Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Should this to be take into court with him or should he send something in earlier?
    • This is the other sign  parking sign 1a.pdf
    • 4 means that they need to name and then tell the people who will be affected that there has been an application made, what the application relates to (specificially "whether it relates to the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction in relation to P’s property and affairs, or P’s personal welfare, or to both) and what this application contains (i.e what order they want made as a result of it) 5 just means that teh court think it is important that the relevant people are notified 7 means that the court need more information to make the application, hence they have then made the order of paragraph 1 which requires the applicant to do more - this means the court can't make a decision with the current information, and need more, hence paragraph one of the order is for the applicant to do more. paragraph 3 of the order gives you the ability to have it set aside, although if it was made in january you are very late. Were you notiifed of the application or not?    
    • These are the photos of the signs. At the entrance there is a 7h free sign. On some bays there is a permit sign.  Also their official website is misleading as it implies all parking is free.  I can't be certain of the exact parking bay I was in that day, and there was no PCN ticket on my car and no other evidence was provided.  parking sign 2.pdf
    • Hi, In my last post I mentioned I had received an email from SS who were asking me to hand over the keys to my mother’s flat so they could pass them to the Law firm who have been appointed court of protection to access, secure and insure my mother’s property.  Feeling this, all quickly getting out of my hands I emailed ss requesting proof of this. I HAVEN’T HEARD BACK FROM SS.  Yesterday, I received an email (with attached court of protection order) from the Law Firm confirming this was correct (please see below a copy of this).  After reading the court of protection order I do have some concerns about it:   (a)   I only found out yesterday, the Law firm had been appointed by the court back in January.  Up until now, I have not received any notification regarding this.  (b)   Section 2   - States I am estranged from my mother.  This is NOT CORRECT    The only reason I stepped back from my mother was to protect myself from the guy (groomer) who had befriended her & was very aggressive towards me & because of my mother’s dementia she had become aggressive also.  I constantly tried to warned SS about this guy's manipulative behaviour towards my mother and his increasing aggressiveness towards me (as mentioned in previous posts).  Each time I was ignored.  Instead, SS encouraged his involvement with my mother – including him in her care plans and mental health assessments.   I was literally pushed out because I feared him and my mother’s increasing aggression towards me. Up until I stepped back, I had always looked after my mother and since her admission to the care home, I visit regularly.   .(c)    Sections -  4, 5 and 7  I am struggling to understand these as I don’t have a legal background.  I was wondering if there is anyone who might be able to explain what they mean.  It’s been a horrendous situation where I had to walk away from my mother at her most vulnerable because of; ss (not helping), scammer and groomer. I have no legal background, nor experience in highly manipulative people or an understanding of how the SS system operates, finding myself isolated, scared and powerless to the point I haven’t collected my personal belongings and items for my mother’s room in the care home.  Sadly, the court has only had heard one version of this story SS’s, and based their decision on that. My mother’s situation and the experience I have gone through could happen to anyone who has a vulnerable parent.    If anyone any thoughts on this much appreciated.  Thank you. ______________________________________________________  (Below is the Court of Protection Order)  COURT OF PROTECTION                                                                                                                                                                                   No xxx  MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005 In the matter of Name xxx ORDER Made by  Depty District Judge At xxx Made on xxx Issued on 18 January 2024  WHEREAS  1.     xxx Solicitors, Address xxx  ("Applicant”) has applied for an order under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.  2.     The Court notes (my mother) is said to be estranged from all her three children and only one, (me) has been notified.  3.     (Me) was previously appointed as Atorney for Property and Affairs for (my mother).  The Exhibity NAJ at (date) refers to (me) and all replacement Attorneys are now officially standing down.  4.     Pursuant to Rule 9.10 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 and Practice Direction 9B the Applicant 2must seek to identify at least three persons who are likely to have an interest in being notified that an application has been issues.”  The children of (my mother), and any other appointed attorneys are likely to have an interest in the application, because of the nature of relationship to (my mother).  5.     The Court considers that the notification requirements are an important safeguard for the person in respect of whom an order is sought.  6.     The Court notes that it is said that the local authority no longer has access to (my mother’s) Property.  7.     Further information is required for the Court to determine the application.  IT IS ORDERED THAT  Within 28 days of the issue date this order, the Applicant shall file a form COP24 witness statement confirming that the other children of (my mother) and any replacement attorneys have been notified of the application and shall confirm their name, address, and date upon which those persons were notified.  If the Applicant wishes the Court to dispense with any further notification, they should file a COP9 and COP24 explaining, what steps (if any) have been taken to attempt notification and why notification should be dispensed with.   Pending the determination of the application to appoint a deputy for (my mother), the Applicant is authorised to take such steps as are proportionate and necessary to access, secure and insure the house and property of (my mother).   This order was made without a hearing and without notice.  Any person affected by this order may apply within 21 days of the date on which the order was served to have the order set aside or varied pursuant to Rule 13.4 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 (“the Rules”).  Such application must be made on Form COP9 and in accordance with Part 10 Rules.              
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
        • Thanks
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Appeal decision from POPLA


