Me vs Big Supermarket (DDA Claim)

[seftonview]

Problem is, the blue badge is open to abuse, especially in private car parks. Many times I have seen them used to park by someone other than the holder (who was not in the car at the time). Supermarkets do not check the photograph on the badge, neither do council CEOs

 

Council CEOs can, and often do, check blue badges - both photographs and serial numbers. And there is nothing at all preventing a service provider from doing so. If they chose to and a person refused, it would be reasonable to decline to offer them adjustments under the DDA. Again, it comes down to policy or lack thereof.

 

So, if someone forgets their badge they become an ignorant pleb, not to be trusted as they have no other valid proof.

 

I doubt anyone with a badge would forget to bring it. Should they do so, it's a problem of their own making and within their own control.

 

What does annoy me about certain parts of this thread is the seeming lack of concern for the temporarily disabled. Do you really expect the supermarket to say to the person with broken legs "sorry, you don't qualify for a blue badge under DDA, go and park somewhere else"?

 

The discussion relates to disabled parking provision under the DDA. If you want to discuss it for those who are not covered by the DDA, please do so elsewhere. It's completely off topic to the discussion at hand.

[yourbank]

Can I just clarify something because there is Blue Badge and identification and there is Store policy(i would assume nationwide) of a failure to ENFORCE the adjustments they have made, is that right?

[robin9342]

The discussion relates to disabled parking provision under the DDA. If you want to discuss it for those who are not covered by the DDA, please do so elsewhere. It's completely off topic to the discussion at hand.

Its not at all off topic because one of the reasons you may not be able to find a disabled bay is because an "ignorant pleb" with a broken leg has been allowed to park there by the supermarket. DDA or not, I find it quite disturbing that you place yourself above a temporarily disabled person.

 

I doubt anyone with a badge would forget to bring it. Should they do so, it's a problem of their own making and within their own control.

Some disabled people do not drive and are reliant on more than one person to drive them around. Its quite easy to accidently leave their badge in another car.

 

And there is nothing at all preventing a service provider from doing so.

So, you are suggesting that Tesco and the like not only check every vehicle in a disabled bay is displaying a badge, but also inspects each badge photograph.

 

As I stated before, I'm all for the DDA and the rights it gives to disabled people. However, my understanding is that it requires service providers to do everything they reasonably can to comply, not everything that can possibly be done. I wish you luck in court, but I, like others caution you that the judge may very well not see things the same way you do.

[robin9342]

Can I just clarify something because there is Blue Badge and identification and there is Store policy(i would assume nationwide) of a failure to ENFORCE the adjustments they have made, is that right?

I believe that is the issue the OP has with one particular store. Of course some stores are better at "enforcement" than others. One of the problems brought up in this (and the other) thread is that enforcement can be difficult due to the fact that we are talking about private car parks.

 

When this goes to court, I think the judge will make a decision based on what he/she considers reasonable to expect the store to do. That could go either way....

[legalpickle]

Its not at all off topic because one of the reasons you may not be able to find a disabled bay is because an "ignorant pleb" with a broken leg has been allowed to park there by the supermarket. DDA or not, I find it quite disturbing that you place yourself above a temporarily disabled person.

It is off-topic, because I highly doubt and am sure you are not stupid and could not believe it either, that every space that didn't have a blue-badge was occupied by somebody with a broken leg. And if it was, there should be a record of it. If there was no record, and no enforcement officers there, then they wouldn't have had a valid policy or be complying with it, so it's their own [the supermarket's that is] stupidity.

A temporarily disabled person does not have to live with - for the rest of their life or a damned long period - what we have to.

 

Some disabled people do not drive and are reliant on more than one person to drive them around. Its quite easy to accidently leave their badge in another car.

I make 100% sure to take the blue badge out of every car I leave. I keep it on my lap when we're not parked. All my friends know how I am with it, so if I am tired and forget they will remind me.

Somebody who can't take care of their own stuff doesn't deserve it - please don't start another thread about this as well!

So, you are suggesting that Tesco and the like not only check every vehicle in a disabled bay is displaying a badge, but also inspects each badge photograph.

Easy enough. If there is an enforcement officer he can check the back of the badge and that somebody in the car matches that picture. I've had to go through that enough times - at hospitals, supermarkets and other places.

