Who is right regarding Ble Badges and Private Land

HO87

aguynameddarryl wrote: »

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

Not too sure I understand that - not being in any way deliberately awkward - probably just being thick (me).

aguynameddarryl wrote: »

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?

Indeed. I don't pretend to have a magic answer and I seriously doubt that there is one. Perhaps we could look to some variation on the scheme that Asda appear to offer at some locations - offering to assist those customers who need extra time. Far from ideal I know.

bod1467 wrote: »

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

It is but not quite as proscriptive as the BB scheme.

The point I think may be being lost in the debate is that the black/white test - whether you do or do not have a BB badge - is just the situation a PPC can exploit. There's nothing in a more discretionary scheme for them.

I might also add that the debate we are having now - and have had on numerous occasions over recent years - has never been taken up to any extent by Disabled Motoring UK (DMUK) who prefer to bang the far more emotive drum of abuse/fraud involving BB badges. I am sure that this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that DMUK is a recipient of financial benefits from BPA members and sits on the BPA board. Only a cynic would suggest that this might be because no charity would bite the hand that fed it.

Umkomaas

The point I think may be being lost in the debate is that the black/white test - whether you do or do not have a BB badge - is just the situation a PPC can exploit. There's nothing in a more discretionary scheme for them.

I think that is the very point. Most disabled bay areas I've seen at retail parks are rarely full, so BB holders, those who qualify for additional support under the Equality Act, even those with a broken leg, generally speaking, can find a space.

It is the exploitation of the situation by the PPC that is far worse than any exploitation by fly parkers in those disabled bays.

We get only a few disabled bay fly parkers asking for help here (and they get very short shrift from regulars), the majority are those who have a genuine disability and those who have forgotten to put their badge on the dash, or it's upside down, or it's slipped onto the seat, or the date has expired (but not the disability!). These are the ticket fodder of the PPCs, for whom managing the disabled bays is the least of their priorities, otherwise their man wouldn't be hiding around a corner waiting to pounce!

aguynameddarryl

HO87 wrote: »

Not too sure I understand that - not being in any way deliberately awkward - probably just being thick (me).

Not at all, and please forgive me for being a touch prickly!

A fair number of the forum seem to be suggesting that any disability which would qualify under the EA would render someone eligible for preferential parking treatment. Which is, frankly, mad.

The Blue Badge system is imperfect, so perhaps the argument should be made to improve that?

Coupon-mad

verityboo wrote: »

So his later comment

"Yes, but you're reading the Act in the absence of case law. Case law is quite clear on the matter: if you are entitled to a blue badge but don't display it in accordance with its terms and conditions, it is not a breach of the Equality Act to treat you as if you are not eligible for one."

is equally wrong regarding parking on private land?

He's talking about the Council position and on that front he's right. Not private land - he's wrong as far as 'contract law' is concerned.

aguynameddarryl wrote: »

Not at all, and please forgive me for being a touch prickly!

A fair number of the forum seem to be suggesting that any disability which would qualify under the EA would render someone eligible for preferential parking treatment. Which is, frankly, mad.

The Blue Badge system is imperfect, so perhaps the argument should be made to improve that?

I partially agree - a stammer is a disability but would not entitle someone to say they 'need' to use a disabled bay. No-one has ever said that here.

But on the other hand you cannot insist on a Blue badge to make a car parking 'reasonable adjustment' under the Equality Act. A Service Provider has a duty to make reasonable adjustments for the disabled public at large, in accordance with the Act. They cannot 'restrict' those adjustments or exclude some disabled people who need the provision. they cannot grant it to some disabled people but not others, if all those people had a need for the bay (usually mobility problems but not always).

So they can't tell a person with a mentally disabled child or blind passenger that they can't use a disabled bay just because that passenger might not have a Blue badge. They cannot 'restrict or limit' provisions. That would be like an employer saying that a person with a chronic back condition can only ask for a special-backed chair if they have a Blue badge or something. The law does not demand any sort of permit to claim any sort of reasonable adjustment and certainly not one certain type of 'permit' because the EA applies form the very moment of diagnosis.

So for example, someone just diagnosed with cancer can use a disabled bay at a Supermarket but won't suddenly magically have a Blue Badge. Any PCN issued to that person 'should' be cancelled once they point out their medical condition and need (if they feel they need it that's good enough). But normally only the retailer will cancel such a charge, not a PPC who work on an agenda of money alone and couldn't give two hoots about customer service and discrimination issues.

Having said that - I must just say 'Horizon' are the exception the that rule - they do charge £100 which is extortionate but they also apply discretion re appeals, time and again. Other PPCs take note.

Basically parking firms should be reasonable and accept retrospective 'proof of need' or other proof of need (such as the fact a car is a Motability car for example). Charges should be cancelled once the Service Provider 'knew or should have known' about the disability need and charges should not be imposed in the first place (on private land) if the Service Provider can see or is aware that the driver or passenger has a genuine disability need.

All of the above only relates to contract law/private land.

By contrast, Council rules = Blue badge scheme only and they don't use contract law.