What is the situation with bailiffs and cars owned by blue badge holders?

[sequenci]

Can cars be clamped / taken from the public highway?

[lamma]

the simple answer is yes. but it is more complicated than that so it may be a no in this case. need details of the issue, location (town or city name), details of the parking, time line, name of council, stuff like that.

[JonCris]

To clamp or remove a disabled persons car to a pound is not only against the guidelines but also a breach of their human rights & therefore unlawful

 

They can however remove it to an easy disability accessible adjacent location where it is not causing on obstruction

 

But then we are talking about an industry which gives not one jot for the rules or regulation accept were it favours them of course

Edited September 3, 2008 by JonCris

[sequenci]

This is a theoretical question.

 

We often get disabled clients who receive PCNs and then subsequently have bailiffs chase them.

 

Chris; what guidelines?

[Michael Browne]

Parking Guidelines (page 16)

 

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/tmaportal/tmafeatures/tmapart6/betterprkstatutoryguid.pdf

 

Bailiff clamping Blue Badge holder:

London Motorists Action Group - Drakes bailiff Pt4 complaint court report from Bailiff Advice Online

[Guest Ting]

This is a theoretical question.

 

We often get disabled clients who receive PCNs and then subsequently have bailiffs chase them.

 

Chris; what guidelines?

 

I believe the Guidance quoted refers to the towing of vehicles while actually in contravention. In your 'theoretical' situation I believe it is different. i.e. if someone has failed to pay/challenge a PCN or has been rejected then it's an entirely different situation. Not sure of the answer though.

 

There is actually a case on here at the moment. I'll try and find it when I get a minute.

-

[pin1onu]

Just to add to this it would appear disabled drivers are well covered by legislation.

 

It is also a breach of PSI Regulations to clamp/immobilise/remove a vehicle on private land under the 2007 PSI regulations.

The Private Security Industry Act 2001 (Licences) Regulations 2007 No. 810

 

It would appear the reality is somewhat different:mad:.

[JonCris]

The towing, clamping or the removing of a disabled persons vehicle at anytime & any reason anywhere is unlawful except to remove a hazard

[sequenci]

The towing, clamping or the removing of a disabled persons vehicle at anytime & any reason anywhere is unlawful except to remove a hazard

 

Is there any legislation surrounding this.

[JonCris]

See previous post (5) by Micheal

[sequenci]

Thanks

[Guest Ting]

See previous post (5) by Micheal

 

Hmmm.

 

Careful. That is not a statutory instrument. It does make reference to legislation in places. I haven't read the relevant part recently but most of the whole document is advisory.

-

[sequenci]

So what is the actual legislation?

[JonCris]

The section about the attempted clamping or removal of a disabled drivers vehicle is based on common law finding in a matter the citation of which I can't remember at the moment

[Guest Ting]

Again, I stress that this is only applicable to vehicles while in contravention.

 

Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions General Regulations 2007 Part 3

 

Reg 13

 

Limitations on the power to immobilise vehicles

 

13.—(1) An immobilisation device must not be fixed to a vehicle if there is displayed on the vehicle—

 

(a)

a current disabled person’s badge; or

 

 

 

(b)

a current recognised badge.

 

 

 

(2) If, in a case in which an immobilisation device would have been fixed to a vehicle but for paragraph (1)(a), the vehicle was not being used—

 

(a)

in accordance with regulations under section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970(7); and

 

 

 

(b)

in circumstances falling within section 117(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984(8) (use where a disabled persons’ concession would be available),

 

 

 

the person in charge of the vehicle shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

 

(3) If, in a case in which an immobilisation device would have been fixed to a vehicle but for paragraph (1)(b), the vehicle was not being used—

 

(a)

in accordance with regulations under section 21A of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970(9); and

 

 

 

(b)

in circumstances falling within section 117(1A)(b) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984(10) (use where a disabled person’s concession would be available by virtue of displaying a non-GB badge),

 

 

 

the person in charge of the vehicle shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

[Guest Ting]

For the circumstances you describe - where enforcement has progressed to a recovery stage by bailiffs then I actually don't personally know of any difference in the rules or particular exemptions.

 

In such cases it is far more worth to follow the correct procedure if there has been an impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority. Orders for Recovery can be overturned - with reason. If you are getting bailiff cases re parking contraventions then the facts should be discussed here apart from whatever you do in the debt forum. Better still and for more specific legal advice - err - that 'other' place.

-

Oh I wish I could find that thread I mentioned earlier.!!!!

-

[green_and_mean]

There is also a difference between a car owned by a blue badge holder and a car displaying a blue badge.

[WAVE_131]

I am a blue badge user and i was booked by the local authority, only to have it waived on appeal.