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4112 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Okay I see your point as I was looking at it with blinkers on and your example above is good.

This is very much appreciated. Thank you.

 

The danger is - as has already been suggested by an earlier poster, that the Bounty Hunting Industry may try to influence a change in the law which would apply stricter rules and whcih would not be based upon a fair balance of interests.

The BPA and the parking industry have come a long way from their Yobo roots and they have learned how to influence and to gain a foothold.

 

It really is up to the ordinary people who object to this civil recovery industry to show by example that they do act responsibly, that they are not a threat to reasonable privately enforced rules and that all they want to do is to spend their money in the shops of the carpark owners.

 

One very effective way to fight this is also to start focussing attention on the big brands which own the carparks and who have given the contracts to the parking companies.

These big brands don't want to be associated with the punishment of their own customers. This is probably the main reason why they use the parking industry to do it on their behalf. It is a sort of extraordinary rendition carried out on behalf of B&Q, ASDA and the rest. The parking companies get their hands dirty and take the flak - but that is what they are paid for - while their big brand clients keep their hands and noses clean.

 

Start naming the car park owner.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

An interesting thread.

 

So the premise was to park in a disabled bay, blocking the use for a genuine user, then complain when a ticket was issued?

 

Then argue an appeal, still without telling them the badge had slipped off,/ you're disabled and can park there anyway even without showing a badge? But just to state,"you ain't got no authority" instead?

 

So, what are the PPC's supposed to do? Employ psychics?

 

All this has done is prove that there is a need for some control to stop idiotic abuse, and it'll be a good court case when the judge declares all disabled spaces are merely"graffiti", and it's open day for everyone to park there.

 

At least he'll have his 5 minutes of fame in the Daily Mail.

 

Either that or common sense will prevail, he'll run a mile, and it'll end up betting the house in the High Court.

 

As BankFodder has said, all this has done is show why the PPC's are needed, and how they'll use it to justify why controls should be in place.

Massive own goal, and totally irresponsible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is very much appreciated. Thank you.

 

The danger is - as has already been suggested by an earlier poster, that the Bounty Hunting Industry may try to influence a change in the law which would apply stricter rules and whcih would not be based upon a fair balance of interests.

The BPA and the parking industry have come a long way from their Yobo roots and they have learned how to influence and to gain a foothold.

 

It really is up to the ordinary people who object to this civil recovery industry to show by example that they do act responsibly, that they are not a threat to reasonable privately enforced rules and that all they want to do is to spend their money in the shops of the carpark owners.

 

One very effective way to fight this is also to start focussing attention on the big brands which own the carparks and who have given the contracts to the parking companies.

These big brands don't want to be associated with the punishment of their own customers. This is probably the main reason why they use the parking industry to do it on their behalf. It is a sort of extraordinary rendition carried out on behalf of B&Q, ASDA and the rest. The parking companies get their hands dirty and take the flak - but that is what they are paid for - while their big brand clients keep their hands and noses clean.

