DeVere Parking Services Unjust Court Decision

Quentin

beamerguy wrote: »

And as I keep saying for whatever reason the OP decided to do this, it is now history, it really does not matter, it is the failed appeal and the judgement that really matters

The op's appeal failed because she wrongly appealed that her dad's BB meant she could park in a disabled spot and go shopping when the BB holder remained in the car!


The judgement was correct, based on the defence (as we know it) - -that her Dad has dementia, she regularly parks in the disabled spot like this and that the Judge showed no compassion.

nigelbb

beamerguy wrote: »

And as I keep saying for whatever reason the OP decided to do this, it is now history, it really does not matter, it is the failed appeal and the judgement that really matters

The OP had no case. They shouldn't have parked where they did leaving the BB holder in the car. Ironically if the BB holder haven't gone walkabout with the BB the misuse of the disabled space would have gone undetected.

The outcome of the court case was inevitable as the judge could not have come to any other conclusion if the case was as presented by the OP. Courts aren't about mitigation except when determining sentence after guilt has been determined. There was no scope for the court to accept what happened as mitigation. DeVere had no reason to uphold an appeal as they are only interested in the money & their T&Cs had been broken. We don't know if the store was lobbied or what their response was if any but they were the only party who could have quashed this charge on grounds of mitigation even though the OP parked where they shouldn't.

fisherjim

Quentin wrote: »

You are looking for excuses. If the disabled bb holder was too demented to be left alone then he shouldn't have been!

What was to stop him interfering with the car brake/wandering into danger etc?

Spot on, and the ticket would not have been issued!

My point also being that BG is spouting off about complaining here complaining there after a court decision and giving the OP false hope that this will cancel the case!

I will bow down when CM comments if I am being a Muppet, but I think the OP is lucky to have got away with this for so long, and luckier still their father was still around when they came out of Asda!

beamerguy

nigelbb wrote: »

Ironically if the BB holder haven't gone walkabout with the BB the misuse of the disabled space would have gone undetected.

Just what I have been saying. It is not misuse, it has become very clear now that apart from fisherjim, there is a complete lack of knowledge of Dementia and the extreme measures carers must take when in the company of someone with this illness

beamerguy

fisherjim wrote: »

My point also being that BG is spouting off about complaining here complaining there after a court decision and giving the OP false hope that this will cancel the case!

Dear oh Dear, nobody is giving false hopes to the OP, where was it said the case could be cancelled .... nowhere ?

As we all know, complaints to whoever gets exposure to the problem, and YES the OP should air her disgust wherever she can and maybe, just maybe, it will help others who are attacked by these vermin

DCodd

I have to say that I'm confused with what is being said on this thread.


Surely, even though the Blue Badge scheme has no legal standing on private land, the fact that one is issued to someone means that it is most likely they will have a Protected Characteristic under the Equality Act and that is the Act that governs private disabled bays?


I have little experience of the Blue Badge Scheme but as someone at work has one I have had to find out a bit and from what I've read from the Government's "Rights and Responsibilities" online document I can see why the confusion exists. The language used suggests that as long as the Passenger (being in the car) is entitled to the benefits and the driver is acting on their behalf, then the Blue Badge is not being misused? I know it says:

Do not allow other people to use the badge to do something on your behalf, such as shopping or collecting something for you[FONT=Helvetica 55 Roman,Helvetica 55 Roman][FONT=Helvetica 55 Roman,Helvetica 55 Roman]. [/FONT][/FONT]

But it is preceded by:

The badge is for your use and benefit only. It must only be displayed if you are travelling in the vehicle as a driver or passenger

There is no suggestion that the holder must leave the car for them to have received the benefit only that they mustn't let the driver get the benefit while they sit in the car.?

nigelbb

beamerguy wrote: »

Just what I have been saying. It is not misuse

The OP misused the disabled space (no need to get emotive & call it abuse). It was probably an innocent mistake with the OP not understanding the rules but they should have not parked there & left the BB holder in the car.

It would be illegal to park on double yellow lines leaving the BB holder in the car even while popping into the chemist to collect a prescription for the BB holder & in the same way it is a misuse of a disabled space in a public car park to leave the disabled person in the car while the driver goes in to do some shopping. The car should have been parked in a regular space or if left in a disabled space the BB holder should have accompanied the driver into the store. There is no third way that exonerates the OP.

pappa_golf

to the OP:


it is often mentioned that this company win cases when held in front of judge DeVere , at the DeVere county court .


It has been noted that judges often confer , whist drinking sherry in the Fenella LANDAU bar.


the biggest mistake in your case was allowing it to be heard in that court .

nigelbb

DCodd wrote: »

I have to say that I'm confused with what is being said on this thread.


Surely, even though the Blue Badge scheme has no legal standing on private land, the fact that one is issued to someone means that it is most likely they will have a Protected Characteristic under the Equality Act and that is the Act that governs private disabled bays?


I have little experience of the Blue Badge Scheme but as someone at work has one I have had to find out a bit and from what I've read from the Government's "Rights and Responsibilities" online document I can see why the confusion exists. The language used suggests that as long as the Passenger (being in the car) is entitled to the benefits and the driver is acting on their behalf, then the Blue Badge is not being misused? I know it says:
But it is preceded by:

There is no suggestion that the holder must leave the car for them to have received the benefit only that they mustn't let the driver get the benefit while they sit in the car.?

Think about why the BB scheme & disabled parking spaces exist. It's to provide a guaranteed parking space that gives greater accessibility to those with limited mobility. If the disabled person isn't getting out of the car why do they need to park on a double yellow line outside the chemist or in a disabled space near the store entrance? Just because it's convenient for the carer doesn't make it legal or right.

There are many possible criteria for getting a BB mostly to do with physical disability & consequent mobility issues
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/wales/consumer/transport/driving-and-parking/driving-and-parking-for-disabled-people/the-blue-badge-scheme/who-is-eligible-for-a-blue-badge-w/
In the case of the OP it's probably on the grounds that:-

as a result of a mental disorder you are unable to follow the route of a familiar journey without the assistance of another person. Anyone aged over two years can be eligible under this condition, including people over 65.

i.e. they need a carer with them at all times.

It seems to have been a misunderstanding on the part of the OP that they felt they were entitled to park in a disabled space & leave the BB holder in the car with the BB on display but just as this is illegal on double yellow lines so it is a misuse of a disabled space in a private car park. They are preventing a legitimate BB holder with mobility issues from parking in that space.

Quentin

DCodd wrote: »

There is no suggestion that the holder must leave the car for them to have received the benefit only that they mustn't let the driver get the benefit while they sit in the car.?

You look to have missed:

You should not use the badge to allow non-disabled people to take advantage of the benefits while you sit in the car.