debate over disabled parking

[raydetinu]

You really are relying on the goodwill of the supermarket and them not wanting bad publicity. Legally they have done what the regulations require and provide and mark the Bays. They have no obligation to police it! Anyway why dont you just shop somewhere else. car parks do get full at the some times.

I note you must of parked somewhere to go round and check the to see if the cars had the correct permits!

I park in disabled spaces ay my local tesco, at about midnight when they are all empty as they are the closest.

Still best of luck anyway.

[seftonview]

You really are relying on the goodwill of the supermarket and them not wanting bad publicity. Legally they have done what the regulations require and provide and mark the Bays. They have no obligation to police it! Anyway why dont you just shop somewhere else. car parks do get full at the some times.

I note you must of parked somewhere to go round and check the to see if the cars had the correct permits!

I park in disabled spaces ay my local tesco, at about midnight when they are all empty as they are the closest.

Still best of luck anyway.

 

Your post is flawed in so many ways its unreal. That said, I'm on my fifth glass of wine and I'll post a detailed critique when I can see straight (about midday tomorow)

[389shell]

Legally they have done what the regulations require and provide and mark the Bays. They have no obligation to police it! Anyway why dont you just shop somewhere else. car parks do get full at the some times.

I note you must of parked somewhere to go round and check the to see if the cars had the correct permits!

I park in disabled spaces ay my local tesco, at about midnight when they are all empty as they are the closest.

Still best of luck anyway.

 

Wow, how helpful! I would like to address a couple of these points

 

Anyway why dont you just shop somewhere else.

Why should the op shop elsewhere? There are disabled parking bays especially provided for people like the op -DISABLED; it is just a shame they are took up by lazy, selfish individuals who cannot be bothered to walk / slither / waddle just a few yards extra.

 

I note you must of parked somewhere to go round and check the to see if the cars had the correct permits!

Where on Earth has the op even suggested they parked up and checked each car, honestly! My local Asda has the bays arranged in such a way that you can see the front and back of the cars as you drive past as they are side on to the rest of the car park.

 

Here are suggestions for access and facilites for disabled people for businesses. You will see that these big supermarkets are barely scraping through the law with what they provide at the moment.

 

 

An auxiliary service means providing assistance to help a disabled person to use your goods or services.

 

 

Examples of such services include:

• training a member of staff in British Sign Language (BSL) so that they are able to communicate with customers who are hearing impaired and who use BSL as their main form of communication
  
• helping a customer in a wheelchair to access goods which are out of their reach or bringing goods to the till if aisles cannot be accessed by wheelchair users, for example
  

When considering what additional aids or services are required, you will need to take into account that different people will have different requirements. Some people, for example, may have multiple disabilities, such as speech and hearing impairments.

Judging whether the aids and services are reasonable

 

 

 

You should take "reasonable steps" to provide auxiliary aids and services. What is regarded as "reasonable" for one business may be different for another. Whether the additional aids and services you provide are judged as reasonable may depend on such things as:

• the size of your business
  
• the resources available to your business
  
• the cost of providing the extra aid or service
  

In the event of a dispute only a court can decide what is reasonable. GO FOR IT OP!

 

 

 

I know one of the big supermarkets that begins with T**** had a story in my local paper because it booked a disabled couple. They were parked correctly, with a permit, but they took over 2 hours to shop and so got booked. When they complained T**** upheld the fine and told them they would have to shop quicker!

[389shell]

It seems my mind is failing me with old age, the story wasn't in my local rag, and they had parked for over 3 hours, here it is

 

 

Tesco tell OAPs: shop quicker

 

By Richard Smith 1/12/2007

Tesco (Reuters)

 

A frail couple have vowed never to go to Tesco again after they were ticked off for shopping too slowly.

Wheelchair-bound Roland Hodgson, 80, and his disabled wife Pauline, 75, spent £300 and had a meal at the store.

Days later they received an icy letter reprimanding them for breaking Tesco's three-hour limit on disabled car parking.

They had exceeded it by an hour and nine minutes - and were warned they face a £70 fine for a repeat offence.

Retired MoD marine engineer Roland said: "They may say every little helps, but it's clearly only if you're spending money fast enough.

"We spent around £1.25 a minute.

"That's better than they'd get from any pay and display car park.

But they still want more. We go there once a week and normally spend around £60.

"We won't be going back. What a way to treat loyal customers.

Advertisement - article continues below »

 

 

 

 

"Also, why do they have DVLA access to my number plate for commercial purposes?"

