Hi all

Are the Diabled bays, and the similar mother and child bays (of which there seem to be hundreds) in every retail park car parks or supermarket legally enforceable?

They don't seem to be accompanied by the standard Disabled sign stating 'Disabled badge holders only'. Just a mere indication of yellow paint on the bay in the shape of a disabled person.

I would never have parked in a disabled spot ordinarily but there were literally or 30 + free and I was only a few mins.

Many thanks

Claire

Not under the Road Traffic Act or Roat Traffic Regulation Act, unless the car park is controlled by the local authority.

Otherwise, it's a simple breach of contract claim by the owner of the park.

On a side note, the number of times I've heard people say "I don't normally but..." Don't!

Yes guilty I am and I know I was in the wrong I accept that.

But equally in the wrong is a company trying to unlawfully make money out of illegal Disabled Parking Spaces.

They are on a winner problably making £1000s every day.

Had it been a legitamate parking bay i'd pay the fine without a problem.

What I would like to know is;

a, Will they take me to court

b, Could they win in court

Thanks again

Claire

It's not an "illegal" parking space. What you have in theory is a contract, the terms of which are "if you park here without a disabled badge, you will pay £XX".

Now, if you were aware of the terms of the contract, specifically:

1. it was a bay for disabled only

2. if you parked there and were not disabled there is a charge

3. the charge is £XX

then potentially, yes, you could legally be liable for £XX.

However, they have to show that:

1. you were aware of the contract (adequate signage etc)

2. you personally parked your car there

3. that £XX is a realistic pre-estimate of loss and not a penalty

Most often, companies are unable to do all of that and so don't go to court.

What, in your mind, would make it a "legitimate" parking bay?

A legitimate Disabled Parking Bay has an upright sign usually with a Blue Badge stating only disabled badge holders can park here.

The bay must also be registered as a disabled bay and be documented\held at the local authority and be approved before anyone can legally enforce any fines.

I got this info from the thread headed ASDA parking Ticket 2.

So you might, but you're talking about parking bays controlled under the Road Traffic Act or Road Traffic Regulation Act. These are bays on public roads or local authority car parks.

You are talking about a private car park. There are no laws as to prescribed signage in private car parks. The signs need only be adequate for you to agree to the contract.

Just refering again to Analogue_Rogue's quote from ADSA parking ticket 2,

ALL parking private or otherwise are covered by RTA 1991. it was an amendment that allowed parking attendants to issue FPN ( fixed penalty notices) although it goes against common law which states all men will not be guilty until proven in a recognised court, which makes all parking tickets from council illegal.. (NOT FPN from police.. because they technically have to ask you to enter into the FPN system.. although i know it doesnt always happen like that.) hope that all helps you..

If all parking private or otherwise is covered by RTA 1991 then this would mean that the fine cannot be enforced surely?

Well, you can choose to believe A_R's advice or you can believe mine. I happen to be a former police traffic officer, now working on CID, with a law degree and qualified as a solicitor. Up to you really.

There's lots of rubbish written on the internet by people who really don't know their arse from their elbow. Sounds like in this particular case that A_R is one of them.

The Road Traffic Acts deal with Penalty Notices issued by or on behalf of local authorities. It does not affect private car parks. In a private car park it becomes a matter of common law contract.

But equally in the wrong is a company trying to unlawfully make money out of illegal Disabled Parking Spaces.

Don't park in disabled spaces if you're not disabled then. Simple.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, I for one, would go with POCA on this as Analogue_Rogue is erroneous in his post anyway.

The RTA does not, in any way, shape or form authorise parking attendants to issued FPNs. They can only issue PCNs (Penalty Charge Notice); only police or traffic wardens can issue FPNs for parking (and parking attendants are not traffic wardens).

The RTA does not cover private parking - why else do these private companiies have to use contract law in their vain attempts to get there money.

Ok if the 1991 Traffic Act doesn't apply to private car parks under the 'contractual law' then how can they demand a 'valid disabled badge.'

When a 'valid disabled badge' is Part of the Traffic Act 1991

So in theory i could have made my own badge at home (not that I would have before anyone shoots me down!!)

