Disabled spaces on private land

Umkomaas

Umkomaas wrote: »

Worm on hook, stand by. A misinformed onslaught on its way! :rotfl:

More than well on its way!

keepitlegal

stator wrote: »

That's incorrect. The law on disability discrimination and reasonable adaptations doesn't allow the company concerned to use arbitary restrictions such as requiring a blue badge. They are required to help anyone who needs it. This applies to airports too. If you have 'reduced mobility' they have to offer wheelchair services etc.
It would depend on whether they need to use it or not. If someone with one arm needs the extra space or the shorter distances that are provided with disabled spaces then they should be able to use them. If the company tries to stop you then they would be in violation of DD.
Council run car parks have different rules in many aspects as they are covered by specific laws. What would happen if someone who is disabled without a BB took the council to court for failing to meet DD, I don't know, but I would like to see it :T

But to qualify for a BB the applicant has to have either severe mobility problems or be blind, a one armed person would not qualify therefore they shouldn't use a disabled space simply because in their eyes they have a disability.
A BB is not free so why should someone pay for a BB badge and miss out on a space because someone who does not have a BB takes up a disabled bay?

Keepitlegal

Fruitcake

keepitlegal wrote: »

But to qualify for a BB the applicant has to have either severe mobility problems or be blind, a one armed person would not qualify therefore they shouldn't use a disabled space simply because in their eyes they have a disability.
A BB is not free so why should someone pay for a BB badge and miss out on a space because someone who does not have a BB takes up a disabled bay?

Keepitlegal

A Blue Badge is not the only indicator of a disability. The BB scheme does not apply on private land. So lawfully, anyone can park in a disabled bay on private land. Morally, only someone with a disability should park in a disabled bay on private land. It doesn't matter whether they have a BB or not. What is the criteria for determining whether someone who is disabled but doesn't have a BB has the right to park in a disabled bay? How disabled does someone without a BB have to be for it to be OK for them to use a disabled bay on private land?

I have parked in disabled bays without displaying a badge, and I am pretty much able bodied. However, I have either been delivering or collecting someone with a disabilty. I don't have a BB to display, but I meet the requirements of using a disabled bay because one or more of the people I am delivering or collecting in my car are disabled.

Iceweasel

Keepitlegal - I wish you would make it clear in your comments whether you are referring to on-street parking, or private car parks.

I agree with most of your points as far as on-street parking is concerned - anyone who abuses those should feel the full force of the law.

The BB scheme was introduced for the benefit of some people with disabilities in finding somewhere convenient to park in town streets, where their disability would have a lesser effect on their ability to visit shops, businesses and amenities.

The BB scheme has NOTHING to do with supermarkets and other private car parks - where the law has no force whatsoever.

Supermarkets have recently started labelling spaces for parent and child use - which in my opinion is a load of cr*p - it has simply created a feeling of deservedness and righteousness among those people who fit the profile.

They may as well start providing spaces for those with red hair or big feet (for all the legality they would have) so that those folks may enjoy feeling 'special' too.

Note: - no disrespect should be interpreted in my comments regards those with red hair or big feet - or indeed to those doubly cursed in having red hair and big feet - they deserve our respect and assistance.

So also should everyone else who finds it a tight squeeze in these undersized spaces that seem to be getting smaller every year - or is it cars getting bigger and the spoaces staying the same?

Seriously, they should just provide wider spaces for everyone.

It's the wider spaces I want to see - I don't give a twopenny damn how close it is to the supermarket entrance.

CarFines.com

26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lyb61u14xB1r4th60o1_500.png

pogofish

aguynameddarryl wrote: »

And in requiring the users of Disabled spaces to display BB's, the car park owners are complying with that requirement. Those who have been deemed to be sufficiently disabled are entitled, those who have not, are not.

Utter garbage!

The EHRC position on this has been clearly stated longsince and you are completely and illegally wrong!

Fruitcake

aguynameddarryl wrote: »

And in requiring the users of Disabled spaces to display BB's, the car park owners are complying with that requirement. Those who have been deemed to be sufficiently disabled are entitled, those who have not, are not.