Pauline has Parkinson's disease and Roland the muscle wasting condition myasthenia gravis. They went to Tesco near their home in Trowbridge, Wilts.

He talked to a shop assistant about buying an HD television while Pauline and daughter Georgina, 40, tried on clothes.

Roland used a Tesco electric buggy but its battery ran out in minutes, wasting more time.

Tesco's letter read: "Please observe the time restrictions to avoid a parking charge notice."

And a spokesman said coldly: "We feel three hours should be enough for everyone's needs."

EVERY LITTLE HELPS

During the Hodgsons' 4-hour 9 minute shopping trip, Tesco made a profit of around £1,245,000

[raydetinu]

To reiterate they have complied with their obligations and provided the spaces etc. and I am sure parent and child spaces as well.

As for the tickets for overstaying etc. these can be ignored, so no need to get upset at all. If you dont like the way the supermarket runs its car park or other services just go somewhere else, thats the freedom we all have.

You might have to pay a bit more but thats the choice.

[legalpickle]

To reiterate they have complied with their obligations and provided the spaces etc. and I am sure parent and child spaces as well.

As for the tickets for overstaying etc. these can be ignored, so no need to get upset at all. If you dont like the way the supermarket runs its car park or other services just go somewhere else, thats the freedom we all have.

You might have to pay a bit more but thats the choice.

 

I disagree. It is for the court to decide if they have complied with their obligations, but I agree with the OP that just putting disabled markings on some parking spaces does not fulfill the obligations, they also have to make sure this is not being abused by customers. That's my opinion, and obviously the opinion of the OP.

[raydetinu]

But they have not breached the DDA, they provided the spaces etc.

 

You mean to say that if something is cheaper at store further away you can claim the petrol for having to drive further!! rubish, the worlds gone mad. Shop on line and get bit delivered, and claim back the delivery fee!

 

I would still like to know how they knew the other cars did not have badges displayed! must of parked somewhere to check that, get out of car etc. Did they complain to staff at the time to find them a parking place?

[legalpickle]

But they have not breached the DDA, they provided the spaces etc.

 

You mean to say that if something is cheaper at store further away you can claim the petrol for having to drive further!! rubish, the worlds gone mad. Shop on line and get bit delivered, and claim back the delivery fee!

 

I would still like to know how they knew the other cars did not have badges displayed! must of parked somewhere to check that, get out of car etc. Did they complain to staff at the time to find them a parking place?

 

 

Ray: Please read the thread. They have breached the DDA by not making sure the spaces are not abused.

 

If you read the thread you may understand my post. If they are in breach of the DDA then you can claim all expenses involved in trying to make the shop. Including having to travel to another store.

 

I believe, as does the OP that they are in breach of the DDA. You disagree and have voiced your disagreement, thank you. It is for the court to decide if they don't make a satisfactory settlement.

 

This forum is to support people and give constructive advice not tell them they are being stupid. If you think the claim doesn't stand a chance, great, voice your opinion - which you have done, and buzz off. If you have constructive advice then I for one am definitely listening.

[raydetinu]

I wont Buzz off as you say! there are few points that Sefton has not answered as I have pointed out, and another, besides how they know the other cars did not have permits, can he prove it, where's the evidence.

Anyway as for advice - accept the offer.

[seftonview]

In answer to your many posts raydetinu:-

 

"Legally they have done what the regulations require and provide and mark the Bays. They have no obligation to police it!"

 

I refer you to points 2 and 3 below. If it were not for my disability, I would not need to use a disabled parking space. If I cannot use a disabled parking space, I am treated less favourably for a reason relating to my disability. It is for the supermarket to show this treatment is justified. They may be able to justify it if they can show I was deprived because every other space was used by a disabled person, though there may then be a seperate contentious issue as to whether they have made sufficient allocation of disabled parking. If I cannot use the space because it was abused, that moves to the next peg of my argument;

 

I refer you to point 4 below. If they do not have a policy, practice or procedure relating to the enforcement of parking spaces, I would contend that he has not made such adjustments as would be reasonable in the circumstances of the case. If they do have such a policy, practice or procedure, the fact that I could not park is a prima facie evidence that the adjustments made are not reasonable in the circumstances of the case.

 

Duties under the DDA are anticipatory, which means that service providers must be proactive in their approach. It is reasonable to contend that disabled spaces are open to abuse, you and another contributor to this thread has made such an admission (which I suspect shows you have a bias for me losing this argument, but again that is a seperate issue), and so it is reasonable to say that the policies, practices and procedures should have been modified by now.

