Does Blue Badge Scheme Apply on Private Land?

[bluesteve71]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]38349[/ATTACH]I am currently on crutches following a broken leg. My wife took me out to the cinema, & parked in a disabled bay, which is on private land. We checked the parking sign, & there was no stipulaton that a blue badge must be displayed. The only stipulation was that vehicles could be immobilised if "improperly parked in a designated disabled parking bay". See attached photo we took of the parking sign.

 

We asked members of staff at the cinema complex if it was ok to park there, & no one seemed to know. When we returned to the vehicle, it had been clamped. We called the clampers & were told that we should have displayed a blue badge, & that it is why we were clamped. They were very rude to my wife, & demanded the £125 (in cash - the debit card machine was allegedly out of action), or the vehicle would remain clamped.

 

We ended up paying the fine, if only to get home that night. We appealed, but received a standard letter from the clampers, saying that a blue badge must be displayed.

 

I called CAB, & they admitted that it was a grey area, & it was up to me whether I pursue it.

 

Any thoughts? If the painting of a yellow disabled sign on the ground automatically means that a blue badge must be displayed to park there, then fair enough. We were in the wrong. However, I cannot find anything to suggest that this is the case. I hope someone can help, & tell me if I am wasting time & money challenging this. Thanks in advance.

[Jamberson]

This isn't anything to do with the Blue Badge scheme. As you say, the Blue Badge scheme covers on-street parking spaces.

 

This is a private parking scheme, which happens to insist on displaying a Blue Badge in order to use their disabled spaces. Not as part of the Blue Badge scheme, just as part of their own rules.

 

I think you are morally right to expect a refund. Whether you can get one is another matter. Someone might know how you can go about it.

 

Incidentally, you would not be issued a Blue Badge for a broken leg - you would have to have a permanent condition, so I don't think you would meet the criteria anyway.

[Old Snowy]

@ OP You have reduced the receipt to such a size as to make it unreadable. Could you replace it with a more realistic size?

[bluesteve71]

@snowy. I didn't reduce the clamping receipt. This seems to happen upon uploading, & I cannot increase the size; sorry.

 

The receipt basically gives the reason for immobilisation of our vehicle as "No blue badge display" ( I think they meant to write "displayed"). The image at the start of my post is the photograph of the parking restrictions - no mention of a blue badge!

 

Any thoughts..?

[havinastella]

Dx100 – Instructions on uploading pdfs

 

scan the required letters/agreements/sheets

as a picture file

remove all pers info inc barcodes etc using paint

but leave all figures and dates.

go to one of the many free online pdf converter websites

convert the image to pdf format.

or ir you have PDF as an installed printer drive use that

open a new msg box here

hit go advanced below the msg box

hit manage attachments below that box

hit the add files button on the top right

hit select files, navigate to your file on your pc

hit upload files

NB:you can set where it goes in the post by hitting insert inline.

the hit reply button

[havinastella]

The only way to get your money back is to sue the clamping firm AND landowner jointly.

 

Jogs

[bluesteve71]

Thanks for taking the time to explain that. When I can get upstairs to a printer, I'll follow your instructions.

[bluesteve71]

Hi folks. By way of an update, I issued a claim in the Small Claims Court, & a defence has been filed by the clamping company.

 

They state the following in their defence: "The claimant was parked in a designated disabled parking bay at the entertainment complex without displaying a blue badge. Upon entering the complex the claimant was abiding by our terms & conditions of parking. There are over 50 signs situated throughout the complex stating our terms & conditions of parking.

 

Whilst we appreciate the claimant was experiencing temporary mobility issues, the disabled bays are to be used strictly for blue badge holders only...the claimaint had parked in a disabled bay without a Blue Badge therefore resulting in his vehicle being immobilized as stated on our signs situated throughout the complex".

 

My point is that the signs do not stipulate that a blue badge must be displayed. It states that vehicles will be immobilised "if improperly parked in a designated disabled parking bay." There is no mention of a blue badge, & I thought that the blue badge scheme did not apply on private land anyway. Also, when my wife called to to discuss this with the clamping company, they stated over the telephone that the signs clearly state that a blue badge must be displayed. This is incorrect, as can be seen from the image earlier in this thread. When my wife challenged this, they hung up on her.

 

I have to respond by 16th November, but would appreciate any thoughts or comments before I do.

 

Thanks in advance.

[Surfer01]

Hi folks. By way of an update, I issued a claim in the Small Claims Court, & a defence has been filed by the clamping company.

 

They state the following in their defence: "The claimant was parked in a designated disabled parking bay at the entertainment complex without displaying a blue badge. Upon entering the complex the claimant was abiding by our terms & conditions of parking. There are over 50 signs situated throughout the complex stating our terms & conditions of parking.

