UKPC - Our minibuses under attack!

Redx

esmerobbo wrote: »

Yes you can have what they call an Institutional/organisational blue badge.

agreed, but the booklet clearly states that the rules are the same as for the standard BB holder, so again it does not apply to private land as was the case here

the BB booklet states

Organisational badges may only be used when people who would qualify for a badge in their own right are being transported

The badge should only be displayed when employees of the organisation are dropping off or picking up eligible disabled people from the place where the vehicle is parked

The badge is not allowed to be used at other times

The parking concessions available for users of the organisational Blue Badges are the same as those for Blue Badges issued to individuals.

so it could be used in on-road parking bays. on-road parking meters, single or double yellow lines etc (on roads, not on off street car parks)

it also says that you cannot park on private roads (meaning its not valid on private roads which is one form of private land)

nor are you entitled to park on yellow lines in off-street car parks

it actually states that the badge is intended for on-street parking only and that car parks provided by the local authority , hospitals , supermarkets etc are governed by separate rules - this is what causes some of the arguments but nowhere in the booklet does it say you can park on private land , it does tell you to check the local rules

it also clearly states it is not a licence to park anywhere

now my booklet predates POFA 2012 but was issued after the EA2010 so unless they have changed the wording since it is my opinion that it still counts for nothing on private land which it clearly mentions as far as supermarkets and hospitals and roads etc , yet people still cite is as being a reason that they believe they are not liable for the "invoice" or "fake fine"

not only that , the other issues as guys dad states in his last post (which I agree with entirely) is that these issues are not about the BB at all, but about the EA 2010 , and by hospitals etc using these signs that talk about BB owners or drivers only they are discriminating against passengers who may have a BB, plus they are discriminating against those who dont qualify for a BB but are covered by the EA 2010 , yet they dont say what those people should do or display at all

in the case of hospitals some people are taking them up on their signage on these issues of discrimination against passengers who may or may not qualify under the EA 2010 , plus those who have a BB but are passengers so are using it to protect the driver, who is usually able bodied , like these mini-bus drivers may be

yes its complicated , I agree, so I would like to see some of the disabled etc actually fight and win some court cases which could set a precedent against these signs and rules , but under the EA 2010 (and prior to that it was the DDA 1995 and 2005) , not the BB scheme, clearly the scheme hasnt caught up with reality which is why people like trubster was at odds with Meadowhall, and won a settlement and I believe was put on their "whitelist"

just like to thank guys dad for his last post which explained it better from this non-BB aspect, so yes several issues raised here , but I wish people would forget about the BB and concentrate on the actual issues that apply

its not a get out of jail free card , and it says so clearly in the blue booklet too

it can also be downloaded as a pdf here

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/206022/blue-badge-rights-responsibilities.pdf

esmerobbo

Redx wrote: »

agreed, but the booklet clearly states that the rules are the same as for the standard BB holder, so again it does not apply to private land as was the case here

I know I was just answering buglawton.

However as a holder of a blue badge who knows how to use it, I am amazed at some people who use them who haven't got a clue.

Guys_Dad

It would be good - for us if not the poor motorist - if this did get to court as I am confident that a defence built on unreasonable contract terms adversely affecting someone covered by EA2010 would be successful as long as sufficient pre-case work was done, including asking the landowner/landholder exactly who the wide non-parent&child were for and whether they were there for the use of those covered by EA2010.

Assuming you did get confirmation on that, then it would be relatively easy to show unfair contract terms.

But if the judge decided to follow the t&c route and ignore EA2010, then the motorist could counter-claim against PPC & Landowner in a subsequent case, with, of course, attendant local newspaper interest!

Redx

Guys_Dad wrote: »

It would be good - for us if not the poor motorist - if this did get to court as I am confident that a defence built on unreasonable contract terms adversely affecting someone covered by EA2010 would be successful as long as sufficient pre-case work was done, including asking the landowner/landholder exactly who the wide non-parent&child were for and whether they were there for the use of those covered by EA2010.

