understand the concept of discrimination at all as providing two different types of disabled bays would be direct discrimination between different disabled types. Failing to provide disabled parking spaces at all would mean that companies are breaching their legal obligations to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act. Parent and child parking bays are merely a gimic - there is no legal requirement to provide these unlike disabled parking bays.

When you have been criticised about the comments you make, you always then try and deviate and change the course of discussion away from your original intentions (noticed on a number of threads/posts you write).

This quote below was not what you started this thread abou! - You got annoyed about not being able to find a spare disabled space, someone parking who was not disabled and all the rest of the consfused mixed up comments posted.

What I was trying to say is about an overstay by a seriously disabled keeper (not the driver) and that is where there is a serious oversight in changing the law to allow keepers to be pursued for payment.

Because someone with no capacity to understand the letter can be pursed by a PPC and may not have the capacity to name the driver.

They may not even have been in the car. Carer takes them to the day centre in their motability vehicle (they have an open insurance policy with Motability which you can get if you need 24/7 hour care and have lots of carers). On the way back they call into Aldi and do other shopping for them. They don't park in a disabled bay and no blue badge is displayed but they overstay by 15 minutes because they get held up in the chemist next door to Aldi waiting for their prescription.

So 14 days later the person with no capacity* gets the PCN from Parking Eye. What then happens?

*no capacity to understand or read the letter or deal with the situation I just wanted to clarify that.

Somebody whom you describe above with learning disabilities unable to comprehend post would normally have a nominated person with enduring power of attorney to deal with correspondence and financial matters.



You really need to learn what the issues and legislation regarding POFA are and understand why that legislation was passed - instead of going off beat - putting your foot in it. It also helps if you get the correct acronyms for POFA, ANPR and the DVLA too.

mysterywoman10

4consumerrights wrote: »

Mysterywoman,

When I first read this thread - I really didn't trust myself to respond. It is clearly apparent that once again you post sweeping and unqualified statements on a subject matter you have very little understanding in - which is evident from reading this thread and other posts you have made.

You claim that you have a knowledge of disability after being a carer for so many years - so you really should understand the issues this can bring .

However your comments regarding disability on this thread clearly demonstrate that you have very little understanding of the Equality Act and the blue badge system.

The Equality Act makes provision for disabled persons that suppliers of goods and services are legally bound to make reasonable adjustments- these adjustments must be made free of charge to the disabled user. It is an offence to discriminate directly, indirectly or discriminate by connection to a disability. The blue badge is merely an indicator of a disability - therefore classed as an object connected to disability. The blue badge scheme does not operate on private land. The legal powers of inspection of a blue badge validity only extends to those in authority such as the police and council officials (civil enforcement officers - formerly known as traffic wardens) - and even these personnel can only inspect on public land and not private land.

This proves that you do not understand the concept of discrimination at all as providing two different types of disabled bays would be direct discrimination between different disabled types. Failing to provide disabled parking spaces at all would mean that companies are breaching their legal obligations to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act. Parent and child parking bays are merely a gimic - there is no legal requirement to provide these unlike disabled parking bays.

When you have been criticised about the comments you make, you always then try and deviate and change the course of discussion away from your original intentions (noticed on a number of threads/posts you write).

This quote below was not what you started this thread abou! - You got annoyed about not being able to find a spare disabled space, someone parking who was not disabled and all the rest of the consfused mixed up comments posted.



Somebody whom you describe above with learning disabilities unable to comprehend post would normally have a nominated person with enduring power of attorney to deal with correspondence and financial matters.



You really need to learn what the issues and legislation regarding POFA are and understand why that legislation was passed - instead of going off beat - putting your foot in it. It also helps if you get the correct acronyms for POFA, ANPR and the DVLA too.

I'm aware that blue badges are not applicable on private land. It wasn't me who suggested no spaces at all. It was philosophical on how you deal with the problems. On the basis you describe then sticking a wheelchair picture on the tarmac is then discriminating on private land or not.

That is complete rubbish about an enduring power of attorney in the case I described I think its you who needs to get your facts right.

Someone who is born severely disabled with no capacity cannot possibly have an enduring power of attorney I based it on a real life case so please don't patronise me. You have to have capacity when you grant an enduring power of attorney (incidentally they are called Lasting Powers now).

Unless their is a Court of Protection involved and this rarely happens, most families with a severely disabled person from birth only have "appointee" status and this is for benefits only. I have loads of friends with disabled family members all in this position and I was in that position with my family member.

Sorry yes I get letters muddled up I've explained why!!!

