Who is right regarding Ble Badges and Private Land

HO87

TDA wrote: »

There are issues with this argument, not least that these forums are rife with anecdotal evidence from disabled users who state they do not qualify for a blue badge but nevertheless suffer with mobility issues. These seem to me more to be issues with the blue badge scheme itself, than the requirement that such a badge be displayed.

And therein lies the problem - and as has already been explained above the criteria for the issue of a BB are very narrow. Simply dismissing the matter by suggesting that the problem is with the scheme rather than its use as a yardstick is rather fatuous.

The issue is that every one who obtains a BB must perforce be disabled but not every disabled person meets the criteria and can obtain a BB. Indeed, very much to the contrary. I entirely accept that this is a difficult subject - I don't believe there is a one-stop solution - but how can the use of a single test that leaves a significant proportion of disabled people disadvantaged (which is well known by the way) be properly described as a 'reasonable means of avoiding the disadvantage'.

At the end of the day the BB scheme was always intended as an exclusive process whereas the very essence of the EA is to be inclusive. I can't for the moment see quite how that position can be reconciled.

TDA

HO87 wrote: »

And therein lies the problem - and as has already been explained above the criteria for the issue of a BB are very narrow. Simply dismissing the matter by suggesting that the problem is with the scheme rather than its use as a yardstick is rather fatuous.

The issue is that every one who obtains a BB must perforce be disabled but not every disabled person meets the criteria and can obtain a BB. Indeed, very much to the contrary. I entirely accept that this is a difficult subject - I don't believe there is a one-stop solution - but how can the use of a single test that leaves a significant proportion of disabled people disadvantaged (which is well known by the way) be properly described as a 'reasonable means of avoiding the disadvantage'.

At the end of the day the BB scheme was always intended as an exclusive process whereas the very essence of the EA is to be inclusive. I can't for the moment see quite how that position can be reconciled.

Sorry, I must have missed the part where I dismissed the matter? The clear implication is that the requirement that a disabled badge be displayed is not, in and of itself, a breach of the EA 2010. If a person is disabled, but not in a way which means parking further away puts them at a disadvantage, the requirement that a disabled badge be displayed is an entirely reasonable one.

The solution is to improve the assessment criteria for the blue badge scheme, rather than getting rid of the requirement that a disabled badge is displayed altogether, simply taking the position that anyone with a defined disability under the EA 2010 should be permitted to make use of a disabled bay. The latter position is the one which seems fatuous to me.

Let us not forget that not everyone who is covered by the EA 2010 is necessarily subject to the disadvantage referred to in s20(4). Not all disabilities come with mobility disadvantages.

hoohoo

TDA wrote: »

The solution is to improve the assessment criteria for the blue badge scheme, rather than getting rid of the requirement that a disabled badge is displayed altogether, simply taking the position that anyone with a defined disability under the EA 2010 should be permitted to make use of a disabled bay. The latter position is the one which seems fatuous to me.

One good solution I have seen at Asda is to simply provide via the signage a mechanism whereby people who are disadvantaged can have more time. From memory the signs state something like:

"If you need more time, please contact customer services in the Store"

TDA

hoohoo wrote: »

One good solution I have seen at Asda is to simply provide via the signage a mechanism whereby people who are disadvantaged can have more time. From memory the signs state something like:

"If you need more time, please contact customer services in the Store"

Certainly not the worst solution I've ever heard, but the lack of any objective assessment would be of some concern. Very difficult for a shop assistant to judge whether someone truly needs the space (minus the most obvious circumstances), let alone tell
someone they don't need it!

If everyone is taken at their word there is the possibility that some genuinely in need will be prevented from parking by someone who is only actually at minor inconvenience. I
would prefer revision of the objective criteria currently in place for the blue badge scheme personally.

aguynameddarryl

TDA wrote: »

I would prefer revision of the objective criteria currently in place for the blue badge scheme personally.

Careful now, you're venturing into iffy ground, suggesting that Blue Badges are sufficient.

nigelbb

TDA wrote: »

Certainly not the worst solution I've ever heard, but the lack of any objective assessment would be of some concern. Very difficult for a shop assistant to judge whether someone truly needs the space (minus the most obvious circumstances), let alone tell
someone they don't need it!

