Pleased to see a parking ticket issued!

D_P_Dance

And my last word is that this poster is, imo, out of his/her depth.

Fruitcake

AnotherForumite said:

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).

1) As far as I am aware, there is no express reference for the provision or management (policing) of disabled car parking spaces on private land under the Equality Act 2010. If there is, please point me to it. I am not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying I can't find it in the said Act. 
The draft PAS may require policing of disabled bays, but it cannot override the rights of a disabled person with regards to the requirements of the EA 2010.

2)
a) A motorist might display a BB as a curtesy if an occupant has one, but it should not be mandatory on private land. 
PPCs could request (but not insist) that a BB is displayed, and I know many people do this anyway when they park in any type of disabled bay, whether on council or private land. 

b) The PPC's operator should check the vehicle for signs of use by a disabled occupant. Some are obviously adapted for wheelchair access/ramps/hoists etcetera. 
Some vehicles are adapted for disabled users but may not be obvious. Mine falls in to this category because the whole of the rear of the car has dark tinted windows to protect the privacy of disabled passengers, making it virtually impossible to see the internal disabled modifications and equipment. It does however have the tell-tale cut out section of the rear bumper, and badge in the rear windscreen showing the internationally recognised disabled symbol, and a request to leave 3m clear behind the vehicle for unshipping my disabled ramp and person in a wheel chair. 

c) A simple sticker of badge (not a council issued blue badge) could be available (free or for a small fee) from an accredited supplier on production of a suitable document in much the same way as buying a number plate is only possible on production of a V5C bearing the relevant VRM.
A letter from a medical practitioner could be used, or a standard form could be made available to apply for approval of a badge or sticker from a medical facility. This could be sent to a medical practitioner who could approve the request which could then be sent to the accredited provider of said badges or stickers.
In the latter stages of my father's life, he suffered from severe dementia. I asked his GP to write a letter stating this which I then sent to my parents local council, requesting a reduction in council tax. This was granted because it qualified as a permanent mental disability and to the credit of the council, they backdated the reduction to the beginning of the financial year. Production of my father's blue badge would not have worked in this situation.

3) Retrospective production of a blue badge, or a sticker/badge as described above, or as I said in a previous post, a letter from a medical practitioner such as a GP/surgeon/specialist qualified to provide such evidence.

What do you think would be acceptable since parking operators or ATAs no longer allow retrospective production of a blue badge, even when shown to a parking operative at the time of alleged event. They have never allowed a doctor's letter or similar. 


Of course, none of this will prevent abuse of the system, but that is no difference to the current practice. Someone could just as easily borrow a badge/sticker/medical letter as a blue badge.
As a regular user of disabled bays I abhor the thought of those bays being abused. However my priority is for disabled occupants and motorists such as me to be protected from direct and indirect discrimination, and harassment by an unregulated parking operator in breach of the Equality Act 2010.
Inspection of BBs and other proof of a disability could be monitored by those already entitled to inspect a BB, and the new legislation could be amended to include this. 

The whole point is that since the number of disabled bays on private land is (usually) quite small in comparison to the total number of parking bays, and I suggest the actual number of times disabled bays are being used by non disabled motorist is small, the problem itself is very, very small. 
Parking companies want to maximise their revenue, and one of the ways they do this is by insisting disabled motorists display a BB, but this is then unfair to disabled motorists who do not have a BB. 
Surely it better for a guilty person to go free than an innocent person be penalised?

One other thing that I think would help would be to move the gimmick that is parent and child bays to the farthest corner of the car park to help reduce the occurrence of childhood obesity, or better yet get rid of them completely. They are no different to an enticement to shop such as buy one get one free. They are not legally recognised, the markings/symbols are not standardised, nor are the Ts and Cs concerning their use. How is it right that a parent with a fit eleven year old rugby playing child can park near a shop entrance, but someone with a physical impairment who does not have a blue badge is not permitted to do so.
Don't get me started on the posters we see on this form who get a PCN because there were no parent and child bays available so they believed they had the right to park in a disabled bay instead.

Right, I've had my say and don't intend to post on this thread again. I need to go and winch a mobility scooter into my car ready to park in a disabled bay on private land this afternoon without displaying a disabled badge, as will be my right by law.

 

knightstyle

As the original poster for this thread I am amazed at the way it has gone!
I will also say the signs for that area clearly say it is for Blue Badge holders ONLY so not sure if those arguments will stand up.

Curlyben

As an FYI concerning Blue Badges

Gov.uk said:

The badge is intended for on-street parking only. Off-street car parks, such as those provided by shopping centres, hospitals or supermarkets are covered by separate rules..
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-blue-badge-scheme-rights-and-responsibilities-in-england/the-blue-badge-scheme-rights-and-responsibilities-in-england

Disabled bays on private property do not have the same validity as public highway and are governed by local requirements, etc.

D_P_Dance

 ... so not sure if those arguments will stand up.

IMO they are very likely to in court.

AnotherForumite

knightstyle said:

As the original poster for this thread I am amazed at the way it has gone!
I will also say the signs for that area clearly say it is for Blue Badge holders ONLY so not sure if those arguments will stand up.

It’s certainly an emotive subject for some.

D_P_Dance

... clearly say it is for Blue Badge holders ONLY 

IMO, such a condition constitutes an unfair term in a consumer contract under CRA.