DeVere Parking Services Unjust Court Decision

Redx

nigelbb wrote: »

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.

just to say I agree with the above explanation and its been that way since orange badges which I started with years ago due to MY affliction

but my affliction does not allow me to sit in the vehicle in a disabled space or on the road on single or double yellow lines whilst my able bodied wife goes into the shop (like asda) to shop

if we were to do this task, she would have to park in a regular space and WALK to the store NO MATTER WHAT THE REASON because I am not accompanying her

the affliction this OP mentioned with the relative is of no relevance to this case and if this person cannot be left alone then they should not have been left alone, the carer should have parked in the BB space and taken this person with them , or ensured they were not left alone whilst parked in a "normal" space

as its the EA2010 that applies for these disabled spaces on private land then the afflicted person may have a case if THEIR rights were affected, but their rights do not appear to have been affected, only those of somebody who did not qualify under the EA2010 and should not have parked there (the OP)

the way this is being explained is the way I have understood it to be for over 25 years and is what I tell my family , especially if they take ME out in a vehicle and park up

so if I stay in the vehicle , the BB is NOT USED and no benefit is allowed to the able bodied "carer" who must park normally and walk to the store from the regular parking space

if I accompany them , like when we go to hospital or the doctors, then the BB is used in a disabled space no matter whose vehicle is used

this OP has made a mistake, as many do, and has paid the price for not understanding the correct use of the BB

had they taken the person with the medical condition into the store in accordance with the BB rules none of this would have happened

had they parked in a normal bay and left the BB in the glove compartment , none of this would have happened

I understand it is an emotive issue and that some people feel different about it, but the judge came to a harsh , but CORRECT , conclusion

the fact this OP will pay the judgment may make them read and understand what they can and cannot do when using the BB in any event and not misuse it for their own benefit as it appears they did in their story in post #1

harsh, but a lesson to all carers that the BB must only be used to help the person in relates to, not just to allow an able bodied person to park in a bay and go shopping , even if the BB holder also benefits

I believe the OP has no chance of winning any appeal in civil court and will just cost themselves further expense and heartache

and neither has the BB holder any chance of winning a court case citing the EA2010 because their own rights have not been abused by the landowner or the PPC or the store

I am not accounting for dementia at all in my commentsd above, mainly because as I see it the affliction has no bearing on the case, be it MY AFFLICTION or the person in this case who has dementia

an affliction is an affliction, but how rules are interpreted is what is being debated here , regardless of the affliction and regardless of any personal issues

the OP needs to pay up and put it down to a lack of understanding on their part

pappa_golf

RedX , I totally agree , however blue badges have no legal standing on private land , so how or why did a judge in a court room (cc) have the right to judge on something that was not illegal?

nigelbb

pappa_golf wrote: »

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

No the biggest mistake was allowing it to proceed to court at all with no effective defence. If this could not be quashed by the retailer on grounds of mitigation then the court certainly could not hear such a plea. There might have been other ways that this case could have been successfully defended e.g. signage, invalid NTK etc but that wasn't what the OP argued & now it's too late to put forward those arguments in an appeal.

Redx

I would assume the judge looked at it as somebody who is able bodied parked in a space reserved for disabled people who qualify under the EA2010, came to the conclusion that they had broken the parking rules laid down by Devere (or the landowner) and judged the case accordingly

I see the rest of this saga as not relevant to the court case, harsh as it may seem , because its all about the able bodied OP and their actions

ie:- they deprived a protected person from a parking space, the kind of misuse that happens a lot and is what these companies are supposed to stamp out if they do their job ethically and correctly (which they usually fail to do)

sometimes the motorist is in the wrong , in this case they failed to see whay they were in the wrong , appealed , lost , went to court , lost, the cycle continues

its a harsh lesson, but the judge was correct based on the woefully inadequate defence put forward

as mentioned above, it should never have got that far as various avenues to get it quashed were open to the OP, but intransigence appears to have cost the OP dear

the OP should have parked in a normal space and walked to the store to shop, assuming they can leave the person with dementia unattended in the car safely , or they should have parked in the disabled space, put the BB on the front dashboard and taken the person INTO THE SHOP with them , as per normal BB rules , thereby benefitting from the EA2010 act of parliament

nigelbb

pappa_golf wrote: »

RedX , I totally agree , however blue badges have no legal standing on private land , so how or why did a judge in a court room (cc) have the right to judge on something that was not illegal?