But can you see my point, they just seem they can pick and choose what parts of the law suits them to get their greedy hands on folks money.

Its all fairly simple to me ...

you knowingly parked in a disabled marked bay

you got caught

pay up and dont do it again

Totally agree!! Dont park in disabled parking slots:sad: , these are in place for a reason, due to the person/persons been disabled, as the old saying goes, You took the disabled parking slot, do you want my disablitity aswell, I THINK NOT , so dont take the slots allocated to assist those in greater need.

How many times do you want me to say I was in the wrong? They could have left a note on my winscreen saying that my registration has been recorded and if I do this again I will get fined - No they wouldn't because they wouldn't make any money that way.

What if I had parked in a mother and baby space and had got a ticket there?? Do I then have to proove I have got a child? I bet there are people out there who have had a ticket for this too.

Its just a money making [problem], it's wrong.

But can you see my point, they just seem they can pick and choose what parts of the law suits them to get their greedy hands on folks money.

Its just a money making [problem], it's wrong.

To be fair, if people didn't abuse the spaces then they wouldn't make anything from it, so I don't see how it is a "[problem]" when you admit it was clearly marked as a disabled bay.

If the private company which is trying to fine me £50.00 had instead charged me £1000.00,I bet you would still say, 'well you shouldn't have parked there'.

The punishment should fit the crime.

The council fine for a comparable offence is £30.00 if paid in 14 days.

There should be signs up saying, If you park here in one of these spaces you will be fined £50.00. Whats so hard about that?

The "loss" concerned in this instance is quite an interesting issue.

Let's assume for the moment that all the spaces are taken up - and, for arguments sake, a couple are taken by non-blue badge holders.

This would open the store up to litigation under the Disability Discrimination Act, as they had failed in their duty to provide spaces specifically for disabled customers.

Even though the spaces were available (just taken up by non-disabled), the Act clearly puts a responsibility on the store to ensure that facilities are kept in working order, and available for use by the disabled.

This puts a clear legal duty on the store to keep these spaces clear for the disabled. Failure to do so, could end up with them having to pay large legal costs - and ultimately compensation to any disabled person who made a claim under the Act.

So, any "parking charge" would have to be put alongside the costs of potential legal claims that could result in the space being blocked by an able-bodied customer, the costs for managing these spaces, and the overall costs of maintaining signage, markings etc.

Certainly it is an interesting question to debate - but ultimately it is no fun to see a disabled person having to painfully walk any further than is necessary because some thoughtless person is too lazy to walk across the car park!

I would add that family parking spaces have no such legal implications attached to them - and I am still at a loss to work out why they exist at all. If anything, they just cause confusion, and probably undermine the disabled parking issue.

Thankyou for you very interesting point of view!! I had not even considered that as an issue for the shops.

If that was writtern on the ticket and had been explained before I wouldn't have felt so cheated and angry about this whole thing.

Well if I do have to pay up in the end I won't feel so bad about parting with £50.00, nevertheless by that time the fine will have increased in excess of £100.00 for late payment.

Still think it should be £25.00 is you pay up within 2 weeks though. Thats more reasonable.

There should be signs up saying, If you park here in one of these spaces you will be fined £50.00. Whats so hard about that?

That's the whole point. If there wasn't adequate signage to that effect, no contract could have been entered into.

The "loss" concerned in this instance is quite an interesting issue.

 

Let's assume for the moment that all the spaces are taken up - and, for arguments sake, a couple are taken by non-blue badge holders.

 

This would open the store up to litigation under the Disability Discrimination Act, as they had failed in their duty to provide spaces specifically for disabled customers.

 

Even though the spaces were available (just taken up by non-disabled), the Act clearly puts a responsibility on the store to ensure that facilities are kept in working order, and available for use by the disabled.

 

This puts a clear legal duty on the store to keep these spaces clear for the disabled. Failure to do so, could end up with them having to pay large legal costs - and ultimately compensation to any disabled person who made a claim under the Act.

 

Maybe.

The duty lies with the owner of the car park. This may not be the store. Most shopping centres with more than one shop are rented premises.

In such cases, the store is liable for disabled access, and for compliance within the store. They have no duty in the communal car park as they have no duty of care in the car park; the store does not provide the parking - the landlord does

Maybe.