As I stated before, I'm all for the DDA and the rights it gives to disabled people. However, my understanding is that it requires service providers to do everything they reasonably can to comply, not everything that can possibly be done. I wish you luck in court, but I, like others caution you that the judge may very well not see things the same way you do.

Why can supermarkets not reasonably station an enforcement officer there? They station security guards at the entrance to stores, and station people at customer "services" that generate them less income than an enforcement officer could - ignore the fact that they are not enforceable, that isn't going to be raised by the supermarket and the judge is not going to go through the ins and outs of that - and the enforcement officers could act as deterrents irrelevant of income. The point is that with the big supermarkets it is more than possible and they more than often enough have enough staff to put one person on "disabled parking space patrol". So it is not absurd to expect it.

[legalpickle]

I believe that is the issue the OP has with one particular store. Of course some stores are better at "enforcement" than others. One of the problems brought up in this (and the other) thread is that enforcement can be difficult due to the fact that we are talking about private car parks.

 

And as stated persistently by myself and others, but chosen to ignore persistently by yourself and others;

 

A parking attendant can act as a deterrent just by being there. It is not unreasonable for a large store, such as Tesco's to put a parking attendant at the store. I am sure they could spare one member of staff at each store to take this job up on each shift.

 

Next, most people do not know that the tickets are not enforceable, so they act as a deterrent to those who are unaware that they are unenforceable.

 

In addition, I believe that there is a way to produce tickets that are enforceable, if they really thought about it.

 

The supermarket is not likely to raise that the tickets are currently unenforceable, as if that got out - that they were admitting it - they wouldn't be able to issue any tickets for fear of the mobs. The OP is unlikely to raise that as whilst it may not severely damage the OP's case, it may possibly affect it. The judge is unlikely to examine the in's and out's of the tickets.

 

It is not difficult to enforce the matter due to private car parks, that is just what some people choose to believe.

[robin9342]

A temporarily disabled person does not have to live with - for the rest of their life or a damned long period - what we have to.

Of course not. The point I am making is that for the duration of their injury, they would be just as inconvenienced as someone who is permanantly disabled and in my opinion, just as entitled to use a disabled bay. I do agree it is more likely than not that most (but not all) vehicles not displaying a blue badge are abusing the spaces.

 

I make 100% sure to take the blue badge out of every car I leave. I keep it on my lap when we're not parked. All my friends know how I am with it, so if I am tired and forget they will remind me.

Somebody who can't take care of their own stuff doesn't deserve it

A little harsh: not everyone is as well organised as you and your friends....

 

Easy enough. If there is an enforcement officer he can check the back of the badge and that somebody in the car matches that picture. I've had to go through that enough times - at hospitals, supermarkets and other places.

Why can supermarkets not reasonably station an enforcement officer there? They station security guards at the entrance to stores, and station people at customer "services" that generate them less income than an enforcement officer could - ignore the fact that they are not enforceable, that isn't going to be raised by the supermarket and the judge is not going to go through the ins and outs of that - and the enforcement officers could act as deterrents irrelevant of income. The point is that with the big supermarkets it is more than possible and they more than often enough have enough staff to put one person on "disabled parking space patrol". So it is not absurd to expect it.

I never said it was absurd. I have suggested that what you view as reasonable, a judge might not.

 

Please remember I agree that someone who does not need to use a disabled bay is an "ignorant pleb" if they prevent someone who does need the bay from using it. Of course, my definition of need would include the temporarily disabled ;-)

[robin9342]

In addition, I believe that there is a way to produce tickets that are enforceable, if they really thought about it.

If that were the case, then the numerous PPCs would have already done so. However, that is for a different thread

[legalpickle]

Of course not. The point I am making is that for the duration of their injury, they would be just as inconvenienced as someone who is permanantly disabled and in my opinion, just as entitled to use a disabled bay. I do agree it is more likely than not that most (but not all) vehicles not displaying a blue badge are abusing the spaces.

 

A little harsh: not everyone is as well organised as you and your friends....

 

I never said it was absurd. I have suggested that what you view as reasonable, a judge might not.

