Pleased to see a parking ticket issued!

KeithP

Onthewall said:

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..

Indeed you don't, but we are all interested in learning.

If Coupon-mad's comments are factually incorrect then I would also like to learn how that might be.

If you cannot answer that simple question then I will have to make an assumption.

Coupon-mad

You told me my post was factually incorrect. Please explain?  Here it is again:

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.

There is nothing factually (or for that matter, ethically or morally) incorrect in my post. 

There is no scope for inaccuracy there.

The only possible thing you could be saying is that you think the EA doesn't say what I know it does.  I used to work as a Disability Service Manager.  I know what a 'reasonable adjustment' is.  I know what the EA says.

PPCs don't.  But they will learn.

Fruitcake

AnotherForumite said:

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.

I can think of a few ideas.

1) Not issue charges to anyone who parks in a disabled bay without displaying a BB on the assumption that the driver has the right to use said bay.

2) Issue a PCN and risk having to cancel it when the motorist provides proof that an occupant of the car has a disability and protected characteristics in accordance with the EA 2010.

3) The UK Government allow the inspection of BBs or other proof of a disability by an accredited independent agent such as a Police Officer or CEO as is currently allowed on public roads or council owned car parks, before a PCN is issued. 

Considering the number of disabled bays in existence, point 1 is the cheapest and easiest.

Other ideas are available.

Coupon-mad

What PPCs miss is this:  Good parking management is not all about parking charges. 

'Management' does not equal 'enforcement'.

The fact they think it does, shows there are too many Neanderthals in the industry and too much money sloshing around.  Cut the opportunities for ripping the public off, and the worst of them will scurry back down their hole.

AnotherForumite

Fruitcake said:

AnotherForumite said:

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.

I can think of a few ideas.

1) Not issue charges to anyone who parks in a disabled bay without displaying a BB on the assumption that the driver has the right to use said bay.

2) Issue a PCN and risk having to cancel it when the motorist provides proof that an occupant of the car has a disability and protected characteristics in accordance with the EA 2010.

3) The UK Government allow the inspection of BBs or other proof of a disability by an accredited independent agent such as a Police Officer or CEO as is currently allowed on public roads or council owned car parks, before a PCN is issued. 

Considering the number of disabled bays in existence, point 1 is the cheapest and easiest.

Other ideas are available.

My thoughts on these options:

1.Not an option, as equality act and PAS draft requires them to be policed. 

2. What proof would you say was adequate so as to be sure that a genuine case rather than the scenarios I have previously mentioned?
3. What would you suggest the process would be in the event of retrospective production of evidence? Mindful of my points in relation to (2).

Coupon-mad

What proof would you say was adequate so as to be sure that a genuine case. 

Anything to show that an occupant of the car meets the definition of disability - specifically such that they had a need for that bay.     I would have thought this is something for a PPC to discuss with the landowner on a case by case basis.  The landowner (e.g. a Hospital, or retailer) can have the final word, mindful of the EA.

Proper parking management = you do what the landowner wishes.

What would you suggest the process would be in the event of retrospective production of evidence?

As per the Appeals Charter, but that disabled people pay nothing.  That is a safeguard that is needed to stop scammer PPCs from lurking and seizing the chance to issue PCNs to people who are genuinely disabled, which is what we see now.  That is far, far more likely than the odd fly parker idiot.  

Remember the Knight Act is about stopping scammer PPCs.  It is your industry under scrutiny.   You don't get to dictate, this time.

If your company is not a rogue ticketer, you have nothing much to fear but you WILL see PCN numbers fall, of course, because ten million issued last year (8.4million KADOE, plus the rest appealed or paid after a windscreen PCN) is utterly appalling. 

The industry should be damn ashamed.  They are meant to be managing parking, not attacking and suing people, ruining their lives sometimes.  The very worst are those who operate at residential estates, IMHO, rocking up and pretending every resident needs a permit and then suing them, picking them off.  