 

Start naming the car park owner.

 

So how do you get around a "ticket" issued on a NHS private public car park by PE where they charge a BB holder a fee and the BB must be displayed, but the BB does not pay the fee? Take into consideration that the landowner was the one that invited you to attend an appointment on their land and you have no choice except to attend the appointment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So how do you get around a "ticket" issued on a NHS private public car park by PE where they charge a BB holder a fee and the BB must be displayed, but the BB does not pay the fee? Take into consideration that the landowner was the one that invited you to attend an appointment on their land and you have no choice except to attend the appointment.

 

The correct way?

 

disabledmotoring.org/campaigns/parking/

 

disabledmotoring.org/campaigns/hospital-parking-2/

 

 

Not a way that merely highlights the need to have more enforcement of the spaces to prevent abuse, and provide another tick in the box come their next round of lobbying to tighten the law up.

 

The problem with running a vendetta against all these car parking companies is that it provides them with all the ammunition they need to show that motorists do park across several bays, park on the pavement, park on the double yellow lines, and abuse the disabled bays, and it detracts from the responsible campaigns that are out there organised by peolpe that are actually trying to help motorists.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The correct way?

 

disabledmotoring.org/campaigns/parking/

 

disabledmotoring.org/campaigns/hospital-parking-2/

 

 

Not a way that merely highlights the need to have more enforcement of the spaces to prevent abuse, and provide another tick in the box come their next round of lobbying to tighten the law up.

 

The problem with running a vendetta against all these car parking companies is that it provides them with all the ammunition they need to show that motorists do park across several bays, park on the pavement, park on the double yellow lines, and abuse the disabled bays, and it detracts from the responsible campaigns that are out there organised by peolpe that are actually trying to help motorists.

 

Neither the above links answer my question. One of the links refers to council parking when the issue is on private land parking. However thanks for the links as they made interesting reading.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"A National Policy for car park charging should be created and imposed across the entire NHS."

"Any form of means testing for Blue Badge holders should be abolished at all healthcare facilities."

"Doctor and Dentist surgery car parks should meet the minimum requirements for number of disabled bays as set out by the Department for Transport"

 

Seems to address the issue quite well.

 

The principle of parking for free under the Equalities Act will be just as valid for private as well as council run car parks, so I can't see any problem with the fact it refers to council run parking so far.

 

But parking in a disabled bay and blocking it's use for a real user doesn't seem quite as effective by comparison, and probably won't carry many people along with you with the same support.

Link to post
Share on other sites

C'mon you people. Do you just want to rage and rant against this stuff or to you want to campaign effectively.

 

You are talking about people's rights to their own private land here. Moral aspects are hugely relevant. This issue is about citizenship and good neighbourliness. It is about consumer spending. It is about not enforcing people's own human failings against them in a disproportionate way.

A private landowner is completely within his rights to say that he will only permit certain classes of person to park in particular places. There is nothing unlawful about that. If the carpark owner says that he is happy to accept the blue badge scheme as the basis upon which he will recognise those who qualify to use those reserved places, he is fully entitled to.

Morality, decency and citizenship are your main weapons in this as in any other kind of bounty hunting/civil recovery issue.

 

If you all restrict yourselves to bleating on about legal rights - then you will lose the high ground and you will hand a victory to the private parking industry.

 

If you want to retain the highground - which I believe that you do currently occupy, - then you should condemn car park operators which try to make money out of a disproportionate system of fines. You should condemn the supermarkets which facilitate the parking industry and who are stupid enough to tarnish their brands with this oppression. But you should also condemn the selfish oafs who out of carelessness - but more often out of laziness use spaces which allocated to special groups and who by doing so are bringing comfort to the supermarkets and private parking companies and who are betraying you all..

 

Frankly, I'm amazed that I have to explain this to you.

 

I understand where you are coming from in relation to people that are GENUINELY disabled drivers or passengers. These are VERY few and far between among the people that have blue badges.