 

Whilst we appreciate the claimant was experiencing temporary mobility issues, the disabled bays are to be used strictly for blue badge holders only...the claimaint had parked in a disabled bay without a Blue Badge therefore resulting in his vehicle being immobilized as stated on our signs situated throughout the complex".

 

My point is that the signs do not stipulate that a blue badge must be displayed. It states that vehicles will be immobilised "if improperly parked in a designated disabled parking bay." There is no mention of a blue badge, & I thought that the blue badge scheme did not apply on private land anyway. Also, when my wife called to to discuss this with the clamping company, they stated over the telephone that the signs clearly state that a blue badge must be displayed. This is incorrect, as can be seen from the image earlier in this thread. When my wife challenged this, they hung up on her.

 

I have to respond by 16th November, but would appreciate any thoughts or comments before I do.

 

Thanks in advance.

They cannot make you display a BB on private land as there is no law that states it should be displayed on private land. More importantly there is no such thing as a disabled bay on private land as any lines yellow, white or pink are meaningless. They haven't a hope in hell of winning and are bluffing.

[baloohaloo]

Is this from Devere in Bournemouth? The castle point center?

[bluesteve71]

No, sorry. Star City, Birmingham.

Is this from Devere in Bournemouth? The castle point center?

[bluesteve71]

That was my point; thanks!

They cannot make you display a BB on private land as there is no law that states it should be displayed on private land. More importantly there is no such thing as a disabled bay on private land as any lines yellow, white or pink are meaningless. They haven't a hope in hell of winning and are bluffing.

[lamma]

So their defence says they clamped through contract and not through trespass ! Note that they have no statutory authority whatsoever to enforce Blue Badge parking so they rely on contract. Fundamental error isn't it ? Don't forget these aspects of contact law, 1) contract terms must not be unfair, especially when a consumer deals with a company. 2) contract terms must not be punitive; in the event of a breach of contract the innocent party can only recover in damages what he has lost as a result of the breach. The contract may include an estimate of the damage that would be caused by a breach but the law will not uphold a “penalty clause”. see http://www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac_foundation/content/downloadables/clamping%20-%20elliott%20-%20090709%20-%20report.pdf from which I have quoted.

Edited November 2, 2012 by lamma

[Surfer01]

So their defence says they clamped through contract and not through trespass ! Note that they have no statutory authority whatsoever to enforce Blue Badge parking so they rely on contract. Fundamental error isn't it ? Don't forget these aspects of contact law, 1) contract terms must not be unfair, especially when a consumer deals with a company. 2) contract terms must not be punitive; in the event of a breach of contract the innocent party can only recover in damages what he has lost as a result of the breach. The contract may include an estimate of the damage that would be caused by a breach but the law will not uphold a “penalty clause”. see http://www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac_foundation/content/downloadables/clamping%20-%20elliott%20-%20090709%20-%20report.pdf from which I have quoted.

Plus blackmail as you cannot get your vehicle until you pay some silly fee and perhaps even imprisonment as unable to leave due to fact that the OP was on crutches and it was night.

[Old Snowy]

The sign is very clear in what it says and - assuming that additional signs do not provide guidance that only blue badge holders may use a disabled bay or that detail has not been cropped from the photograph - then the OP could present a sound argument for his use of the space as being reasonable at the time.

 

A comment about the blue badge scheme is warranted however. The blue badge scheme has no statutory weight in private car parks. However, it is perfectly possible (though perhaps not advisable for the reasons set out in the Equality Act) for a landowner to establish a condition that anyone using a disabled space in his car park must be a blue badge holder and, furthermore, must display that badge if they are to use such a space. Simply establishing "blue badge" spaces - as many supermarkets/retail parks have done (courtesy of their PPC contractors) without a more explicit statement does not, in my opinion, establish a condition and could be argued to be deceptive in its effect and, quite possibly, its intention.

 

The clampers seem to have made a pig's ear of establishing their case based on what the OP has posted. Normally, clampers rely on the principle of volenti non fit injuria - (to a willing person, injury is not done) but that does not appear to be what this outfit are doing - though it would be useful to read their entire defence (scrubbed of personal/event details) to be sure. That being said one suspects that a judge in a small claims setting is likely to take a pragmatic view and whether the clampers explicitly seek to rely on volenti or not, I believe that is the principle that is most likely to be applied.

 

Have a good look at the case of Arthur v Anker and that of Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest (which expanded upon the earlier Arthur decision) which will explain the tests that need to be applied. The overriding principle is that warning signs must be clear as to their purpose and obvious in terms of number and position. In addition, not only must the signs have been seen but they must have been understood and, by implication, have been capable of being understood.