Same for those who ruin Hospital car parks with ANPR and 'guess on exit' systems set up to fail, which default to the minimum tariff even though the PPC knows the time the car arrived, and people think the system has calculated it.

AnotherForumite

Coupon-mad said:

What proof would you say was adequate so as to be sure that a genuine case. 

Anything to show that an occupant of the car meets the definition of disability - specifically such that they had a need for that bay.     I would have thought this is something for a PPC to discuss with the landowner on a case by case basis.  The landowner (e.g. a Hospital, or retailer) can have the final word, mindful of the EA.

Proper parking management = you do what the landowner wishes.

What would you suggest the process would be in the event of retrospective production of evidence?

As per the Appeals Charter, but that disabled people pay nothing.  That is a safeguard that is needed to stop scammer PPCs from lurking and seizing the chance to issue PCNs to people who are genuinely disabled, which is what we see now.  That is far, far more likely than the odd fly parker idiot.  

Remember the Knight Act is about stopping scammer PPCs.  It is your industry under scrutiny.   You don't get to dictate, this time.

If your company is not a rogue ticketer, you have nothing much to fear but you WILL see PCN numbers fall, of course, because ten million issued last year (8.4million KADOE, plus the rest appealed or paid after a windscreen PCN) is utterly appalling. 

The industry should be damn ashamed.  They are meant to be managing parking, not attacking and suing people, ruining their lives sometimes.  The very worst are those who operate at residential estates, IMHO, rocking up and pretending every resident needs a permit and then suing them, picking them off.  

Same for those who ruin Hospital car parks with ANPR and 'guess on exit' systems set up to fail, which default to the minimum tariff even though the PPC knows the time the car arrived, and people think the system has calculated it.

STILL not come up with a solution to prevent the exploitation of the loophole that would enable people to state that they or their passenger had a disability where it is a lie.

Reference residential sites, PPCs only operate on sites when requested to do so, they don’t just put up signs and implement permit schemes uninvited. 

Again, your going off topic as can’t come up with a solution to close the loophole, but then again there already is a solution and that’s require people to simply exercise some vigilance and make sure they display their BB in the first place; simples 🤷🏼‍♂️

Coupon-mad

Reference residential sites, PPCs only operate on sites when requested to do so, they don’t just put up signs and implement permit schemes uninvited. 

They appear at sites on the say-so of managing agents and the PPCs then undermine the leases and tenancy agreements of the residents.  As the PPCs find when they try court cases, many residents have no obligation to display a permit.  UKCPM,  Link, VCS, PPM, UKPC (all those who infest residential estates) lose all the time when properly defended.

A PPC can't just force terms on people who already have parking rights and easements.  But the worst firms, do.

I have already told you, there is no loophole that doesn't already exist every time you look at a car with a Blue Badge.  More important to protect disabled people from the likes of PPCs, than to let you loose the way you clearly want.

You won't get this, so the discussion is pointless.

AnotherForumite

Coupon-mad said:

Reference residential sites, PPCs only operate on sites when requested to do so, they don’t just put up signs and implement permit schemes uninvited. 

They appear at sites on the say-so of managing agents and the PPCs then undermine the leases and tenancy agreements of the residents.  As the PPCs find when they try court cases, many residents have no obligation to display a permit.  UKCPM,  Link, VCS, PPM, UKPC (all those who infest residential estates) lose all the time when properly defended.

A PPC can't just force terms on people who already have parking rights and easements.  But the worst firms, do.

I have already told you, there is no loophole that doesn't already exist every time you look at a car with a Blue Badge.  More important to protect disabled people from the likes of PPCs, than to let you loose the way you clearly want.

You won't get this, so the discussion is pointless.

And you don’t get my point either, guess we will agree to disagree. Take care 

Coupon-mad

I got your point and know exactly where you are coming from, believe me.  Stands out clear as day.

You will not get what you are asking for, so forget it.