The rules of the car park are that if a car is parked in a disabled space then a BB must be displayed. A BB was not displayed so the motorist was in breach of those rules just as it would have been with a fluttering P&D ticket.

Those of us who disagree with the entire concept that parking in a free car park is subject to contract law can argue all we like but the courts accept the myth of the parking contract in free car parks so we have to play by those rules. The weapons we use to fight these claims are to attack on legal grounds other components of the alleged contract e.g. clear signs that offer parking & equally clearly show the penalty for breaching the T&Cs. We might argue that the driver hasn't been identified & POFA 2012 not complied with so the keeper is liable. Any of these other appeal points can be successful but arguing that the wind blew the P&D ticket so it wasn't visible or that the BB holder went for a walk with the BB just won't work.

beamerguy

nigelbb wrote: »

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.

As the poster before you said
"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?"

NO ABUSE

Redx

when the DCLG had their survey over 14 months ago I put in several points about the BB scheme and asked for it to be clarified and extended to cover parking on private land and in places where the EA2010 applies

we are still awaiting the results of that disussion, as BG knows only too well having posted about it recently on here

until something is done about it, the old regime exists and I have always told my family that the scenario in post #1 is against the rules and not in the spirit of the BB , nor in the spirit of the EA2010 either (or the DDA before it)

it is the dogma I have lived my life by over the last 25 to 30 years when I have allowed my BB to be used, plus what I told my relatives who cared for my sick mum when she was alive and had a BB

that it was for HER BENEFIT, NOT THEIRS

these rules have not changed much since the orange badge scheme came in many , many years ago , long before private parking issues , long before the DDA1995 and DDA 2005 and EA2010

hence any wordings that have not been updated to take account of the modern society and laws we have now , its trying to invoke the old ways in the days of the new and more complicated ways we have now

the DCLG need to sort it out

Quentin

HO87 wrote: »

If I remember correctly Castlepoint (a well-known haunt of Devere) has had a specific policy of enforcing BB "rules" to deter abuse. Quite. Abuse by whom?



As for the use by a driver who is not the holder of the BB (but is their carer/helper) I suggest you bone up on how such BB's may be used in these circumstances.

I have only just seen your cynical edit aimed at me (I had already replied to your post and pointed out the "abuse" you asked about, and you look to have subsequently edited your post with your "bone up" comment rather than reply to mine)


But your suggestion to me to "bone up" is unnecessary.


I had accurately stated why the OP was "abusing" the BB.


If you know some other reason why this was not "abuse" by the carer OP it would be helpful to the OP to tell, rather than simply edit your post with your snide "suggestion" which added nothing to the issue.

Quentin

beamerguy wrote: »

As the poster before you said
"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?"

NO ABUSE

Have you read the Government's document on this?


There is no suggestion of the badge being used correctly in the way you describe


And no confusion:

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

nigelbb

beamerguy wrote: »

As the poster before you said
"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?"

NO ABUSE

It's certainly true that confusion exists not only in the mind of the OP as you seem to have difficulty misunderstanding no matter how many times I explain it. A BB is not a carte blanche for motorist to park the car anywhere just so long as the BB holder is in the car. There has to be a reason to benefit the BB holder that makes it necessary to park on a double yellow line or in a disabled space & the fact that it's convenient for the driver not to have to walk so far is not a benefit to the BB holder.

Personally I don't find the guidance document confusing:-

Do not allow other people to use the badge to do something on your behalf, such as shopping or collecting something for you.

So you cannot borrow the BB to park on double yellow lines even when popping into the chemist to collect a prescription for the BB holder as it's illegal.

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

You cannot use the BB to park on double yellow lines when popping into the chemist to collect a prescription for the BB holder even if they stay sat in the car as it's illegal.

You can use the BB to park on double yellow lines when popping into the chemist to collect a prescription for the BB holder only if they come into the chemists too as they are benefiting from only having to walk a short distance from the car.