 

These bays should operate purely to provide wider parking spaces so that there is space for wheelchairs, people to maneuver that have difficulties walking etc.

 

1. It is strange that people have to park in these bays because they have a blue badge with some unknown or strange "disability" that they cannot walk from the one end of the parking area to the store, but can then wander up and down the aisles for an hour or so with no problem. And this relates to a lot of elderly people that do this. If you can walk up and down every single aisle in the shopping centre without any difficulty, then you shouldn't have a blue badge. This is what causes the entire issue. If the blue badges were only given to people who really deserved them then it would hold much more valuer and be respected by others.

 

2. At shopping centres if it is provided, then the charges should be the same as standard parking bays. It should not be offered for free for blue badge holders. Why should one person have to pay and another not. For instance, if there are 2 employees of the shopping centre, one disabled with a blue badge and one not, they are both required under law not to be discriminated against as regards pay, so if they both have roughly same qualifications and experience their pay will be approximately the same. Now if the one doesn't have to pay for the parking and the other does, then the one that doesn't need to pay would be hundreds of pounds a month worse off. Fair? No. The legal requirement is for retailers, etc to provide facilities that do not discriminate against the disabled but that doesn't mean having two sets of standards that financially penalise another group.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"

The principle of parking for free under the Equalities Act will be just as valid for private as well as council run car parks, so I can't see any problem with the fact it refers to council run parking so far.

 

 

It doesn't state anything about that the parking must be free. Why should one group not have to pay but another do have to pay? Disabled people should not be discriminated against in any form but that

doesn't mean that there exists a right for any body to then discriminate against non disabled people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't state anything about that the parking must be free. Why should one group not have to pay but another do have to pay? Disabled people should not be discriminated against in any form but that

doesn't mean that there exists a right for any body to then discriminate against non disabled people.

 

Personally, I have no problem with the requirement to pay while using a blue badge.

A fairer way may have been to allow a longer period for the same charge, but still charge.

And parking, whether it's council, private, NHS, should follow the same rules, as I really can't see any difference when I park there.

And I've had a lot more out of the NHS than I've ever paid in car park charges.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand where you are coming from in relation to people that are GENUINELY disabled drivers or passengers. These are VERY few and far between among the people that have blue badges.

 

These bays should operate purely to provide wider parking spaces so that there is space for wheelchairs, people to maneuver that have difficulties walking etc.

 

1. It is strange that people have to park in these bays because they have a blue badge with some unknown or strange "disability" that they cannot walk from the one end of the parking area to the store, but can then wander up and down the aisles for an hour or so with no problem. And this relates to a lot of elderly people that do this. If you can walk up and down every single aisle in the shopping centre without any difficulty, then you shouldn't have a blue badge. This is what causes the entire issue. If the blue badges were only given to people who really deserved them then it would hold much more valuer and be respected by others.

 

2. At shopping centres if it is provided, then the charges should be the same as standard parking bays. It should not be offered for free for blue badge holders. Why should one person have to pay and another not. For instance, if there are 2 employees of the shopping centre, one disabled with a blue badge and one not, they are both required under law not to be discriminated against as regards pay, so if they both have roughly same qualifications and experience their pay will be approximately the same. Now if the one doesn't have to pay for the parking and the other does, then the one that doesn't need to pay would be hundreds of pounds a month worse off. Fair? No. The legal requirement is for retailers, etc to provide facilities that do not discriminate against the disabled but that doesn't mean having two sets of standards that financially penalise another group.

Obviously you have never been shopping with someone who is disabled and then has to convey the purchased goods to their vehicle? I am disabled and on pension credit so money is tight and saving a few bob here and there is appreciated. If it bugs you, you can always have my disability and I would gladly pay the parking charges to be pain free!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously you have never been shopping with someone who is disabled and then has to convey the purchased goods to their vehicle? I am disabled and on pension credit so money is tight and saving a few bob here and there is appreciated. If it bugs you, you can always have my disability and I would gladly pay the parking charges to be pain free!

