DeVere Parking Services Unjust Court Decision

beamerguy

Coupon-mad wrote: »

But not for the disabled person to simply act as a personal Blue Badge for their carer to save THEIR legs. If there is no intention for the disabled person to get out of the car at all, then that's disabled bay blocking.

I really am not certain where you saw that or who said that

Coupon-mad

You and the OP, both talking about disabled people being allowed to just sit (and do nothing else) in the car, blocking a disabled bay just because they have a BB. That's not what the bay is for.

the OP who started this post said she popped in for a sandwich for her dad.

And she had no right to use a disabled bay = selfish parking.

Redx

the OP clearly stated that they regularly parked at this supermarket in a disabled bay, left the BB holder in the car (no doubt for the duration) and went inside to purchase a sandwich for THEIR lunch

therefore they were blocking the disabled bay in the manner described by CM, because there was no intention to let the BB holder go into the store with them , preferring to leave the BB holder in the car

therefore the only legs the OP saved was their own legs, and as an able bodied person they were only acting in their own interests and so should have parked in a normal bay

believe me , I have had this conversation many times with "carers" and in replies on here

in fact , my friends grandson is disabled and had a BB at the age of 2 and a motability vehicle from the age of 5 , yes 5

the conversations would centre around when she as carer was using the car for his benefit and not her own , plus where to park it if he was with her or not, or even if she should use the car when he was not inside it

I am not sure we ever got a definitive answer, not even from social services

ie:- when she shopped for the whole family , he benefited as a part of the family so that was an argument she used

when she took him to special school or hospital or the doctors , he was the beneficiary so no conversations were needed

it is a tough call at times, but in this case the OP was quite clear in post #1 and so condemned his or her self by their intentions and actions

beamerguy

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You and the OP, both talking about disabled people being allowed to just sit (and do nothing else) in the car, blocking a disabled bay just because they have a BB. That's not what the bay is for.

And she had no right to use a disabled bay = selfish parking.

We must agree to differ, you know, our own personal opinions.

It is no difference to me putting my mother back in my car which you said was OK .... My car was still in a disabled bay which the warden allowed. are you now saying I am selfish.
It is simply a reverse to the OP

beamerguy

Redx wrote: »

I am not sure we ever got a definitive answer, not even from social services

And therein is the problem.

Guess the OP will get her sandwich somewhere else now.

It is odd though, despite this thread growing like a cancer, she has not added any input

Coupon-mad

beamerguy wrote: »

We must agree to differ, you know, our own personal opinions.

It is no difference to me putting my mother back in my car which you said was OK .... My car was still in a disabled bay which the warden allowed. are you now saying I am selfish.
It is simply a reverse to the OP

The 'warden' allowed it because they (private parking lackeys) haven't the foggiest clue about the Equality Act or Blue Badge rules and just made it up as he went along. I've even been directed to park in a disabled bay by a private parking 'warden' once because I had 3 of my (teenage) kids in the car! I declined even though he was insistent and trying to help in a busy car park, told him it wasn't right.

Point being: they have no clue, they are just blinkered to looking for a Blue badge, never mind if it's valid/being used in the way it is meant for.

In your example if your Mum shopped briefly then sat in the car to rest then of course that's not abuse of the bay. Not the same as the OP shopping and using Dad like a decoy, to park very near the shops.

Redx

its all about intention and by whom

if the BB holder wants to go back to the car and the person helping them has not finished their joint business then its fine to part ways until the excercise is complete and the EA2010 allows for reasonable adjustment in those circumstances

I have known this to happen in hospital or the doctors or the dentists where the BB holder goes back to the car and leaves the driver sorting out appointments and prescriptions etc

but this OP had the intention of leaving the BB holder in the car whilst running into asda to get their lunch , this intention is a misuse of the BB and can be punishable by a fine of £1000

they need to think themselves lucky that the matter was not reported to the police as its a criminal offence to misuse the BB in this manner , which may still happen if they appeal it

it may be a fine line, but the OP crossed that line and paid the price

hence why I asked the DCLG to clarify these issues and extend the BB rules to cover private parking and put the onus on the landowners and PPC,s to prove the misuse or abuse was deliberate, plus to explain how they make reasonable adjustments for those in these positions , carers and people who qualify under the EA2010

nb:- the EA2010 makes no mention at all of a BB or requirement for one

I suspect the OP has read the comments and realised the error of their ways, even if they had the best intentions and are the best carer in the world

Castle

Redx wrote: »

but this OP had the intention of leaving the BB holder in the car whilst running into asda to get their lunch , this intention is a misuse of the BB and can be punishable by a fine of £1000

they need to think themselves lucky that the matter was not reported to the police as its a criminal offence to misuse the BB in this manner , which may still happen if they appeal it

I thought this happened on private land so why would the Police be interested.

Redx

Castle wrote: »

I thought this happened on private land so why would the Police be interested.

because the BB scheme makes no distinction or caveats on where the misuse can occur, just if it is misused (I suppose it could be considered to be fraud which can occur on private or public land) then it is a criminal offence , so as theft on private land or from shops is a criminal offence so I see no reason why this could not be a criminal offence no matter where it occurs

the BB booklet does state that the rules on private land must be checked and followed

the judge clearly thought it of no consequence to the case and presumably thought the judgment in itself was punishment enough

ps:- my local hospital has a police presence and I myself have had my badge checked by a police officer, on private land, at the NHS hospital (on trust land)

so they can and do check for misuse by the public, even on private land

had misuse occurred, I am in no doubt that they would have impounded the badge and possibly issued a prosecution , plus reported me to social services

beamerguy

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Point being: they have no clue, they are just blinkered to looking for a Blue badge, never mind if it's valid/being used in the way it is meant for.

In your example if your Mum shopped briefly then sat in the car to rest then of course that's not abuse of the bay.

Well we know that these parking companies don't have a clue anyway

With regards to my mum, on numerous times she would come in with me and after 15 mins I had to put her back in the car.
I continued to do her shopping and maybe an hour later I would get back to the car. So I was doing the shopping , she was sitting in the car all alone in a disabled bay?
Surely according to the comments here, I was abusing the space

The OP who by the way has not contributed further, has not commented if her father was ill or whatever. We are not in a position to comment.

Remember that the OP got the ticket because her dad got out of the car and took the BB with him. Had he not done that the chances were high that no ticket would have been issued.

And sure, she has done this many times without penalty but my beef is with the PPC and the judge for ignoring the facts, the man went on walkabout taking the BB with him.
The OP was not done because she had popped into Asda, it was because the BB was not displayed