Forgot to display blue badge.

Snakes_Belly

It seems as if the judge did not take into account any mitigating circumstances and probably had made up their mind beforehand.

If the driver is not the disabled person and the disabled person is also a passenger in other cars they keep the BB on their person and place the badge on the dashboard when parking. This means that there is always the danger of it being forgot especially if the passenger is ill. The driver is having to get the disabled person out of the car and in the process does not notice that the BB has not been displayed.

It's a error caused by mitigating circumstances and they should have been cut some slack. There may come a time when the smoke will not go straight up the chimney for some of these judges.

The condition that this man's wife is suffering from is dreadful. It's a bit like migraine in that the blood vessels expand but in this case they press on a nerve and cause very intense pain. It can trigger off at anytime.

nigelbb

Snakes_Belly wrote: »

Ir seems as if the judge did not take into account any mitigating circumstances and probably had made up their mind beforehand.

Courts are not in the business of considering mitigating circumstances when it comes to debts for breach of contract. Any mitigation in this case should have been considered by the landowner & PPC (no sniggering:)).

antandann

'architects of their own misfortunes, ' that's a killer phrase, I'll try to remember that. I agree, I was, and I take full responsibility for it. No excuses, but when you throw certain things into the mix it becomes clearer why this wasn't defended as well as what I maybe could have defended it. I have bi-polar and severe depression, my elderly father had a severe fall and was hospitalised for some time so I was back and forth at hospital for months during the time the witness statements should have been written, then, the real icing on the cake during the most crucial time of the defence, and this is going to be hilarious to some I know, but I find out on Christmas Eve that (the defendant) my wife had been having an affair online for 6 months. So no witness statement was filed as I had left my wife during the period the witness statements were to be filed. So all I could defend on by the time my wife and I were back together was what I had originally filed in the initial defence stage. But, I honestly don't think it would have mattered with this judge, what I had filed as the initial defence had covered all the points I wanted to cover regarding the equality act and poor signage.

The law relevant to this case, as is so often the case, is open to interpretation, and is ambiguous at best. I knew from the forum it was a roll of the dice going to court, and I chose not to seek out and contact the landowner after futile attempts to get Pizza Hut (where my wife was while using the carpark in question) to help. I wanted this to go to court to do my bit to stand up for people who can't defend themselves, it just so happened I was one of them. I tried my best under the circumstances and I can live with that; I wouldn't have been able to live with it if I'd just paid the original charge.

Maybe a letter to the land owner to explain the situation is the way to go. But I honestly wouldn't know where to start now - my confidence is shot.

I still think (whatever the law is) that people such as my wife, who rely on their drivers to have any independence are put in a lose lose situation, they take the hit for the driver ( who in our case was our daughter driving her Mum's car and is not the main driver of the vehicle) or expose the driver and probably lose your driver and in this case, our daughter.

Snakes_Belly

nigelbb wrote: »

Courts are not in the business of considering mitigating circumstances when it comes to debts for breach of contract. Any mitigation in this case should have been considered by the landowner & PPC (no sniggering:)).

The mitigating circumstances are the background to why the contract was breached. So in the case mentioned in Hansard of the lady who overstayed because she collapsed and died was that not a good enough reason to breach the contract? The PPC did not think so because they went after her estate but I don't know how that would have played out in court.

I wonder if the driver was made aware that they were entering into a contract whereby they would have to pay £100 if they did not display their badge.

The_Deep

nigelbb wrote: »

Courts are not in the business of considering mitigating circumstances when it comes to debts for breach of contract. Any mitigation in this case should have been considered by the landowner & PPC (no sniggering:)).

I could not disagree more, that is precisely the function of a judge in my opinion.

Snakes_Belly

The_Deep wrote: »

I could not disagree more, that is precisely the function of a judge in my opinion.

I am with you on this. I thought the whole point of a judge was to make a judgmental decision taking into account all the circumstances. Otherwise this is just a criteria based decision which could be done by a robot.

nigelbb

Snakes_Belly wrote: »

The mitigating circumstances are the background to why the contract was breached. So in the case mentioned in Hansard of the lady who overstayed because she collapsed and died was that not a good enough reason to breach the contract? The PPC did not think so because they went after her estate but I don't know how that would have played out in court.

The claim would not have succeeded as it's a clear case of frustration of contract.

Snakes_Belly wrote: »

I wonder if the driver was made aware that they were entering into a contract whereby they would have to pay £100 if they did not display their badge.

In all likelihood they were. If they were not because the signs were inadequate then this should have been put forward in the defence.

Snakes_Belly

nigelbb wrote: »

The claim would not have succeeded as it's a clear case of frustration of contract.
In all likelihood they were. If they were not because the signs were inadequate then this should have been put forward in the defence.

Surely if people fully realised that they would have to pay £100.00 for a minor transgression it would focus the mind more. The PPC's benefit from people not complying. That's where their interests lie.

antandann

The signs were terrible, but the judge wasn't interested in the pictures as parking in a disabled parking bay should mean you automatically display your blue badge, according to him. One parking company in cases such as this asks for a £15 donation to help combat disabled bay misuse, when you send a copy of your badge. We'd gladly have rounded that up to 20 quid as misuse of bays is epidemic. But to charge genuinely disabled people the same as people who are abusing the bays is ruthless. I wonder how the judge would have ruled if he'd recently been ticketed. He deserves to have my wife's condition and see how well he can focus on anything. Where has the humanity gone in our country? Sorry, I'm venting again.

No my daughter wasn't aware of a contract to display a blue badge. Just to correct the fine amount, my wife says the final tally was £260 but the judge was very magnanimous and disallowed the interest Gladstone's wanted to add on otherwise it would have been higher.

I think a letter to the landowner is the best route, which is something I should have done from the start.

Coupon-mad

How come your wife, the passenger, was the Defendant?

She was not driving, so did they pursue her as the keeper of the car (was it her car)?

I will contact you when I get time, might be Monday now though.

I doubt this has legs either as it was a passenger in the car who was the Blue Badge holder. We have sketchy facts but I don’t think the RK was the BB holder either.

Nigelbb, it seems from my reading of this, that the Defendant was the OP's wife, the passenger (and the registered keeper or Motability keeper?) so she was certainly harassed and the PPC already knew she was disabled once the appeal arrived early on.

That was the point when I think there was an ongoing 'harassment' breach of the EA, against the disabled person, the Defendant.