No, not really. How else would you describe a fraudulent, lying, cheating bailiff who refuses to accept a realistic affordable offer from a debtor? Actually, I can think of a few, but they woud provoke the GAGbot

A bailiff can only be invited in by a responsible adult. Any levy obtained if a child answers the door and the bailiff enters would be invalid. I think you are mistaken. As long as a responsible adult is present, answers the door and allows the bailiff entry, then the bailiff can seize goods. Of course, better to lock all windows and doors and not let the parasites in at all!

Kermit, please can you provide where you have obtained this information? Every site I have checked, including government sites and even Marstons bailiff site states that tools of the trade are exempt :???:

Huh? Bailiff fees are laid down in statute and if the fees are excessive, as appears to be the case here, of course they can be challenged. In fact, charging higher fees than permitted by law is fraud. Van fees also have to be "reasonable".

I bank with Natwest and I have BACS payments due on Tuesday showing up today (bank holiday I guess), BUT I also have direct debits for Tuesday which have been taken today.

If you had purchased the speedo in the 70's, would the cable normally have been included? If yes, then I would say you are entitled to a refund because the seller described it as "new old stock", which implies the item is complete, but has just been hanging around a while.

I see what you are saying, but I believe that most judges have very little understanding or experience with DDA cases like this, so unless it is the same judge, a second case could easily be lost even if the first had been won....

That would be breaking and entering which IS a criminal offence. Just like invoices purporting to be from an official body like the council or the police

Right, so if the OP wins this time and the store makes no changes, then he/she could go to court again, but lose the second time round. Regardless of the wrongs or rights, I cant see the stores making changes anytime soon then......

Without a doubt it will be interesting. If the OP wins, would it set a legal precedent that other stores must follow, or would disabled people have to take their chances in court each time?

00000001-1.jpg - Image - Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting 00000001.jpg - Image - Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Um, sorry I'm still confused. Surely if I write something that shows a complete misunderstanding, then by definition, I must have completely misunderstood something. Which is the same as "I don't understand"..... Anyhow, I hope that none of my posts are construed as sniping, because all along I have simply been trying to convey an alternative point of view.

Please explain the difference between "you don't understand" and "you completely misunderstand" :confused:

I would think the supermarkets have checked census databases and calculated the percentage of disabled people and allowed for equivalent disabled bays. Although not an exact figure, I have to say I have only ever once seen a supermarket car park where every disabled bay is occupied by a blue badge holder. Interestingly, I have seen an argument going on in a supermarket car park between a blue badge holder parked in a parent and child bay and a mother who arrived seconds later and was unable to park. The point is, both types of bay are equally un-enforceable. This reminds me of the council "courtesy" disabled bays: The type where a disabled person can ask the council to paint a bay outside their house, but anyone (including non-badge holders and other disabled people) can park there without penalty. Do you consider that the council is acting outside the DDA?

Not true. Although I am able bodied, I was a carer for a disabled relative (with a blue badge) until she passed away, involving weekly shopping trips by car to a large supermarket. So, I do understand. However, I, like others on this thread are simply trying to point out that whilst the OP has every right to go to court and claim that the supermarket has infringed their rights under the DDA, the outcome is far from certain. Put simply, I am sure we all support facilities to allow disabled people equal access, in the end it is likely to come down to what the court considers reasonable. My opinion is that, rightly or wrongly, the court will decide the the supermarket has done all that it reasonably can. Of course, the OP's opinion is the opposite, hence has taken legal action.

And the PCN should not have been issued anyway. In order to reverse into a space, you must come to a halt first, or are they saying that you must only drive forwards into a space/bay?

The OP originally posted that they were being denied their rights under the DDA by a big supermarket because said supermarket was not enforcing their disabled bays. The OP has stated their intention to take the supermarket to court over this matter. Which of course, they are entitled to do. However, it is by no means certain that the OP will win the case. Various arguments have been put forward both for and against, all of which have valid points. By posting in an open forum, the OP has invited opinions and discussions which is exactly what has happened. This is a forum, aka a discussion board, after all. I really fail to see how having a different point of view to the OP is either hijacking the thread or attacking the OP. Reasoned arguments do not equal personal attacks! If the OP does not agree with any of the other opinions posted, then fine. Ultimately, the court will decide if the OP is right or wrong.

Again, the logic escapes me. It seems to me you are implying that disabled people either should, or do, have more rights that able-bodied people. I thought this was about equality.... Whilst I fully support that disabled people should be given every assistance possible to enable them to access the same facilities as everyone else, I totally disagree that it is any less inconvenient for an able-bodied person to arrive at a car park and find no spaces!

I agree. The OP asked a question and an answer was given. I don't see how that can be personal stuff. I also didn't think that my comments were off topic. Oh well....

The point I am trying to make is that I'm sure the large supermarkets have legal teams who have likely taken steps to ensure their stores are DDA compliant. I'm sure they would be able to produce evidence in court which shows that they have carefully calculated how many disabled bays they need. I suspect that on the day of your visit they will claim that this was a one-off, due to "circumstances beyond their reasonable control", and it would be for you to prove otherwise.

Not quite following your logic here. Suppose I break both my legs in some accident, surely I am just as disabled as a wheelchair user, albeit temporarily. Are you saying that just because I would not qualify for a blue badge, I shouldn't use a disabled bay? Or that if I do and you can't park as a result, you should sue the store? Another question: Suppose a superstore has 20 disabled bays, all full at the time of your visit, perhaps with a few non blue badge holders. However, the next bay along is a parent/toddler one. Would you use that? - just interested. Also, referring to the situation when you visited that all the bays were in use, with or without badges and your contention that the store may not have provided enough bays: I think the store could successfully argue that what happened on the day you visited was a one-off due to more "selfish" parking than usual and that most of the time, there are plenty of bays available. Therefore they have fulfilled their obligations under DDA

Um, NO!

One other thing: Even though you didn't actually break their "parking rules", don't bother trying to appeal. PPCs "appeal" processes are just another part of the [problem] - they never cancel tickets: they just want your money!

You didn't receive a fine, you received an unenforceable invoice. You won't need a solicitor. Just ignore all correspondence from the PPC and they will go away after 5 or 6 letters. You might wan't to watch out for the plague of locusts that will hit your garden though

The problem I see here is that the supermarket is probably providing enough disabled spaces, but in reality are unable under private parking contract law, to act against non blue badge holders. In fact, I am aware that Tesco, for example, have no objection to a non blue badge holder using a bay if that person has broken their leg. In which case, there would be no badge. Reading through the thread, you have implied that you were not alone during your visit to the store: In which case, surely the driver could have assisted you into the store. If not, then he or she could have gone into the store to ask for assistance or to complain?