Disabled charge in a UKPC managed shopping centre

aguynameddarryl

fisherjim wrote: »

And you still haven't answered the question of how PPC's actually enforce the parent and child bays that you are so keen on either!

something along these lines would do me

http://www.bucksherald.co.uk/news/more-news/updated-mum-calls-for-permit-system-to-stop-drivers-abusing-parent-and-child-parking-spaces-1-6759231

5 years is perhaps a bit too much, but I agree entirely with the sentiment, including "I wouldn’t mind if these spaces were as far away from the store as you could get".

Happier?

Fruitcake

We are going round in circles again on the use of disabled bays. The PPC has a problem because they don't have any way of knowing if an occupant or future occupant of the vehicle is disabled.

Their way of dealing with this is to require a BB to be displayed when a vehicle is parked in a disabled bay. However, this is at variance with the EA 2010 and is actually discrimination as it excludes people with disabilities who do not have a BB.

Whilst I totally agree that abuse of disabled bays is wrong, discrimination of disabled people who do not have a BB is also wrong.

All the PPC has to do is change the wording on their signage to something like, "Disabled Parking Only in marked bays," and not mention Blue Badges at all. How they actually manage the use or misuse of disabled bays is another matter, but it would mean at least the PPC is complying with the law by not excluding disabled people who do not have a BB.

As I have said elsewhere, I am not disabled but have relatives who are. My wife often drops them off for a coffee morning and I pick them up later. Consequently I do not normally have their BB with me, but I am still perfectly entitled to park in a disabled bay when I collect them. The current method of requiring a BB to be displayed does not cover this situation either, but the law does. It is up to the PPC to find a way to comply with the law, not to ignore it because that would mean loss of revenue for them.

fisherjim

aguynameddarryl wrote: »

something along these lines would do me

http://www.bucksherald.co.uk/news/more-news/updated-mum-calls-for-permit-system-to-stop-drivers-abusing-parent-and-child-parking-spaces-1-6759231

5 years is perhaps a bit too much, but I agree entirely with the sentiment, including "I wouldn’t mind if these spaces were as far away from the store as you could get".

Happier?

And as Fruitcake says you have gone full circle, back to your other argument:

"The issue you have here is one of cost - would you be prepared to accept a higher cost of parking to maintain a suitable staffing level? I suspect most people would say no and continue to take their chances. "

aguynameddarryl

If the BB system isn't causing an excessive increase in cost, this particular method wouldn't either.

IIRC Tesco experimented with a similar permit system for their stores once upon a time.

Guys_Dad

Following this through - we all cheer when a PPC is booted off a site. So Tesco/landowner puts up signs saying "Disabled motorists only" or some other suiltable PC wording.

They then have provided the spaces but are not obliged to police the observation of the use as far as I am aware.

Everybody happy? I can live with that but I suspect it would only be a matter of time before we get posts on here about chavs and others failing to observe the designated spaces.

Whatever solution has attendant drawbacks.