Assuming you did get confirmation on that, then it would be relatively easy to show unfair contract terms.

But if the judge decided to follow the t&c route and ignore EA2010, then the motorist could counter-claim against PPC & Landowner in a subsequent case, with, of course, attendant local newspaper interest!

agreed

also agree with esmerobbo too (I wasnt criticising, just I managed to find my booklet at long last , lol , and I didnt know all the actual details either, not until last year when these various parking issues were brought to my attention)

as for the problems it all causes, here is another example of ignorance causing issues that UKCPS seize upon all the time

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5074869

this is a clear example of where I would love to see a counter claim from people who qualify under the EA 2010

you can see further examples of abuse by a PPC and a hospital trust here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5049715 where this trust are being taken to task over it (despite changing their name in a hospitals merge)

esmerobbo

That's what is needed a claim against a landowner for a breach of EA 2010. Parking must be the only adjustment need, that has to be proven.

yanyan_2

The discussion re Blue Badges is interesting, informative and valuable although not relevant to this case.
My ‘add-on’ comment at the end of the appeal (re most of the passengers we carry to this venue being elderly/disabled) did not form part of the appeal. It was just a comment from me personally letting them know a little more about the circumstances.
‘what I fail to see is why an able bodied mini bus driver would think they can get a permit to park on these bays , possibly for free ?’
Didn’t happen and never would (not on my watch!)
The appeal had no mention of Blue Badges or disabled parking bays.
As I said, the BB information could be of great importance to people in the future and worthy of its own thread.
Thank you for your input which is greatly appreciated.

Coupon-mad

‘what I fail to see is why an able bodied mini bus driver would think they can get a permit to park on these bays , possibly for free ?’

Council drivers who transport disabled people get generic 'Blue Badges' to display - I know as I used to do a similar job and used just such a Badge when parking up (and I am able bodied). Point being I was collecting disabled passengers who could not safely walk far and often had no BB themselves (e.g. children being collected from a school). So there is such a thing as minibus drivers having a BB but maybe only if you work for the Local Council!

Redx

agreed, but the BB booklet states that it can only be used when employees of the organisation are dropping off or picking up eligible disabled people from the place where the vehicle is parked

so it doesnt necessarily allow them to stay parked for free in that space whilst the people are elsewhere or in the facility itself

post #1 doesnt say they are parked on the private bingo hall land (if any), but on a private retail car park as the rear of this bingo hall , so it may or may not conform to the BB rules but as its a private car park its a moot point anyway because despite what was said earlier in the thread this BB isnt actually relevant or issued for private car parks and no council has ever intended it to be used or qualify for private car park status (which is why I asked the minister about extending the scheme to cover private car parks and hospitals etc too)

clearly some government ministers thought that hospitals should be recognising its use , yet they actively discriminate against both BB users and non-BB users on their own car parks and seem to breach the EA 2010 by doing so (as can be seen in the fergie thread) , plus the other thread also seems to be a breach of the EA 2010 by ukcps and the local landowner for that disabled family who did display it but it had expired

its clear that Jeremey Hunt and Eric Pickles and maybe Daniel Poulter have recognised these arguments recently but are only issuing guidelines or statements

in the case of this OP, its clear that although we all sympathise we are telling him to ignore the BB issue, the disabled issues and appeal under normal appeal points , especially as we all know popla wont consider the EA 2010 issues never mind any BB issues or entitlements anyway , which he has recognised in his reply

but its all providing more clarity for members who may read these posts and the BB booklet (some for the first time even if they were issued with them)

The BB booklet also says that organisations have to make sure their BB drivers are aware of the rules , which I believe many are not, same as many BB owners dont know them rules because they havent read their booklets too

its clear that if this OP keeps having his minibuses parked on that private retail park, they will keep clocking up parking charge invoices for one reason or another