 

Please remember I agree that someone who does not need to use a disabled bay is an "ignorant pleb" if they prevent someone who does need the bay from using it. Of course, my definition of need would include the temporarily disabled ;-)

 

If a temporarily disabled person is not disadvantaging somebody disabled under the DDA then fine, but people like myself who are permanently disabled have more issues to deal with long term, such as social issues, thus I do consider us more disadvantaged than temporarily disabled people.

 

My point remains however that a policy needs to be in place. If the supermarket had an enforcement officer and all the cars parked either had a blue badge or were people who obviously had something like a broken leg, then maybe I would agree, but if that was the case, then no doubt the supermarket would have said that by now supplying the policy and records, so obviously this was not the case.

 

I would find it extremely difficult to believe that everybody within the disabled bays was temporarily disabled and not an "ignorant pleb".

 

The policy would have to be there with the evidence to successfully contest the claim, as the policy obviously was not there and no evidence is there, they are in material breach of the DDA and I fail to see how any judge could see it otherwise.

[legalpickle]

If that were the case, then the numerous PPCs would have already done so. However, that is for a different thread

 

Not necessarily. Laziness and carelessness is blatantly obvious within the big business world. Till a large majority - sufficient enough to damage their bottom line - contest the tickets, that is not going to happen.

[robin9342]

If a temporarily disabled person is not disadvantaging somebody disabled under the DDA then fine, but people like myself who are permanently disabled have more issues to deal with long term, such as social issues, thus I do consider us more disadvantaged than temporarily disabled people.

I think we will just have to agree to disagree over this point

 

I would find it extremely difficult to believe that everybody within the disabled bays was temporarily disabled and not an "ignorant pleb".

I already agreed:

I do agree it is more likely than not that most (but not all) vehicles not displaying a blue badge are abusing the spaces.

The policy would have to be there with the evidence to successfully contest the claim, as the policy obviously was not there and no evidence is there, they are in material breach of the DDA and I fail to see how any judge could see it otherwise.

Which is why the OP is going to court. But I'm sure you know you can never second guess a judges decision

[robin9342]

Not necessarily. Laziness and carelessness is blatantly obvious within the big business world. Till a large majority - sufficient enough to damage their bottom line - contest the tickets, that is not going to happen.

Maybe so, but if it does happen, I think it will become an eternal game of cat and mouse between drivers and PPCs. The PPCs are already worried: look at all the trolls in the parking forum. The exception might be if the government step in with legislation, but I think that is unlikely.

Edited August 23, 2008 by robin9342
added info

[legalpickle]

I think we will just have to agree to disagree over this point

Ok. But I suggest you read some books on pain and disabilities. Somebody who is permanently disabled has more social issues than somebody who is temporarily disabled.

 

I already agreed:

Sorry, tiredness kicking in.

 

Which is why the OP is going to court. But I'm sure you know you can never second guess a judges decision

On that I'll agree. Unfortunately, court proceedings are unpredictable.

 

I've won cases I was convinced I'd lose and was doing to try my luck and I've lost cases I was convinced I was going to win.

Edited August 23, 2008 by legalpickle
clarification

[Toobbloke]

I've been following this with some interest - it is stunning how many auxilliary issues can be raised by an initial subject!

 

At the risk of repeating some wise words of other posters, I'd just like to add my two penn'orth.

 

This is an issue that is entirely about if the supermarket complied with the DDA by making reasonable efforts to provide accessibility through the provision of disabled parking bays. You may not agree with what the act says, but it is what it is.

 

It is not about if tickets are enforceable, or what constitutes a disability. In the example given of someone with a broken leg which would not be a blue badge issuing condition, what should be considered is would it be reasonable for the store to allow that person to park in the disabled bay. I think that a reasonable person would say yes, and using that basis the store could reasonably justify why no spaces were available if there was a sudden rush of broken legged shoppers and a blue badge holder arrived to find no spaces. Of course, that does raise a whole issue about what should/shouldn't be classed as reasonable, but that's a whole different argument.

 

To my mind, the only actual consideration is did the store comply with the spirit and wording of the act by merely painting a few spaces differently and then not make a reasonable effort to make those spaces available to those they were intended for. It appears that they did not. I don't think the OP ever demanded that a space should always be available - just that the store should encourage where possible that people shouldn't park in them unless they have a just reason to.