 

The duty lies with the owner of the car park. This may not be the store. Most shopping centres with more than one shop are rented premises.

 

In such cases, the store is liable for disabled access, and for compliance within the store. They have no duty in the communal car park as they have no duty of care in the car park; the store does not provide the parking - the landlord does

The same argument would apply to the owners of a shopping centre. If you own a shopping centre, you have a legal duty under the Disability Act.

In all fairness, discrimination has to work both ways. If I feel that I am being discriminated against for being a single white slightly-overweight relatively-able-bodied male with no children, I should be able to say so.

As for use of the disabled bay by someone without a blue badge, there are three very specific circumstances where I tolerate it:

* Car park is full - If there are 999 cars in a 1000-bay car park, the last space is fair game, regardless of whether it's dedicated to as a blue badge/parent-child/whatever space. The need of anyone for a parking space close to the entrance is outweighed by the need of everyone to just get a space.

* Car park is empty - It's 5am, there are 50 disabled bays, and only one other car in the car park. Enforcing any restrictions in this situation is nothing short of fascism.

* Car park has no other facilities - In cases where PC has gone mad, and there are only dedicated bays, with no alternative facilities. Are the rest of us not good enough to be customers?

These are very specific cases, and anything else is downright wrong. That said, I find it abhorrent that if the car park is full, I have to live with wasting hours waiting for a space, whereas a lower arm amputee can sue for their wasted time citing discrimination.

Fair treatment for all, has to be just that, for all.

* Car park is full - If there are 999 cars in a 1000-bay car park, the last space is fair game, regardless of whether it's dedicated to as a blue badge/parent-child/whatever space. The need of anyone for a parking space close to the entrance is outweighed by the need of everyone to just get a space.

I would tend to disagree with this logic. If it's a 1000 space car park, then chances are that another space will become available in a few minutes (obviously depending on the circumstances). If you take the last disabled space, and 10 minutes later somebody comes along who needs to use a disabled space and there are only 1 or 2 spaces available which are inadequate for their needs then they have nowhere to park, but you could have parked there leaving a space for them.

* Car park is empty - It's 5am, there are 50 disabled bays, and only one other car in the car park. Enforcing any restrictions in this situation is nothing short of fascism.

I can see where you are coming from, but where do you draw the line? 5 other cars in the car park? 10? 20? 50? I hope you understand the point I am making - the only way of effectively policing this is to say that you cannot park in a disabled space without a blue badge under any circumstances otherwise it becomes a free-for-all.

* Car park has no other facilities - In cases where PC has gone mad, and there are only dedicated bays, with no alternative facilities. Are the rest of us not good enough to be customers?

I would probably agree with this, but I find it hard to believe that there would be any such car park which allows parking for disabled people only.

I would never park in a disabled parking space, my local shopping centre put stickers on the cars of those who do.. simple but effective....

"You took my parking space ... Do you want my Disablity too?"

I would tend to disagree with this logic. If it's a 1000 space car park, then chances are that another space will become available in a few minutes (obviously depending on the circumstances).

That's not a safe assumption to make. You evidently haven't been to Tesco in December.

I have found myself plenty of times stuck doing circuits of a large car park waiting for a space and none has become available. One one occasion, I was turned away mid-circuit when an army of attendants was mobilised to let people know that they were closing the entrance, because there was no realistic chance of a space becoming available for hours.

If you take the last disabled space, and 10 minutes later somebody comes along who needs to use a disabled space and there are only 1 or 2 spaces available which are inadequate for their needs then they have nowhere to park, but you could have parked there leaving a space for them.

Those spaces perhaps weren't available at the time. It's hardly reasonable to prioritise the needs of someone that might or might not turn up over those of someone who is actually at the scene waiting.

I can see where you are coming from, but where do you draw the line? 5 other cars in the car park? 10? 20? 50?

This is based on the false assumption that a firm line is somehow needed for a quick subjective judgement.

The important point is that while I have no objection to the aim of bringing otherwise-disadvantaged folk into line, it should not be at the expense of everyone else - if Animal Farm taught us anything ...