This is not correct. Requiring the users of disabled spaces on private land to display BBs is discrimination. Not all disabled people who are entitled to park in disabled bays on private land have Blue Badges.

My wife often takes her mother and disabled father to a coffee morning. He has a BB which she will often display when she parks even though there is no requirement to do so. Occasionally she will go off to do something else. I am then asked to go and collect my Outlaws at a later time. I arrive and park in a disabled bay but cannot display a BB because it is in my wife's car several miles away. Even if she left the badge with her parents, I would still have to park the car without displaying it until I go into the building to collect them. I then escort my wife's parents back out to the car and drive off.

Please will you explain what I have done wrong by parking in a disabled bay without displaying a Blue Badge.

aguynameddarryl wrote: »

By the same token, parents of young children have a temporary requirement for more convenient parking than the wider population also. Their need will only last for the first few years of their childs' life.

What you are advocating here is that a certain group of able bodied people should be allowed special consideration but other able bodied people who might want a bit more room to open the doors of their car fully should not.

I regularly take my mother-in-law shopping. She uses a wheeled walker which takes up a lot of space in the boot of the car so her shopping has to go on the back seat. She doesn't consider herself disabled so I don't park in a disabled bay. It wouldn't half be nice to have a bit more room around the car but we manage. Why can't I use a wider parking space when we have a requirement for more convenient parking? Why does a the use of wider space have to be limited to someone with a child when other people also have the requirement to use a wider parking space?

I don't understand why you think healthy young adults with healthy young children should be entitled to larger parking spaces nearer a shop entrance than say 60 year old adults with 80 year old passengers.

aguynameddarryl wrote: »

I really don't see what the issue is here - you're either sufficiently disabled to need the disabled bay, in which case you have a BB, or you're not. Not possessing a BB is no reason to park in a Parent and Child bay if you do not have said young child with you.

This is not true. A private parking company cannot force a disabled person to have a Blue Badge when their made up rules contravene the Equality Act 2010.

stator

keepitlegal wrote: »

But to qualify for a BB the applicant has to have either severe mobility problems or be blind, a one armed person would not qualify therefore they shouldn't use a disabled space simply because in their eyes they have a disability.

In a council car park they may be legally prevented from doing so but in a private car park not so. There's no reason why people with specific disabilities should get guaranteed parking in a car park if it's full. The spaces are there for people who need them

keepitlegal wrote: »

A BB is not free so why should someone pay for a BB badge and miss out on a space because someone who does not have a BB takes up a disabled bay?

BB has never guaranteed a space but as an asside I have never seen all the DB at any supermarket full.

keepitlegal

I am aware that BB's mean nothing in private car parks, the problem is the term 'disability', the BB scheme is for people who have either severe mobility problems or are blind, NOT for people who have any disability ie are deaf, have one arm or any other disability that is not connected to their mobility or vision.
It would appear from some of the posts that (in this instance) private car park owners are stuck between a rock and a hard place, they provide car parking for (disabled?) BB holders (as council car parks do) but they are damned if they try to maintain the same standards as council car parks, it's well known that disabled parking in private car parks is abused (see my opening post), it is also obvious by some of the posts that people will hide behind the EQ2010 claiming a disability, which in all fairness would have nothing to do with their requirement to have a larger than normal parking space.
I am however in total agreement that parking spaces need to be bigger but that is another argument.

Keepitlegal

aguynameddarryl

Fruitcake wrote: »

I don't understand why you think healthy young adults with healthy young children should be entitled to larger parking spaces QUOTE]

Read this very slowly and allow it the opportunity to sink in.

I'm saying parent and child spaces are sensible because they allow doors to be opened wider to avoid damage to other vehicles.

I'm specifically NOT excluding the possibility that this should be the case for other groups of people.

I really don't understand what the difficulty here for you is. Using your logic, parking would become a ridiculous free-for-all. Doubtless you would then be bleating about being parked half a mile from the store.