 

So, to answer the OP's question. I think that they would need to provide detail of what this proactive policy actually is, and how they intend to measure it over the 24 month period to display compliance with the act. Providing they do that, I'd accept - although it would have to be considered how to tackle the issue if they let the proactiveness slip after a period of time. If they won't do that, then if you accept and they revert to form, you're stuck (but someone else may raise the same issue perhaps?)

 

I have donned my asbestos suit, awaiting the flames :grin:

 

TB

[robin9342]

Ok. But I suggest you read some books on pain and disabilities. Somebody who is permanently disabled has more social issues than somebody who is temporarily disabled.

I'm certain they do, but this is about physical access to facilities on a given day....

[legalpickle]

I'm certain they do, but this is about physical access to facilities on a given day....

 

You're missing my point - I'll attribute that to the late - or early hour.

 

Somebody who is incurring more distress because of their disabilities will incur more distress due to breaches of their rights because of those disabilities.

 

Hence you have admitted - albeit indirectly - that somebody who is disabled in accordance with the DDA should receive preferential treatment over somebody who is temporarily disabled, as any discrimination felt would undoubtedly cause that person - who is more distressed because of their long-term disabilities - more discrimination than somebody who is temporarily disabled.

[robin9342]

So, to answer the OP's question. I think that they would need to provide detail of what this proactive policy actually is, and how they intend to measure it over the 24 month period to display compliance with the act. Providing they do that, I'd accept - although it would have to be considered how to tackle the issue if they let the proactiveness slip after a period of time. If they won't do that, then if you accept and they revert to form, you're stuck (but someone else may raise the same issue perhaps?)

 

I have donned my asbestos suit, awaiting the flames

 

No flames for you lol.

 

I understand the store has not replied to the OP about its proactive policy. I don't know if the store must provide the information to an individual on request. I would not be surprised though, if such a policy materialises in court!!

[Toobbloke]

No flames for you lol.

 

I understand the store has not replied to the OP about its proactive policy. I don't know if the store must provide the information to an individual on request. I would not be surprised though, if such a policy materialises in court!!

 

I suppose that's the crux of it really - if they don't provide detail then you'd have to reject the offer. If they provide it in court, then it's objective achieved.

 

I'll keep the suit on for a while Robin - you are but just one of many people with access to matches :grin:

[legalpickle]

I've been following this with some interest - it is stunning how many auxilliary issues can be raised by an initial subject!

Welcome to the thread Toob. Yes, stepping backwards and taking a look at it, it is rather stunning.

 

At the risk of repeating some wise words of other posters, I'd just like to add my two penn'orth.

No worries. Repetition seems to be the name of the game here

 

This is an issue that is entirely about if the supermarket complied with the DDA by making reasonable efforts to provide accessibility through the provision of disabled parking bays. You may not agree with what the act says, but it is what it is.

Agreed.

 

It is not about if tickets are enforceable, or what constitutes a disability.

Agreed.

 

In the example given of someone with a broken leg which would not be a blue badge issuing condition, what should be considered is would it be reasonable for the store to allow that person to park in the disabled bay. I think that a reasonable person would say yes, and using that basis the store could reasonably justify why no spaces were available if there was a sudden rush of broken legged shoppers and a blue badge holder arrived to find no spaces. Of course, that does raise a whole issue about what should/shouldn't be classed as reasonable, but that's a whole different argument.

You are thereby calling me unreasonable, which I take offence to.

I completely disagree for the reasons I have mentioned above, but do agree that this is a different argument, and also irrelevant because to reach that point on whether the supermarket would have abided by the DDA, they would have had to have a policy and evidence of abiding by that policy. Without that, this excuse could not be used anyway, so is irrelevant to the matter at hand, though I completely disagree with your view on that point for the reasons I have stated above.

 

To my mind, the only actual consideration is did the store comply with the spirit and wording of the act by merely painting a few spaces differently and then not make a reasonable effort to make those spaces available to those they were intended for. It appears that they did not.

I agree 100%.

 

I don't think the OP ever demanded that a space should always be available - just that the store should encourage where possible that people shouldn't park in them unless they have a just reason to.

If the word "always" is the most important part of this statement, then I agree, but I do believe that unless extreme circumstances occurred, a space should always be available as that would make business logic for the whole parking lot. I doubt that in large supermarkets, the supermarket makes just enough space for the average amount of shoppers with a vehicle at any given time, they would undoubtedly make sure that they could be prepared for any massive 'bout of shoppers due to some other circumstances.