 

A sign that says "Vehicles Parked Without Authority Will be Clamped" is as clear as you could want. These signs, however, are not clear and appear to add no requirement that a blue badge be displayed as the clampers assert in their defence. As a consequence their content is open to interpretation. The OP was disabled - albeit - temporarily.

[lamma]

Furthermore consider for illustrative purposes the instances where a person who is qualified as disabled at the point of diagnosis (e.g. MS) but who does not have a blue badge. The Equality Act applies and should be used.

[bluesteve71]

Thank you again for the responses.

 

My wife & I visited the site again on Sunday. Guess what? The original signs have been replaced! The new sign now clearly states the conditions of parking. Vehicles will be issued with a Parking Charge Notice (as opposed to previously being immobilised) "if parked in a designated parking space between 2 white lines, if parked in a disabled bay without displaying a valid blue badge".

 

When we visited the complex originally the old signs stated "if improperly patked in a designated disabled parking bay". If they had stated that a blue badge had to be displayed when the incident took place, we would not have parked there. The new signs are no longer ambiguous.

 

Do you think that we should mention this in our response to the clamping company's defence to our claim?

[reallymadwoman]

Absolutely! No one would go to the trouble and expense of replacing all the signs without a good reason.

 

I'm hoping you have photographs of the originals?

[Surfer01]

Thank you again for the responses.

Vehicles will be issued with a Parking Charge Notice (as opposed to previously being immobilised) "if parked in a designated parking space between 2 white lines, if parked in a disabled bay without displaying a valid blue badge".

There is no law compelling you to display a Blue badge when on private land. Take the advice already given and ignore their pleading letters.

[bluesteve71]

Thanks. Yes, a photo of the original sign is posted at the start of this thread. For some reason, I cannot upload the picture we took of the new sign.

[steveod]

I thinks it all depends on whether they charge or not for blue badge holders.

As the blue badge scheme is not any legal authority for ppcs, surely it is discrimination by them to even insist on a blue badge. For example, take a shopping centre car park such as asda, tesco, etc. take 2 employees of that firm who work on the tills, both doing the same job, one is disabled and the other is not. They both have to be paid the same based on equal qualifications and experience and skills etc, in other words the employer cannot discriminate against either of them based on their disability and pay one less than the other. So they both earning approx the same salary, yet one can display a blue badge and not pay to park his/her car in the parking area everyday, yet the other has to pay for parking every day, thus rendering the non disabled person for instance £150 per month worse off. This is clearly a financial discrimination and as the plc are appointed or are agents of the employer, then both are responsible for this discrimination. How can a ppc justify that one person has to pay and the other not?Or not?

[Surfer01]

I thinks it all depends on whether they charge or not for blue badge holders.

As the blue badge scheme is not any legal authority for ppcs, surely it is discrimination by them to even insist on a blue badge. For example, take a shopping centre car park such as asda, tesco, etc. take 2 employees of that firm who work on the tills, both doing the same job, one is disabled and the other is not. They both have to be paid the same based on equal qualifications and experience and skills etc, in other words the employer cannot discriminate against either of them based on their disability and pay one less than the other. So they both earning approx the same salary, yet one can display a blue badge and not pay to park his/her car in the parking area everyday, yet the other has to pay for parking every day, thus rendering the non disabled person for instance £150 per month worse off. This is clearly a financial discrimination and as the plc are appointed or are agents of the employer, then both are responsible for this discrimination. How can a ppc justify that one person has to pay and the other not?Or not?

 

In case you don't understand, neither is under any obligation to pay a PPC anything.

[steveod]

In case you don't understand, neither is under any obligation to pay a PPC anything.

 

I know that fully well thanks. Got many of their fraudulent and fake invoices. Just another hurdle for them I believe as far as blue badges go. What gives them the right to discriminate against non-disabled drivers financially - NOTHING! Nothing in statute that allows them, and even if there was I believe would breach HRA and ECHR.

[Surfer01]

I know that fully well thanks. Got many of their fraudulent and fake invoices. Just another hurdle for them I believe as far as blue badges go. What gives them the right to discriminate against non-disabled drivers financially - NOTHING! Nothing in statute that allows them, and even if there was I believe would breach HRA and ECHR.

Are you advocating that a person with a BB should pay the same as a person without a BB?

[bluesteve71]

Are you advocating that a person with a BB should pay the same as a person without a BB?

Thanks all for your help and advice. Just to let you know, the defence struck out and I WON!!! Got my reimbursement cheque from them last week