 

Maybe you have a genuine disability, I don't know. but then you deserve the blue badge. but I would estimate 60-80% of BB holders do not. How do you move the goods around when you walk up and down the isles. if you can walk up and down the isles for an hour pushing your trolley, then you can push the same trolley to your car - which would be a whole lot shorter than the length of the isles. And disabled people are not the only people struggling for money. should anyone that is tight on money also not have to pay then? where does the line get drawn?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you have a genuine disability, I don't know. but then you deserve the blue badge. but I would estimate 60-80% of BB holders do not. How do you move the goods around when you walk up and down the isles. if you can walk up and down the isles for an hour pushing your trolley, then you can push the same trolley to your car - which would be a whole lot shorter than the length of the isles. And disabled people are not the only people struggling for money. should anyone that is tight on money also not have to pay then? where does the line get drawn?

My wife although she has a disability, she is mobile and she pushes the trolley and gets the goods off the shelf. I just go along for the exercise and to pay the bill!

Many other people have the opportunity to improve their lot where as one with a disability it is the end of the line as the disability cannot be cured! Besides I don't think any one should pay to buy necessities like food as generally you do not have a choice when you go to a supermarket. With council parking it is your choice whether you want to park there so if I have to pay, so be it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...... but I would estimate 60-80% of BB holders do not. How do you move the goods around when you walk up and down the isles.

 

It's aisles. And most supermarkets have seated trolleys for disabled users, specialist trolleys that fit onto wheelchairs, and my two local ones have terrific facilities including powered chairs with trolleys. Also not all disabilities are visible to someone conducting a proper survey who is trying to accurately measure how many disability badges are issued to people who are genuinely disabled.

 

That is what you did isn't it? Your estimate is based on some sort of facts other than guesswork isn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's aisles. And most supermarkets have seated trolleys for disabled users, specialist trolleys that fit onto wheelchairs, and my two local ones have terrific facilities including powered chairs with trolleys. Also not all disabilities are visible to someone conducting a proper survey who is trying to accurately measure how many disability badges are issued to people who are genuinely disabled.

 

That is what you did isn't it? Your estimate is based on some sort of facts other than guesswork isn't it?

 

I agree I was disabled after a car crash now after 10 years or so no one would know from looking at me that I am disabled butI am and I look ok when walking to my car and when using a trolly in a supermarket to allow me to stand upright and walk. These people do not see me after when I am home my shirt black with sweat from pain or the jabs I have to have every day for the rest of my life.

 

And I am not ****ed off due to being disabled just happy to be alive and have some sort of a life.

 

dpick

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's aisles. And most supermarkets have seated trolleys for disabled users, specialist trolleys that fit onto wheelchairs, and my two local ones have terrific facilities including powered chairs with trolleys. Also not all disabilities are visible to someone conducting a proper survey who is trying to accurately measure how many disability badges are issued to people who are genuinely disabled.

 

That is what you did isn't it? Your estimate is based on some sort of facts other than guesswork isn't it?

 

its not an accurate figure as per a major survey. but go and stand at your local supermarket for 3 hours. watch all the people that climb out of their cars at the disabled bays with blue badges in the window. about 2 in 10 will have any sort of disability that warrants a blue badge. good enough for me.

 

see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8010840/Blue-badge-abuse-is-out-of-control.html#

Edited by steveod
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree I was disabled after a car crash now after 10 years or so no one would know from looking at me that I am disabled butI am and I look ok when walking to my car and when using a trolly in a supermarket to allow me to stand upright and walk. These people do not see me after when I am home my shirt black with sweat from pain or the jabs I have to have every day for the rest of my life.

 

And I am not ****ed off due to being disabled just happy to be alive and have some sort of a life.

 

dpick

 

OK, you may have a disability. but if you are able to walk round the aisles for an hour pushing the trolley, then surely you can push the trolley back to your car anywhere in the parking lot? of course as long as it isn't at a supermarket where it takes 30 minutes to walk to your car but dont know of any supermarkets like that. or is it that some disabled people think that they have the right to push their trolleys for an hour round the shopping centre, but all of a sudden the disability is so bad they can't push the trolley from the front door to the car park?