 

So, to answer the OP's question. I think that they would need to provide detail of what this proactive policy actually is, and how they intend to measure it over the 24 month period to display compliance with the act. Providing they do that, I'd accept - although it would have to be considered how to tackle the issue if they let the proactiveness slip after a period of time. If they won't do that, then if you accept and they revert to form, you're stuck (but someone else may raise the same issue perhaps?)

Yup, what I've been trying to get through.

[robin9342]

You're missing my point - I'll attribute that to the late - or early hour.

 

Somebody who is incurring more distress because of their disabilities will incur more distress due to breaches of their rights because of those disabilities.

 

Hence you have admitted - albeit indirectly - that somebody who is disabled in accordance with the DDA should receive preferential treatment over somebody who is temporarily disabled, as any discrimination felt would undoubtedly cause that person - who is more distressed because of their long-term disabilities - more discrimination than somebody who is temporarily disabled.

I do see where you are going with this. But irrespective of who is more distressed, the thread centres on court action under the DDA. So in most respects, my contention about temporary disablement is irrelavent as it is not covered by the DDA. It does remain reasonable to most, however, for a store to allow a temporarily disabled person to park in a disabled bay, though not necessarily lawful.

[legalpickle]

No flames for you lol.

 

I understand the store has not replied to the OP about its proactive policy. I don't know if the store must provide the information to an individual on request. I would not be surprised though, if such a policy materialises in court!!

 

They must. Just like a Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions. Any Policy that affects somebody must be provided on request.

 

I wouldn't be surprised either if such a Policy shows up at the last minute, but they would also have to show that they have complied with the Policy.

 

I think that if they would provide all this evidence at the last minute, the OP would at least get back the hearing fee, as they could have possibly provided it much earlier and avoided a hearing. I would ask for that - and have done so successfully in other claims before.

[legalpickle]

I do see where you are going with this. But irrespective of who is more distressed, the thread centres on court action under the DDA. So in most respects, my contention about temporary disablement is irrelavent as it is not covered by the DDA. It does remain reasonable to most, however, for a store to allow a temporarily disabled person to park in a disabled bay, though not necessarily lawful.

 

Accepted. I also have no problem with somebody parking in a disabled bay if they are temporarily disabled, providing it does not inconvenience me or others who are permanently disabled.

 

So if all "ignorant plebs" did not park in the disabled spaces, and they were only taken up by temporarily or permanently disabled people, I am sure - as you have agreed - that there would be one free at most times and this would not inconvenience me.

 

If it did however a lawsuit would be on their desk within 72 hours!

[robin9342]

They must. Just like a Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions. Any Policy that affects somebody must be provided on request.

 

I wouldn't be surprised either if such a Policy shows up at the last minute, but they would also have to show that they have complied with the Policy.

 

I think that if they would provide all this evidence at the last minute, the OP would at least get back the hearing fee, as they could have possibly provided it much earlier and avoided a hearing. I would ask for that - and have done so successfully in other claims before.

Agreed, though one might suspect the policy was drafted for the case, at least the store would have to maintain it in future

[Toobbloke]

 

You are thereby calling me unreasonable, which I take offence to.

I completely disagree for the reasons I have mentioned above, but do agree that this is a different argument, and also irrelevant because to reach that point on whether the supermarket would have abided by the DDA, they would have had to have a policy and evidence of abiding by that policy. Without that, this excuse could not be used anyway, so is irrelevant to the matter at hand, though I completely disagree with your view on that point for the reasons I have stated above.

 

No offence intended, I assure you - I was doing so well for a while there! I do think it's a bit of a strong to conclude that I'm calling you unreasonable though.

 

I do take your point, and was only speaking from my limited understanding of the act. It, and many others, use the term reasonable which is annoyingly wooly as it allows for a huge range of opinion. I was only suggesting that perhaps people in general would find that situation reasonable (which seems to be the supposed acid test of such things), and consequently the store in that unlikely situation could argue a defence.

 

I do think that the amount of dedicated parking should be appropriate and regularly reviewed.

 

TB

[robin9342]

For you, Toobbloke lol :-D Sorry, couldn't resist.