Parked in a disabled Bay, no ticket

Umkomaas

No one here knows where the 'level' of the mother's condition is at.  If the OP is to argue that it meets or exceeds the threshold determined by EA 2010, and his mother was in the car (whether she was driving - or not - is irrelevant as the legal case is against him), then he will need to provide that to the judge.  But, it will be the parking firm's (PPC) case to prove that there was no entitlement to use the bay, not his.

I am often prevented from being able to park (and therefore to go about my own business) because spaces are taken up by people who have decided they are entitled to park in disabled spaces despite having no blue badge.

I agree, as I said in my earlier post. An emotive issue, but parking firms' focus based purely on whether a blue badge was displayed or not doesn't provide the full answer to this thorny problem. There are dozens upon dozens of threads here where the BB has fallen from the dashboard, or the driver simply forgot to place it there, or it was not fully visible, or placed upside down/wrong way around, or the expiry date had passed, with proof subsequently being provided to the PPC ignored and the penalty pursued relentlessly. PPCs are not there to 'manage' disabled bays, their focus is on making money.

Regardless of the ingredients of this particular case, if the OP follows forum advice, then this is extremely unlikely to proceed as far as a hearing.

LinLui

mybestattempt said:

@Umkomaas

I'm well aware of the issue and about reasonable adjustments required under EA 2010.

Another poster questioned whether the mother should be driving and in response you referred to that legislation and gave a link to an article about employment.

I was simply pointing out that in my view a different article was more helpful on the subject of whether or not the mother should be driving.

Can I point out that I did not question whether she should be driving at all? I pointed out that if she was capable of driving on her own then the diagnosis of Alzheimers was very unlikely to constitute a disability (such as to warrant a disabled space) in law. The Equality Act is very specific as to the criteria for something to be considered a disability, and very few conditions, of themselves, qualify automatically. You may have arthritis. That doesn't mean you can park in a disabled space. I have arthritis, and a blue badge because I cannot walk - I can park in a disabled space (provided they aren't all full of people without blue badges). If her Alzheimers was such that it affected her ability to walk, then she would be in the late stages and therefore not able to legally drive. So the company would be prefectly entitled to ask on what basis the OP is claiming the disability which warrants a space in the absence of a blue badge.

I was actually pointing out that their defence has holes.

Brie

I can't see that the OP said the blue badge had anything to do with mom's alzheimers.  She might also have mobility problems unrelated to that.  And then being a little bit forgetful (but still able to drive) doesn't always remember to put the badge on display.  

In any case I don't think at this point it is at all relevant.  The defense should be based on all the usual arguments about signs not being visible, contract not entered in to, etc.  

(& frankly if anyone did get out of their car to go and try to read a sign it wouldn't be at all surprising if they then didn't lock the car, put the BB on display or forgot their shopping bags and wallet before going in to the stores)

LinLui

Brie said:

I can't see that the OP said the blue badge had anything to do with mom's alzheimers.  She might also have mobility problems unrelated to that.  And then being a little bit forgetful (but still able to drive) doesn't always remember to put the badge on display.  

In any case I don't think at this point it is at all relevant.  The defense should be based on all the usual arguments about signs not being visible, contract not entered in to, etc.  

(& frankly if anyone did get out of their car to go and try to read a sign it wouldn't be at all surprising if they then didn't lock the car, put the BB on display or forgot their shopping bags and wallet before going in to the stores)

I agree. In that case the defence is that she is a blue badge holder. She might have forgotten to put it on display - and again that is the defence for why it wasn't displayed. But the OP asked "Would someone please help with looking at my defence? " and the defence given in the OP does not hold up to any scrutiny at all. 

And before they use the "sign not being visible" defence, they should bear in mind that almost all disabled badge spaces are very visible and make sure again that the argument they put lines up with the facts. Most disabled bays are painted in stand out colours (and usually the disabled symbol or writing) on the ground to make them very clearly used for that purpose. I presume the car park in this case won't be able to show that? 

Coupon-mad

LinLui said:

Brie said:

I can't see that the OP said the blue badge had anything to do with mom's alzheimers.  She might also have mobility problems unrelated to that.  And then being a little bit forgetful (but still able to drive) doesn't always remember to put the badge on display.  

In any case I don't think at this point it is at all relevant.  The defense should be based on all the usual arguments about signs not being visible, contract not entered in to, etc.  

(& frankly if anyone did get out of their car to go and try to read a sign it wouldn't be at all surprising if they then didn't lock the car, put the BB on display or forgot their shopping bags and wallet before going in to the stores)

I agree. In that case the defence is that she is a blue badge holder. She might have forgotten to put it on display - and again that is the defence for why it wasn't displayed. But the OP asked "Would someone please help with looking at my defence? " and the defence given in the OP does not hold up to any scrutiny at all. 

And before they use the "sign not being visible" defence, they should bear in mind that almost all disabled badge spaces are very visible

No they aren't. Not on private land.

This is about contract law, so:

It's not just about the lines/surface markings. To create a contract there must be NOT just a Blue Badge sign but also a large, general sign with full contractual t&cs that are legible from the driver's seat.  

Not the case in most retail parks.

In fact I've remarked before, that most retail parks I see, have the entire accessible bay area completely devoid of t&cs signs.  Almost like the Parking industry do it deliberately...

Gr1pr

Also, people need to bear in mind that the claim is against the keeper, the OP, not the person with the disability , that person is currently not involved 

The OP was asked to post a redacted picture of the claim form, but has failed to do so, so we have not seen the POC yet, nor the signage on site, nor the original NTK PCN letter either 

Eckithump

Im struggling to work out how to post

Eckithump

Eckithump said:

Im struggling to work out how to post

Each time I try to upload photo it says body is 9 characters too short.

Eckithump

See attached photo of claim form

Gr1pr

You had to add a sentence of 10 characters or more, as well as the redacted picture, that was your problem, but congrats on redacting it correctly as I mentioned, very imaginative and better than most 

I presume that YOU are the defendant, because you are or were the registered keeper, so its your job to defend yourself 

So its C P Plus, Group Nexus, via DCB Legal as usual , for £283, so an inflated claim as usual, issue date of 20 June 2024

So login to MCOL and complete just the AOS online, nothing else on MCOL, leaving everything else alone ! If you have not done so already