You may see it as going off on a tangent but I do not, because if you have a law that you bring in the circumstances above where someone without capacity can be pursued how can that be workable?

And it certainly is discrimination and it breaches article 8 and 14 of the HRA

Have you bought a case successfully against the government for disability discrimination consumer4rights breaching article 14? Because I have and if you don't believe me I'm quite happy to provide the proof in private.

4consumerrights

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

I'm aware that blue badges are not applicable on private land. It wasn't me who suggested no spaces at all. It was philosophical on how you deal with the problems. On the basis you describe then sticking a wheelchair picture on the tarmac is then discriminating on private land or not.

You have inferred by your comments no disabled spaces at all and you certainly did not appear to be aware regarding the situation of blue badges on private land until previous posters on this thread pointed this out!

"On the basis you describe then sticking a wheelchair picture on the tarmac is then discriminating on private land or not."

And where exactly have I suggested this? The wheelchair picture is instantly recognisable as being symbolic of disability. It was your suggestion that the disabled spaces should be sub-divided into two categories- one for wheelchair users and another for other disabled users - NOT MINE!

That is complete rubbish about an enduring power of attorney in the case I described I think its you who needs to get your facts right.

Someone who is born severely disabled with no capacity cannot possibly have an enduring power of attorney I based it on a real life case so please don't patronise me. You have to have capacity when you grant an enduring power of attorney (incidentally they are called Lasting Powers now).

Unless their is a Court of Protection involved and this rarely happens, most families with a severely disabled person from birth only have "appointee" status and this is for benefits only. I have loads of friends with disabled family members all in this position and I was in that position with my family member.

I think it's you who needs to get their facts right due to your confusion when posting your comments. Nowhere in your previous posts did you mention someone "lack of capacity to read understand letters - in relation to someone BORN with that condition"

And here you go again even segregating and discriminating disabled persons who have a lack of capacity in understanding letters.

You are totally ignoring those with conditions such as dementia and Alzheimer's or dozens of other neurological conditions and accidents which leave people "unable to understand letters". In these cases it is perfectly normal to have an enduring power of attorney or lasting power of attorney over someone previously able minded.

What you're referring to is even more confused:

Where sadly such severely mentally incapacitated people are born, it is highly recommended that when reaching the age of consent (18) that a Court of Protection order is applied for EPA/LPA nominated personnel which then covers the legal requirements of all concerned.

If someone is born lacking mental capacity you so described-

a) they would never have driven so unable to have a licence
b) would have needed constant care and support from family/carers from birth.
c)would be unable to make any financial decisions or purchase cars and register details themselves with DVLA

So how could this situation arise? - because in this case there would need to be a Court of Protection order for EPA/LPA in order to LEGALLY be able to make such a purchase/ registration on this person's behalf and the carers' in this case would be taking care of all paperwork received. Most carers' would in any case be using their own vehicles in this type of situation.

Appointee status with regards to benefits is a different scenario and relates to all manner of conditions and situations and this also requires the claimaint's "consent" for their benefits to be handled by another appointed person.

Sorry yes I get letters muddled up I've explained why!!!

You may see it as going off on a tangent but I do not, because if you have a law that you bring in the circumstances above where someone without capacity can be pursued how can that be workable?

And it certainly is discrimination and it breaches article 8 and 14 of the HRA

Article 8 of the HRA relates directly to a private life and is not applicable in this case. Article 14 - discrimination is really dealt with more appropriately under the Equality Act 2010

Have you bought a case successfully against the government for disability discrimination consumer4rights breaching article 14? Because I have and if you don't believe me I'm quite happy to provide the proof in private.

I'm all in favour for individuals standing up for their legal rights whatever their case may be - hence why I chose the 4consumerrights as a user name. I cannot comment on any personal matters I have undertaken which are my own private business nor do I require you to prove if you have!:)

Coupon-mad

Have you bought a case successfully against the government for disability
discrimination consumer4rights breaching article 14? Because I have and if you
don't believe me I'm quite happy to provide the proof in private.

I believe you - but you have so far not taken on board the legal duty for a service provider to make 'reasonable adjustments' for disabled people. Disabled bays are just another disability provision like a wheelchair, like a hearing loop, like 'larger font wording on leaflets'...and no-one has to prove eligibility for the latter.

It's not about a disabled person having to prove their need for such provisions, and this 'problem' of disabled bays being full is not so much an indicator of assumed 'bay abuse' instead IMHO it's usually an indicator that the store/hospital needs to provide more.