If everyone is taken at their word there is the possibility that some genuinely in need will be prevented from parking by someone who is only actually at minor inconvenience. I
would prefer revision of the objective criteria currently in place for the blue badge scheme personally.

The offer from Asda is longer time parking not a reserved space in the privileged spaces nearest to the store entrance. It's perfectly reasonable & nothing at all to do with a disability per se or the Equality Act. Some people take longer shopping than others it may be for reasons of decreased mobility it may be because they find it difficult to choose between the different brands of baked beans on offer or they may want to rest & relax with a coffee during their shop. Whatever the reason they are offering longer parking times for those genuine customers who will be spending a longer time over their shopping. It's a concession that I would expect any other retailer to make.

TDA

nigelbb wrote: »

The offer from Asda is longer time parking not a reserved space in the privileged spaces nearest to the store entrance. It's perfectly reasonable & nothing at all to do with a disability per se or the Equality Act. Some people take longer shopping than others it may be for reasons of decreased mobility it may be because they find it difficult to choose between the different brands of baked beans on offer or they may want to rest & relax with a coffee during their shop. Whatever the reason they are offering longer parking times for those genuine customers who will be spending a longer time over their shopping. It's a concession that I would expect any other retailer to make.

Ah I see. Had assumed it was directly related to the discussion on blue badges and disabled spaces.

HO87

TDA wrote: »

Sorry, I must have missed the part where I dismissed the matter? The clear implication is that the requirement that a disabled badge be displayed is not, in and of itself, a breach of the EA 2010. If a person is disabled, but not in a way which means parking further away puts them at a disadvantage, the requirement that a disabled badge be displayed is an entirely reasonable one.

The dismissal referred to is that your argument appears to be that a broken yardstick is still a yardstick and that we should therefore focus on fixing it rather that the process that uses it.

The problem is that the BB criteria were tightened considerably in April 2011 to the extent that overnight many disabled persons were left with no BB because the government sought to reduce considerably those who were entitled to one. As set out above the BB badge was always intended as an exclusionary scheme whereas the EA was intended to be inclusive. Applying possession of a BB as the sole measure of who may use a disabled space is therefore, by its very nature, going to exclude a significant number of people who might not only claim but be entitled to the reasonable adjustment.

TDA wrote: »

The solution is to improve the assessment criteria for the blue badge scheme, rather than getting rid of the requirement that a disabled badge is displayed altogether, simply taking the position that anyone with a defined disability under the EA 2010 should be permitted to make use of a disabled bay. The latter position is the one which seems fatuous to me.

For the reasons set out above the likelihood of there being any reassessment of the BB scheme criteria - such that they are widened (which is what would be required to benefit those who are entitled - using EA assessments) is most unlikely. The argument whilst sound, at first blush, is nevertheless simply idealistic and suggesting that we run with it whilst hoping that there will be some form of redrawing of the criteria is equally so.

Local schemes where staff are able to apply a reasonable degree of discretion (I accept that this is likely to be subjective to some extent or other) is preferable to an arbitrary black/white approach. However, it is this very black/white approach that appeals most to PPC's who have been able to exploit is as yet another money-maker.

TDA wrote: »

Let us not forget that not everyone who is covered by the EA 2010 is necessarily subject to the disadvantage referred to in s20(4). Not all disabilities come with mobility disadvantages.

That is entirely accepted but, with respect, is not the argument. The argument is that the BB scheme excludes significant numbers of those who do.

aguynameddarryl

HO87 wrote: »

That is entirely accepted but, with respect, is not the argument. The argument is that the BB scheme excludes significant numbers of those who do.

Again, with all due respect, that, from a significant portion IS the argument.

At what point do you raise the drawbridge? Someone with broken leg? Fails the EA 12 month test, but they would have significant mobility issues.

A twisted ankle?

bod1467

I thought EA2010 was quite proscriptive about what are those "protected characteristics"?