 

"Anyway why dont you just shop somewhere else. car parks do get full at the some times."

 

Well answered already by 389shell (thank you). I would add the following to his (or her!) contribution:- the DDA is designed purposely so that I shouldn't have to 'shop somewhere else' because of a service provided failing to conduct his duties.

 

Where in any of these posts have I said the car park was full? I only mentioned the disabled spaces.

 

"I note you must of parked somewhere to go round and check the to see if the cars had the correct permits!"

 

"I would still like to know how they knew the other cars did not have badges displayed! must of parked somewhere to check that, get out of car etc."

 

Who said I was the driver? Who said it was necessary because of the design of the car park to leave the vehicle to check? Who even said that it was me who checked?

 

"Did they complain to staff at the time to find them a parking place?"

 

No, why should I? Furthermore, if I can't get into the store (the whole point of my greivance), how do I accost a member of staff?

 

 

"On what basis would you be taking them to court, no damages or expense incurred! The supermarket has done nothing illegal!"

 

All I need to prove under the DDA is injury to feelings. Do you know how frustrating and upsetting it is to try and do something and not be able to because of the unlawful failure of others? However I did suffer loss, I had a trip there and back without access to the service, costing me time and money (fuel, car maintenance etc).

 

"You mean to say that if something is cheaper at store further away you can claim the petrol for having to drive further!! rubish, the worlds gone mad. Shop on line and get bit delivered, and claim back the delivery fee!"

 

Shurely shom mishtake? If I have no cause of action because they have done nothing wrong, on what basis am I claiming back the delivery fee?

 

 

 

 

 

Copied from a letter I provided in another thread here:-

 

The law

 

 

 

The law provides that:-

1. it is unlawful for a provider of services to discriminate against a disabled person:-


1. in refusing to provide, or deliberately not providing, to the disabled person any service which he provides, or is prepared to provide, to members of the public;
   
2. in failing to comply with any duty imposed on him by section 21 in circumstances in which the effect of that failure is to make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for the disabled person to make use of any such service;
   
3. in the standard of service which he provides to the disabled person or the manner in which he provides it to him; or
   
4. in the terms on which he provides a service to the disabled person. Section 19 of the Act.
   

[*]a provider of services discriminates against a disabled person if for a reason which relates to the disabled person’s disability, he treats him less favourably than he treats or would treat others to whom that reason does not or would not apply; and he cannot show that the treatment in question is justified. Section 20 of the Act.

[*]the relevant comparator under Section 20 of the Act is not how he treats or would treat others to which a similar reasons save for the disabled persons disability would apply, but how he treats or would treat others to whom no such reason would apply. Clark vs Novacold [1999].

[*]where a provider of services has a practice, policy or procedure which makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled persons to make use of a service which he provides, or is prepared to provide, to other members of the public, it is his duty to take such steps as it is reasonable, in all the circumstances of the case, for him to have to take in order to change that practice, policy or procedure so that it no longer has that effect. Section 21(1) of the Act.

 

"Still best of luck anyway."

 

Thanks for your wishes, and for playing Devils advocate. It all helps with practicing to argue my case!

Edited August 18, 2008 by seftonview
fatal error!

[robin9342]

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:

Who said I was the driver?

 

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?

[seftonview]

The problem I see here is that the supermarket ... are unable under private parking contract law, to act against non blue badge holders.

 

I disagree. Just because there are many companies out there who enforce private parking tickets wrongly, it does not mean that it is not feasible to have a lawful and contentious private parking contract as a means of enforcement. That aside, there are other means of enforcement and policing than issuing penalty tickets.

 

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.

 

Concessions that Tesco chooses to make for people who do not meet the definition of disability within the DDA is its own concern. Particularly when that results in unlawful discrimination.

 

Hypothetically, if the supermarket could demonstrate that ever person without a badge had a broken leg, and they had knowingly allowed them to park there on that basis, it would prove my case. It would be a policy, practice or procedure making it unreasonably difficult for a disabled person to access the service.

 

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?

 

I haven't implied I was not alone. Whether I was or was not is, in any case, irrelevant - it is not the place of anyone accompanying me (short of a designated carer, whom I do not have) to assist me into the store. Nor is it their place to go and complain on my behalf. Even if someone had been there, why should I have to suffer the indignity of sending someone to complain on my behalf? My disability is nothing to do with my ability to communicate, or my cognition.

