Pleased to see a parking ticket issued!

D_P_Dance

Wrong, it is arthritis.

Coupon-mad

AnotherForumite said:

Under the draft of the new code, this person would probably just submit a friends / family members Blue Badge via an appeal and get off the charge Scott free.

Guess what?  People are not the rogues here and it is unhelpful to point the finger at the public, when it is the parking sharks who MUST be reined in. Of course people must have to right to show they were disabled, and to pay nothing.

PPCs like to pretend that carmageddon is around the corner.  It is not.

Snakes_Belly

D_P_Dance said:

If you break your leg, and can barely walk, are you not disabled?, 

It's classed as temporary and you can't get a short term blue badge. Tesco told me that I could use a disabled space when I was in a cast but I would not risk it.

AnotherForumite

Coupon-mad said:

AnotherForumite said:

Under the draft of the new code, this person would probably just submit a friends / family members Blue Badge via an appeal and get off the charge Scott free.

Guess what?  People are not the rogues here and it is unhelpful to point the finger at the public, when it is the parking sharks who MUST be reined in. Of course people must have to right to show they were disabled, and to pay nothing.

PPCs like to pretend that carmageddon is around the corner.  It is not.

There is no shortage of people willing to tell a white lie to avoid paying a parking charge; which may be socially acceptable in most cases. However, the vast majority of the public agree that it is unacceptable to park in a BB bay without a BB; but if this element of the appeals charter is passed (retrospective production of a BB voids PCN); motorists will be able to abuse these bay with impunity wouldn’t you say?

I appreciate what is trying to be achieved; however, the unintentional consequences are plain to see.

Coupon-mad

No, I disagree, and you are looking at it with the skewed view I'd expect from PPCs, who like to make out the public are the rogues. 

Most people are absolutely never going to do what you describe.   If they did, it is Blue Badge abuse.  If found out, it is a criminal offence to ''gain an advantage'' by, for example, using a relative's BB.  This is not something for scumbag PPCs to be spouting.   

Guess what?  PPCs can't check BB's anyway, so you are scaremongering pointlessly.

There is not 'no shortage' of people waiting to trick PPCs - the opposite is true.

This carmageddon scaremongering ends now. 

PPCs are not going to be so easily believed in future, I hope.  

AnotherForumite

Coupon-mad said:

No, I disagree, and you are looking at it with the skewed view I'd expect from PPCs, who like to make out the public are the rogues. 

Most people are absolutely never going to do what you describe.   If they did, it is Blue Badge abuse.  If found out it is a criminal offence to gain an advantage by, for example, using a relative's BB.  This is not something for scumbag PPCs to be spouting.   

Guess what?  PPCs can't check BB's anyway, so you are scaremongering pointlessly.

There is not 'no shortage' of people waiting to trick PPCs - the opposite is true.

This carmageddon scaremongering ends now. 

PPCs are not going to be so easily believed in future, I hope.  

Your right PPC’s can’t access the BB database, but it would not make any difference if they did; as a BB holder could have been the passenger e.g. Mr Des Honest could be issued with a PCN for abusing a BB bay, then submit an appeal with a copy of his Grans BB. Unless the appeals charter were to say that ONLY the drivers BB will be accepted retrospectively; there would be a massive loop hole.

Lets be realistic, is someone is happy to park in a BB bay when they have no place doing so; by their very nature, they will take no issue exploiting a loop hole in the appeals process. It would be very naive to believe  otherwise.

Coupon-mad

they will take no issue exploiting a loop hole in the appeals process. 

Sorry but that's just alarmist rubbish. 

There is no 'massive loophole' any more than exists ANYWAY. 

Every time your PPC mates allow a person with a BB to park in a bay, that person *could* be using someone else's badge (potentially).  In fact PPCs tend to fine the wrong people. They fine people whose BB has slipped down and are genuine. They need protecting, not the thug PPCs, driven by greed.

 Unless the appeals charter were to say that ONLY the drivers BB will be accepted retrospectively; there would be a massive loop hole.

That would be breaking the Equality Act, of course a disabled passenger is allowed to use an accessible bay.

