Jump to content


style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2493 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

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.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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!

Share this post


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?

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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?

Share this post


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


cannot find it A to Z

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/consumer-forums-website-questions/53182-cant-find-what-youre.html

 

 

Halifax :D

Paid in full £2295

 

MBNA:mad: 20/03/2008 settled in full out of court

 

Capital One:D

07/07/2007 Capital one charges paid in full £1666

19/01/2008 recovered PPI £2216 + costs

 

Littlewoods :-D

12/08/2007 write off £1176.10 debt.

 

JD Williams charges refunded in full £640

Share this post


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

Share this post


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

Share this post


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!

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this thread is getting somewhat sidetracked and not in a good way :sad:

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the same charity that accepts money from private parking companies, and even offers a discounted membership if an "errant" disabled motorist caves in and pays the parking charge notice issued by UKCPS. So hardly unbiased advice!

Share this post


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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...