[389shell]

I cannot believe some of these posts!

 

I shop at my local Asda, on most occasions I have seen people nip into a disabled space to save their lazy little legs the extra few steps to the cash machines. For the last month they have a new ticket man patrolling the car park, on three occasions I have seen him telling people to get out of the disabled spaces as they had no blue ticket, good on him!

 

They charge people £30 if they see them park in a parent and child space and don't have a child with them when they get out of their car, this is easy money; therefore it follows that they can also patrol the disabled spaces and fine those lazy sods with no blue badge who use these spaces at ANY time when the store is open.

 

p.s. Seftonview, I am female.

[raydetinu]

Good, thats cleared a few things up then. I am a lot wiser mow thanks.

The trouble with the ticket thing is they are not legally enforceable and you do not have to pay any of them!

[389shell]

Good, thats cleared a few things up then. I am a lot wiser mow thanks.

The trouble with the ticket thing is they are not legally enforceable and you do not have to pay any of them!

 

The car park attendant at Asda does a good job at moving people who shouldn't be parked there, a deterant is at least some way to go!

[Meldrew2]

Hi Seftonview.

 

I have a private car park at my business premises and people regularly ignore signs saying "parking reserved", "disabled only" and even "5mph".

 

I'm not going to employ a car park attendant to enforce these signs, so why don't you come and sue me too.

 

I've done all I reasonably can under the DDA - I've been on courses, I've written a thorough Access statement which is on my website - I've even made structural alterations - and I can do without militant customers.

 

I will be removing my "disabled only" parking signs - there is no law that says I have to provide parking, let alone specific disabled parking - so if I am risking court action by having disabled parking, I shall have it no more.

 

Well done - you have made my business far more sympathetic to Disability issues - not!

[seftonview]

Hi Seftonview.

 

I have a private car park at my business premises and people regularly ignore signs saying "parking reserved", "disabled only" and even "5mph".

 

I'm not going to employ a car park attendant to enforce these signs, so why don't you come and sue me too.

 

I've done all I reasonably can under the DDA - I've been on courses, I've written a thorough Access statement which is on my website - I've even made structural alterations - and I can do without militant customers.

 

I will be removing my "disabled only" parking signs - there is no law that says I have to provide parking, let alone specific disabled parking - so if I am risking court action by having disabled parking, I shall have it no more.

 

Well done - you have made my business far more sympathetic to Disability issues - not!

 

If you wish to have a rant, please don't direct it at me for excercising my rights. Make a new thread and have a rant there.

[robin9342]

Hypothetically, if the supermarket could demonstrate that ever person without a badge had a broken leg, and they had knowingly allowed them to park there on that basis, it would prove my case. It would be a policy, practice or procedure making it unreasonably difficult for a disabled person to access the service.

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

[seftonview]

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?[/Quote]

 

"Subject to the provisions of Schedule 1, a person has a disability for the purposes of this Act if he has a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities." Section 1 of the DDA

 

"The effect of an impairment is a long-term effect if (a) it has lasted at least 12 months; (b) the period for which it lasts is likely to be at least 12 months; or © it is likely to last for the rest of the life of the person affected. (2) Where an impairment ceases to have a substantial adverse effect on a person’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, it is to be treated as continuing to have that effect if that effect is likely to recur." Section 2 of Schedule 1 of the DDA

 

Whilst one (or now as you profess) two broken leg(s) would cause a 'substantial disadvantage' as defined elsewhere in the Act, that substantial disadvantage would not be likely to last for at least twelve months, and so is not a disability within the meaning of the DDA.

 

Therefore, no legal duty arises as it does to someone with, for example, an arthropathic disorder, where the impairment has lasted, or is likely to last, for more than twelve months; or someone with, for example, paraplegia, where the impairment is likely to last for the rest of their life. So, if a service provider provides less favourable treatment to a person who is disabled under the DDA compared to someone who isnt, it is contrary to law.

 

This thread isn't a moral or ethical debate, it relates solely to the DDA and my case.

 

If you chose to park in a disabled bay without a badge that is your own concern, however service providers are under a duty to ensure that their reasonable adjustments to those protected by the DDA are working properly, which in this case means enforcement. If they don't enforce properly, they leave themselves open to complaints under the DDA.

 

I would point out as well, I wrote to them twice before I issued suit in the Court. Had they responded to those letters, who is to say it would have even progressed as far as to get to Court?