You won't get your wish, so forget it.  Stop blaming the British Public.  The PPCs are the rogues.  Some will fall.

Onthewall

Coupon-mad said:

they will take no issue exploiting a loop hole in the appeals process. 

Sorry but that's just alarmist rubbish. 

There is no 'massive loophole' any more than exists ANYWAY. 

Every time your PPC mates allow a person with a BB to park in a bay, that person *could* be using someone else's badge (potentially).  In fact PPCs tend to fine the wrong people. They fine people whose BB has slipped down and are genuine. They need protecting, not the thug PPCs, driven by greed.

 Unless the appeals charter were to say that ONLY the drivers BB will be accepted retrospectively; there would be a massive loop hole.

That would be breaking the Equality Act, of course a disabled passenger is allowed to use an accessible bay.

You won't get your wish, so forget it.  Stop blaming the British Public.  The PPCs are the rogues.  Some will fall.

Another one of your posts that’s factually incorrect, somethings never change...

Coupon-mad

Factually incorrect in what way?

I remember your factually incorrect post here,  in a case won by the victim (of course)?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76916103#Comment_76916103

I bet you are quaking in your PPC boots right now.

Fruitcake

AnotherForumite said:

Coupon-mad said:

AnotherForumite said:

Under the draft of the new code, this person would probably just submit a friends / family members Blue Badge via an appeal and get off the charge Scott free.

Guess what?  People are not the rogues here and it is unhelpful to point the finger at the public, when it is the parking sharks who MUST be reined in. Of course people must have to right to show they were disabled, and to pay nothing.

PPCs like to pretend that carmageddon is around the corner.  It is not.

There is no shortage of people willing to tell a white lie to avoid paying a parking charge; which may be socially acceptable in most cases. However, the vast majority of the public agree that it is unacceptable to park in a BB bay without a BB; but if this element of the appeals charter is passed (retrospective production of a BB voids PCN); motorists will be able to abuse these bay with impunity wouldn’t you say?

I appreciate what is trying to be achieved; however, the unintentional consequences are plain to see.

I disagree. I believe the vast majority of the public do not understand how disabled bays and the Blue Badge scheme works on private land, and just assume it is wrong to park in a disabled bay without displaying a BB.

The BB scheme does not apply on private land. Disabled parking bays should be provided where required by law, but they should never be described as bays for Blue Badge holders only, or called Blue Badge bays.
Parking scammers and a least one ATA are asking people to monitor disabled bays and report the number of vehicles parking in them without a Blue Badge because they are trying to hoodwink the government into thinking that a vast number of people are abusing disabled bays, and according to the scammers the only way to stop it is to make displaying a BB compulsory.
This is a cynical ploy to generate more revenue by the parking industry.

Disabled bays on private land are provided for motorists, whether driver or occupant, who have a disability that is defined as a protected characteristic by the Equality Ac 2010. This Act makes no mention of he Blue Badge scheme.
Prohibiting or penalising disabled motorists who do not have a blue badge for whatever reason from parking in a disabled bay on private land is discrimination.

I don't know whether the motorist or an occupant of their car mentioned by the OP was covered by the EA 2010 or not because I wasn't there and I don't know the person concerned. If no occupant of the vehicle had a disability and protected characteristic in accordance with the Act, then they should not have parked there.
If however they, or an occupant had a disability but no BB, then they had every right to park in a disabled bay, and every right not to get a scamvoice.
This would apply to an able bodied driver who was collecting a disabled person, or an occupant with a hidden disability. Likewise, displaying an expired Blue Badge does not mean the disability has expired as well, yet unregulated scammers will issue a scamvoice for that reason. 

Certain people are allowed to inspect a Blue Badge, but it does not include members of the public or an unregulated parking operative. Likewise, members of the public and employees of unregulated parking companies do not have the right to know another person's very private and personal medical conditions that mean they are entitled to park in a disabled bay.

As for getting a PCN cancelled by retrospectively producing a copy of a BB, I believe it should be widened to include proof of a medical condition in accordance with the EA 2010, such as a doctor or surgeon/specialist letter.