 

my subsequent research turned up the fact that 4.2% of "able-bodied" tickets were subseqently waived while a staggering 44% of "disabled" tickets were. ie these represent tickets which should not have been issued.

 

This indicates to me a deliberate targeting of the disabled, which is illegal.

 

I am considering my further action on this issue

[lamma]

that is worth pursuing.

[green_and_mean]

I am a blue badge user and i was booked by the local authority, only to have it waived on appeal.

 

my subsequent research turned up the fact that 4.2% of "able-bodied" tickets were subseqently waived while a staggering 44% of "disabled" tickets were. ie these represent tickets which should not have been issued.

 

This indicates to me a deliberate targeting of the disabled, which is illegal.

 

I am considering my further action on this issue

 

Total rubbish!! How can you tell by looking at a PCN who it was issued to able bodied or not? There is no such thing as a disabled ticket the contravention codes are all the same. If anything more leeway is given to disabled drivers resulting in BB holders being shown greater discretion. Blue badge holders can park almost anywhere so issuing a PCN to a BB holder is far less likely. If you got 'accurate' figures to show the percentage of non BB drivers getting a PCN and compared it the the number of BB holders getting a PCN you would probably realise able bodied get far more tickets.

[JonCris]

I think it's obvious the poster meant their disability badge

 

Also the reason more able bodied drivers receive more tickets is because there are more of them

[WAVE_131]

Total rubbish!! How can you tell by looking at a PCN who it was issued to able bodied or not? There is no such thing as a disabled ticket the contravention codes are all the same. If anything more leeway is given to disabled drivers resulting in BB holders being shown greater discretion. Blue badge holders can park almost anywhere so issuing a PCN to a BB holder is far less likely. If you got 'accurate' figures to show the percentage of non BB drivers getting a PCN and compared it the the number of BB holders getting a PCN you would probably realise able bodied get far more tickets.

 

I wrote to my local authority who informed me that out of 782 PCNs issued to BB holders (Yes, the council keep records) in the June 2007 to May 2008 period 346 were waived, or 44%

 

The local newspaper printed a story following their use of the F o I Act which showed that for the same period 987 PCNs in total were waived out of 15744 issued.

 

Take the first set of figures from the second set and you get the result you called "Rubbish".

 

Of course the able bodied get more, there are more of them! But if 44% of all PCNs were subsequently waived it would be a big story.

[Guest Ting]

Given that Councils are frequently incapable, for all their resources, of writing legally compliant parking enforcement documents I certainly wouldn't take notice of any purported statistics they produce or records they claim to have.

 

In any case, what exactly are we talking about when you say "waived"?

 

Cancelled due to CEO notes and recipient advised?

 

Cancelled after receipt of an informal challenge?

 

Cancelled in response to formal representations?

 

Cancelled as a result of a ruling by the independent Adjudicator?

 

Cancelled after reconsideration of mitigating circumstances, the Adjudicator, being unable to rule on such matters, having returned the case to Council control for such reconsideration?

 

If you are going to quote statistics then quote them, not some misleading broad rubbish.

 

-

[WAVE_131]

Hmmmmmm...

 

I do seem to have touched a sore nerve here, almost as if someone doesn't want the facts known.

 

My ticket was cancelled after I wrote direct to the council. I have no idea as to what happened in the other cases. The communication from the council said "waived" the article in the paper said 987 challenges received had been successful.

 

I don't come from a legal background but I can tell what is accurate and inaccurate, genuine from bogus, and when I'm being rubbished for less-than-obvious reasons.

[Guest Ting]

I was not trying to rubbish you personally. I did though want to point out that if you are going to post information on a public forum, with potentially many reading, then make sure it is accurate and definitive; Yours wasn't.

 

You can always use phrases like 'I am informed by' or 'In my opinion'. You didn't.

 

I note you have now changed the information and perhaps that is the most relevant thing for you to note?

You now say that your PCN was "waived" - normally meaning that it was cancelled for discretionary reasons rather than there being any legal basis for cancellation.

 

You earlier said that 946 PCNs were "waived". You now say that a newspaper reported these as "succesful" challenges. There is a huge difference.

Even then, the terminology used by a local newspaper, most of which are not knowledgable about the subject IME, is open to some debate: "Challenges" at what stage - shall I start adding to the list of possibilities I gave above, i.e. all the others that might apply due to procedural impropriety or postal delay/confusion where 'appeals' are still possible after County Court action?

 

You believe figures from the Council? Yes they have to give accurate info in response to FOI but - was it accurate in the first place and what, as I've said, was the breakdown?

 

Take legal action? What, from perceiving some descrimination when it is obvious to anyone, as 'mean' said, that the opposite is true.

-