 

 

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.

 

It would depend on whether or not I have a child with me. I have to ask though, how is it relevant to the content of the thread? Are parent and child bays protected by discrimination legislation?

 

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

 

And if they argue this, I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. However, if they have not got adequate enforcement, or furthermore adequate records of the enforcement, how do they demonstrate in their defence that this is a one off?

[Janet-M]

Hi Seftonview.

 

I have a private car park at my business premises and people regularly ignore signs saying "parking reserved", "disabled only" and even "5mph".

 

I'm not going to employ a car park attendant to enforce these signs, so why don't you come and sue me too.

 

I've done all I reasonably can under the DDA - I've been on courses, I've written a thorough Access statement which is on my website - I've even made structural alterations - and I can do without militant customers.

 

I will be removing my "disabled only" parking signs - there is no law that says I have to provide parking, let alone specific disabled parking - so if I am risking court action by having disabled parking, I shall have it no more.

 

Well done - you have made my business far more sympathetic to Disability issues - not!

 

This forum is not for attacking people who are exercising their legal rights .If you agree with them or not .Cag is here to help people reclaim their rights ... ANY legal rights .

 

 

If you wish to have a rant, please don't direct it at me for excercising my rights. Make a new thread and have a rant there.

 

I think you must have the patience of a saint

[robin9342]

And if they argue this, I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. However, if they have not got adequate enforcement, or furthermore adequate records of the enforcement, how do they demonstrate in their defence that this is a one off?

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.

[seftonview]

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.

 

And they may well be able to do so, in which case there may be no case to answer. However, given that they failed to respond to letters, I had no alternative but to issue a court claim. Well, I suppose I could have let the matter drop, but I don't see why I should.

 

Just because the large supermarkets have large legal teams, it doesn't mean they always get everything right, or that they are invincible because of their size/wealth/status.

 

The same has been said of the banks, the credit reference agencies, the debt collection agencies, a number of government departments and agencies to name but a few but because of the excellent work of many people (a lot of them on this forum), the status quo has been challenged.

[Conniff]

Just because these cars parked in the disabled bays were not showing blue badges, does not make it follow that they are not being driven by disabled people.

 

My neighbour is very disabled but does not own a car, so no blue badge. Sometimes I take her to the supermarket. When I unload her and her wheelchair, am I supposed to ditch her by the entrance while I try and find a parking bay to put my car in?

 

If a person with a broken left leg or other temporary imobilisation (who wouldn't be entitled to a blue badge) parks there are they not disabled?

 

If you force supermarkets to change their signs to say 'blue badge holders only' they could very well be discriminating against a lot of people especially those in the situation that I just described.

 

DDA says they must not be treated any less favourably than non disabled. If the supermarket has a ppc looking after the carpark and he tickets cars in the disabled bay as well as cars in the main carpark then he is not treating them any less favourably.

 

This thread isn't a moral or ethical debate, it relates solely to the DDA and my case.

 

No it doesn't, it relates to your selfishness and your discrimination against people with temporary disabilities.

 

Whilst one (or now as you profess) two broken leg(s) would cause a 'substantial disadvantage' as defined elsewhere in the Act, that substantial disadvantage would not be likely to last for at least twelve months, and so is not a disability within the meaning of the DDA.

 

Therefore, no legal duty arises as it does to someone with, for example, an arthropathic disorder, where the impairment has lasted, or is likely to last, for more than twelve months; or someone with, for example, paraplegia, where the impairment is likely to last for the rest of their life. So, if a service provider provides less favourable treatment to a person who is disabled under the DDA compared to someone who isnt, it is contrary to law.

 

You are correct that not legal duty arises, but you are saying 'sod them I have a longer term disability, I come before your broken legs'.

Edited August 20, 2008 by Conniff

[Janet-M]

 

I'm not sure if I should settle. Your thoughts please?

 

Maybe the thread should go back on topic as it's very unfair to the OP to turn this thread into debating other issues ? We have already seen one thread close yesterday for the same thing .

 

I am sure if this was your thread you wouldn't like it to turn into a debate on everything BUT the question you had asked .

 

Why does anyone think they have the right to question this user on his right to issue a claim .

 

Maybe someone should make another thread to debate the ins n outs of the DDA and give this one back to the OP .

[Conniff]

Well my answer to that is - yes you should settle and not be gready, you have got what you wanted and any more means your are just in it for the money.

 

When you have finished with this supermarket, will you look for another that has full bays and try it again?