Hospital Complaint For Breach Of Equality Act 2010

Coupon-mad

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

Disabled bays are available so why take a space that someone else needs? They would be the first to complain at a parent using a disabled bay.

I would never, ever complain about a disabled person using a P&D gimmick (waste of space) bay but would complain about the other way round. There is no comparison between the two bays. Please stick around the forum if these sort of things interest you as we welcome people posting with strong opinions - but you are wrong with the premise behind your posts above.

Parents are not allowed to park in disabled bays (unless they are disabled), using normal parking spaces causes real problems when getting children into and out of car seats.

No it really doesn't. I had 4 kids in seven years and I coped fine - even with one of them being a hyperactive little lad hell bent on running around and throwing himself madly anywhere - without stupid gimmick wide bays for fat/lazy parents. I also had a disabled elderly mother (now no longer with us) and when I took her shopping I needed disabled bays at times to collect her; no Blue badge but the need was there. The latter is a genuine need, the former a gimmick by Supermarkets to entice parents and they now cannot 'undo' it or they'd be out of line with their rivals.

No car park needs poxy parent and child bays but disabled provisions are required by law.

Umkomaas

Why don't you park at the far end of the car park, where there are fewer cars parked, plenty of spaces and where you can park without encumbrance?

In the process, teach your kids the art of walking, which may help them, in later life, to avoid the dangers of obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes, stroke and heart attack?

A no brainer, IMHO.

Coupon-mad

That's exactly what I did with my kids, never next to another car in case my DS2 wrecked it, and parking further away wore him out quicker = a good thing! He was a handful to say the least and parking where it was clear of other cars around the edge of a car park, meant I could see him to grab him (he was on reins until he was 10 - not really but it felt like he should have been!). He's now a calm, clever popular student at a top University. Anyway I digress, as we have made clear - no parent needs a 'special bay'.

Fergie76

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

I have only just seen this, but I have to say one thing. You are in severe danger of forcing all car park companies to levy charges for blue badge holders on the same basis as normal drivers. I have already seen this happening in car parks local to us.

That said, the only discrimination I can see here is against normally abled people, who are not allowed to park in disabled spaces but are expected to pay for less convenient spaces. I have also often seen blue badge cars parked in parent and child spaces when there has been more than enough disabled spaces available, this leaves less parent and child spaces available, meaning parents have to park in "normal" spaces making it difficult to get the child/children out and back into the car.

As other have said, businesses and organisations have a legal responsibility to provide disabled bays, but not parent and child spaces.

There is already nothing to stop car parks charging for disabled bays, however to charge a disabled person the same as an able-bodied person for the same amount of time is discrimination, so they would need a two-tier pricing strategy. My council charges disabled people the same as able-bodied people in all off-street parking, where blue-badges don't count and maybe my next focus after I win this one.

Reference your absurd assertion that the only discrimination is against able-bodied people, how about you take my wife's illness and disability, which she has just spent 16 months in hospital far away from home for, almost dying in the process and you can take her blue badge too and we will happily park an extra 100 yards away from the front door of tesco, so you can park closer.

esmerobbo

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

meaning parents have to park in "normal" spaces making it difficult to get the child/children out and back into the car.

Strange when I was "a normal parent" and had a child before the concept of P&C bays, I never had a problem getting my child from the car.

Before the car's were smaller then argument, I had a Daimler Vanden Plas.

P&C bays are useful but if needed a Blue badge should override the need for a parent to use a P&C bay.

I still don't know how I feel about this one, I have a Blue badge but do I want to be treated the same as, or do I want extra.
I attend a hospital quite a bit and there they have some disabled bays that are free. If I cant get one they have a disabled car park which charges. It charges the same as the main car park, the only difference is that it is nearer the entrances, and if needed there is a free minibus to the doors. I would say the nearer location and the minibus is adequate adjustment. I don't really see why I should not pay the same as an able bodied person for the same thing.

Fergie76

esmerobbo wrote: »

Strange when I was "a normal parent" and had a child before the concept of P&C bays, I never had a problem getting my child from the car.

Before the car's were smaller then argument, I had a Daimler Vanden Plas.

P&C bays are useful but if needed a Blue badge should override the need for a parent to use a P&C bay.

I still don't know how I feel about this one, I have a Blue badge but do I want to be treated the same as, or do I want extra.
I attend a hospital quite a bit and there they have some disabled bays that are free. If I cant get one they have a disabled car park which charges. It charges the same as the main car park, the only difference is that it is nearer the entrances, and if needed there is a free minibus to the doors. I would say the nearer location and the minibus is adequate adjustment. I don't really see why I should not pay the same as an able bodied person for the same thing.

That might be reasonable adjustment for your hospital, but not all hospitals supply a service like that.

A lot of the time (not all) disabled people come from the poorer end of society for many reasons, whether it be, because the disabled person can't work, so only one income, or the partner has also had to give up their job to become a full-time carer and so solely rely on benefits. And as you have said yourself, being ill/disabled usually means additional hospital appointments, so they have added cost of more frequent hospital that an able-bodied person doesn't and I don't agree they should be out of pocket for these costs.

Fergie76

I have just received a reply to my FOI that I submitted in my first complaint on 31 Aug 14, so not much over the 20 working day time-frame...

Don't think I am allowed to post the information here?

If you wish to re-use the information that we provide and you do not specify this in your initial application for information then you must make a further request for its re-use as per the Re-Use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2005 www.opsi.gov.uk. This will not affect your initial information request.

So I will paraphrase...

[FONT=&quot]1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]How much you pay APCOA to manage your car parks.[/FONT]

For the hospital my wife was ticketed at, for the years 09/10-13/4, they have paid APCOA between £120,000 and £132,000 each year. And for the Trust as whole £120,000 and £227,000 for the same period.[FONT=&quot]

2. How much you receive from APCOA in parking penalties.[/FONT]

They received nothing for the hospital my wife was ticketed at and between 11/12-13/14, received between £7,000 and £10,000 as a Trust.[FONT=&quot]

3. Who keeps the money from Pay and Display machines, the Trust or APCOA or if split, how is it split?


Due to APCOA designing, building and maintaining their multi storey car park, they keep all income generated by P&D machines. They also state that payments in question 1 also relate to managing staff car parks.


4. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Under the Freedom of Information Act a fully unredacted copy of your contract with APCOA.

Refused to[/FONT] supply a copy due to commercial sensitivity and would take to long and costly to supply a redacted copy.

So in my humble opinion this flies in the face of the Department of Health's guidance on car parks, as APCOA keep all the money, this incentivises APCOA to issue as many penalties as they can.

The Department of Health also says:

NHS organisations are responsible for the actions of private contractors who run car parks on their behalf.

And yet this Trust are trying to abdicate their responsibilities on to APCOA.

bazster

If I were you I would demand an internal review regarding the contract. Remind them that their co-operation will be appreciated given that they are already in breach over the time taken to respond to FOI's.

Fergie76

Is there any precedence that I can to them? I think I remember a while back, someone getting a copy of a contract through a FOI?

bazster

Fergie76 wrote: »

Is there any precedence that I can to them? I think I remember a while back, someone getting a copy of a contract through a FOI?

Yes, lots. The ICO has actually ruled that contracts negotiated between public bodies and their suppliers are subject to FOI.