Again i am not talking about GENUINE disabled people that have difficulty walking, using a trolley, need to use a wheelchair or mobility device, or major breathing difficulties etc. My main gripe is with the fact that there appears to be far too many blue badges out there and this causes other car users to not respect the system of blue badges.

Edited by steveod
Link to post
Share on other sites

its not an accurate figure as per a major survey. but go and stand at your local supermarket for 3 hours. watch all the people that climb out of their cars at the disabled bays with blue badges in the window. about 2 in 10 will have any sort of disability that warrants a blue badge. good enough for me.

 

see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8010840/Blue-badge-abuse-is-out-of-control.html#

 

You seem to be trying to find a way to have a go at people who have a BB no matter how. First it was about charges and now it is about BB being misused and you refer to an article published in Sept 2010 before stricter controls were brought in. Make up your mind as at the moment it appears that rather than offer help, you want to attack!

Link to post
Share on other sites

its not an accurate figure as per a major survey. but go and stand at your local supermarket for 3 hours. watch all the people that climb out of their cars at the disabled bays with blue badges in the window. about 2 in 10 will have any sort of disability that warrants a blue badge. good enough for me.

 

see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8010840/Blue-badge-abuse-is-out-of-control.html#

 

With such amazing and apparently infallible powers of diagnosis perhaps a career in medicine awaits. Perhaps not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

its not an accurate figure as per a major survey. but go and stand at your local supermarket for 3 hours. watch all the people that climb out of their cars at the disabled bays with blue badges in the window. about 2 in 10 will have any sort of disability that warrants a blue badge. good enough for me.

 

see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8010840/Blue-badge-abuse-is-out-of-control.html#

 

If you are telling me you have stood outside your local supermarket for 3 hours? Then you are sadder than I thought you might be.

 

Of course if you haven't then you are talking round spherical objects.

 

Finally https://www.gov.uk/definition-of-disability-under-equality-act-2010 makes it clear that such problems need not be visible to some idiot stood outside a supermarket for three hours counting people getting out of cars. Does not mean they are not entitled to a Blue Badge,

Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to be trying to find a way to have a go at people who have a BB no matter how. First it was about charges and now it is about BB being misused and you refer to an article published in Sept 2010 before stricter controls were brought in. Make up your mind as at the moment it appears that rather than offer help, you want to attack!

 

Not sure if you reading my postings, are you? I am not having a go at all BB holders. I am only having a go at the fact that the entire BB system is misused and that is generally why other people do not adhere to these bays. If a normal member of the public looked at someone parking their car in a disabled bay with a BB and could be generally satisfied that the person parking there was entitled to the BB then there would be no issue. Genuine disabled users are entitled and require the BBs, about 20-30% of the current amount, the rest don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Finally https://www.gov.uk/definition-of-disability-under-equality-act-2010 makes it clear that such problems need not be visible to some idiot stood outside a supermarket for three hours counting people getting out of cars. Does not mean they are not entitled to a Blue Badge,

 

 

yes, carry on trying to fool yourself that the majority of people with BBs have "disabilities", they don't. And until it is rectified and the value of them becomes more worthwhile, other people will continue to ignore these bays. The PPCs have no legal right to enforce these types of bays in any event.

 

PS I didnt go stand at the supermarket for 3 hours - i asked you to do it. I don't need to, as i know I am correct on the approximate amount of abuse of the BB system. If you want to prove it for yourself go stand outside the supermarket.

 

read this also - makes interesting reading for one council area alone.http://www.disabledmotoring.org/news/stop-blue-badge-abuse/

 

anyway lets leave it there. we agree to disagree.

Edited by steveod
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what the article has to do with parking on private property as none of the vehicles mentioned were on private property. IMHO steveod is looking for excuses to demonise those that have BB and will use any means to do this. First is was a go at BB holders on private land and when they were put down on that one, they came up with BB being abused on local roads. I wonder what else they are going to come up with to demonise BB holders even further?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...