Pleased to see a parking ticket issued!

AnotherForumite

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.

I’m sorry, but you do not appear to be looking at this objectively; stating that this policy would not create a loophole is nonsensical.

i.e
Would there be scope for someone to submit a BB to an appeal and claim the BB holder was present for the parking event; even if they were not? Absolutely, it’s impossible to argue otherwise. 

Would someone with the character that would abuse a BB parking pay be happy to action the above? Absolutely, it’s impossible to argue otherwise.

Rather that mud sling, would it not be more productive to come up with an amicable solution to the problem i.e a policy that ensures that concessions are given for bona-fide errors; whilst eliminating (or at least reducing) any scope for abusing a facility that many people with reduced mobility rely on.

Or is it your desire to bring down the industry rather than improve it?

P.S any one who has seen a BB knows that it is by no means small. Realistically, could such a large item ‘fall off’ a dashboard unnoticed? am sure no one balances them on the edge.

Coupon-mad

You are making no sense and your suggestion breaches the Equality Act 2010. You cannot deny a person who meets the definition of disability, their right to have their vehicle (whether they be driver or passenger) parked a concessionary bay where they are on site.

Everything you have described potentially happens in any accessible bay, and the PPC will never know. 

That does not make it right, but it is a fact.  You are inventing a loophole that is already part and parcel of providing accessible bays.  That is not a valid reason to breach disability law and deny people their rights. 

And Fruitcake is right, it's people who meet the definition of disability who can use such bays, not only BB holders.  That's only one way of identifying people with such a need. 

Did you miss the fact that a poster here has got a special permit from Sainsburys and from Tesco, no Blue Badge? The landowner decides who uses their bays and they cannot break the law and discriminate.  Both Supermarkets agreed (Sainsburys quickly, Tesco eventually).  That person can now use accessible bays at both retailers, and they also have a right to more time, over and above the arbitrary free parking period.

What's the PPC view on the fact that ANPR breaks the law by not allowing disabled people more (free or paid) time, such as an extra hour?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8488737.stm

You haven't got a choice, it's the law and it's been ignored for too long.   ANPR also fails to check disabled bays and is completely inappropriate for accessible areas of any car park.   

What is PPC World planning on doing to start complying with the law?

AnotherForumite

Fruitcake said:

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.

Ok, so you have voiced your opinion; which I respect. Can we now hear your suggestion as to how a PPC would monitor these bays and ensure that only those that fit your criteria use them? Bearing in mind that the equality act AND the draft PAS requires them to be policed.

Coupon-mad

Can we now hear your suggestion as to how a PPC would monitor these bays and ensure that only those that fit your criteria use them? Bearing in mind that the equality act AND the draft PAS requires them to be policed.

By use of the Appeals Charter to rescue people whose BB has slipped, or to identify those who qualify, and waive the scam PCN. 

And by PPCs or landowners actually getting off their bums and checking bays, and not making assumptions about people by how they look.

Or, Local Authorities should police accessible bays, if PPCs can't manage it.  This does happen already a little - in Scotland I think. That works.

Can we now hear your answer to what PPC world are going to do about ANPR and imposing illegal time limits on people, and not bothering to actually check accessible bays because your lot use ANPR like it's going out of fashion?

AnotherForumite

Coupon-mad said:

You are making no sense and your suggestion breaches the Equality Act 2010. You cannot deny a person who meets the definition of disability, their right to have their vehicle (whether they be driver or passenger) parked a concessionary bay where they are on site.

Everything you have described potentially happens in any accessible bay, and the PPC will never know. 

That does not make it right, but it is a fact.  You are inventing a loophole that is already part and parcel of providing accessible bays.  That is not a valid reason to breach disability law and deny people their rights. 

And Fruitcake is right, it's people who meet the definition of disability who can use such bays, not only BB holders.  That's only one way of identifying people with such a need. 

Did you miss the fact that a poster here has got a special permit from Sainsburys and from Tesco, no Blue Badge? The landowner decides who uses their bays and they cannot break the law and discriminate.  Both Supermarkets agreed (Sainsburys quickly, Tesco eventually).  That person can now use accessible bays at both retailers, and they also have a right to more time, over and above the arbitrary free parking period.

What's the PPC view on the fact that ANPR breaks the law by not allowing disabled people more (free or paid) time, such as an extra hour?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8488737.stm

You haven't got a choice, it's the law and it's been ignored for too long.   ANPR also fails to check disabled bays and is completely inappropriate for accessible areas of any car park.   

What is PPC World planning on doing to start complying with the law?

We agree on these points, in that the use of ONLY ANPR does not provide the protection that these bays deserve; and that any operator that does not support the camera system with a foot patrol is only doing half a job. I also agree that retail parks/supermarkets etc should provide a facility to enable those with reduced mobility to register their vehicle for additional time but we are going off subject.

D_P_Dance

 However, the vast majority of the public agree that it is unacceptable to park in a BB bay without a BB; 

No, argumentum ad populum.   If you are disabled, even temporarily, then you are entitled those protected characteristics mentined in EA 2010.  BBs have no currency in private car parks so called PCNs for such "breaches of contract" are invalid.  

Onthewall

Coupon-mad said:

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.

Again factually incorrect that I work for for a parking operator, quite wrong to assume...as you assume a lot of things...

AnotherForumite

D_P_Dance said:

 However, the vast majority of the public agree that it is unacceptable to park in a BB bay without a BB; 

No, argumentum ad populum.   If you are disabled, even temporarily, then you are entitled those protected characteristics mentined in EA 2010.  BBs have no currency in private car parks so called PCNs for such "breaches of contract" are invalid.  

So, on that basis, should everyone with the characteristics that you describe be allowed to park on double yellow lines on the highway ? If not, why not?

KeithP

Onthewall said:

Coupon-mad said:

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.

Again factually incorrect that I work for for a parking operator, quite wrong to assume...as you assume a lot of things...

But why have you ignored the question?
That being...

Factually incorrect in what way?

Onthewall

KeithP said:

Onthewall said:

Coupon-mad said:

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.

Again factually incorrect that I work for for a parking operator, quite wrong to assume...as you assume a lot of things...

But why have you ignored the question?
That being...

Factually incorrect in what way?

I don’t have to answer to you, time for you to chill..