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 
      • 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

Are employers supposed to provide disabled bays? Parking at work!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4091 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

First things first, here are the facts.

I have worked at my current workplace for 3 years after initially declining the job due to the fact i didnt think they would be able to accomodate my disability, they imediately re offered me the post accomodating my working needs.

I have been a blue badge holder since a child.

The company i work for has 60+ staff and a £22 mil annual profit so its pretty huge.

There are roughly 30/40 car parking spaces adjacent to the work building.

I start work one hour later than all other employees so im the last on the carpark.

Public transport is not an option due to location.

 

Parking at work has never really been too much of an issue before now.

 

I was hospitalised for two weeks and during this time management sent out an email asking employees

to not park in any of the designated five spaces in front of the main doors to the building because it looked 'messy'.

 

They advised staff to park in a public carpark 100m up the road once staff carpark was full.

 

On my return to work I continued to park in a space directly in front of the building due to decreased lung function and always displayed my blue badge.

 

I had never felt the need to use this or mention I hold a badge before now as this is where I had always parked without issue.

I knew I was being naughty but thought I would wait until they said something.

 

About a week later, they did.

 

I was called into the office and was told that no employees no matter on the circumstances were to park in these spaces and I would have to park up the road on the public carpark.

I explained to them that after my hospitalisation (for a genetic form of chronic lung disease) I struggled to walk 10 metres without difficulty

and there is no physical way that my body could carry me 100m.

I suggested a disabled bay, they declined and suggested that on my arrival I ask other members of staff to move their car,

which due to the embaressment I feel very uncomfortable doing beacuse it seems pure cheek.

 

My condition is a deteriorating condition so it will never get better, it can only get worse so this is not temporary.

I will one day have to give up work completely if I contuine to deteriorate at the rate I have been, which my bosses know, and I feel like I am being pushed out of the company.

 

My condition does not at all affect my ability to do the job required in any way.

 

Do I have any rights, do they need to provide a disabled bay for disabled employees? How can I get around this other than quitting?

 

Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello and welcome to CAG.

 

My take is that they accepted your disability when they gave you the job and they should appreciate your situation. So I would think that they should provide you with a space otherwise you may have a case of 'constructed dismissal' should you be forced to leave. I suggest you speak to an employment solicitor.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes i think they are under employers rules and DDA rules

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Equality Act requires them to make "reasonable adjustments"

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents

 

have a look at both section 4 and 5

 

I would suggest that would be making a reserved space for yourself, either in front of the building, or if you agree, the closest space next to the five that still provides you with access.

If there is a union they should help, but you should also make HR aware of the situation.

It doesn't need to be a "disabled space", as anyone could use it, it has to be exclusive for yourself, as you need to park there to get into work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

These links from the Equality and Human Rights Commission will be of use:

 

EHRC Employers Guidance - http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/advice-and-guidance/guidance-for-employers/

 

EHRC The Duty to make Reasonable Adjustments for Disabled People - http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/advice-and-guidance/guidance-for-employers/the-duty-to-make-reasonable-adjustments-for-disabled-people/

 

Also this PDF from EHRC:

Edited by stu007

How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yor employer obviously hasnt tought through this one, suggest you follow it up via Equalities Act legislation with regard to "reasonable adjustments to the workplace". Wont cost them anything so I dont see why they havent put up a sign to indicate a reserved space.

Link to post
Share on other sites

moving aside from employees and reasonable adjustments for the moment

 

what about if a company has a private road that members of the public have access to. Being a private road, does the employer have a legal obligation to provide a disabled bay provisions to disabled customers who trade with the business (employer) and are the rules different if that employer is a public owned company.

Link to post
Share on other sites

moving aside from employees and reasonable adjustments for the moment

 

what about if a company has a private road that members of the public have access to. Being a private road, does the employer have a legal obligation to provide a disabled bay provisions to disabled customers who trade with the business (employer) and are the rules different if that employer is a public owned company.

 

It's "reasonable adjustments" still.

As many posters say, disabled bays are merely graffiti.

 

If it's a large company that expects disabled customers every day, such as Tesco's, it's reasonable to expect then to put in disabled bays however as it's an instantly recognisable way to meet the need, and the number will depend on the size of the carpark, and the number of customers. There are normally guidelines on how they lay it out in the planning stage.

 

It isn't compulsory (hence the statements that BB have no standing on private car parks, and disabled bays are just graffiti), they could attempt to invent a different scheme of their own, but anyone that does implement a system that is used by every council, and most other types of businesses running similar large car parks will never lose in court for non compliance to the Equality Act, whereas an untested scheme is fraught with danger.

No disabled charity has ever felt the need to challenge the use of the disabled space and blue badge scheme in a private car park.

 

So they are an ideal system to voluntarily implement, even if they aren't compulsory.

Further compliance can be shown by "policing" them in the same way councils do.

And there is no law saying they can't use the system if they choose to use it, so it's a no brainer for them really.

 

 

If it's a single building, and normally no customer visits, it would be acceptable to ask the customer to give them notice if they need any special facilities, such as parking, then cone off a space, or move the directors car to let them park if they can phone from the carpark when they arrive.

 

For the rest, anything between.

 

But the business always needs to know a customer is disabled first, and so can allow for it. Hence Tesco's deciding that is best conveyed by the BB, but they could be made aware in other ways, and would then have to allow for it. Being "disabled" wouldn't automatically qualify though, disabled bays are usually an adjustment for customers with, for example, limited mobility, or other need that specifically qualifies for this particular adjustment.

 

Public companies are the same as any other, but some, such as hospitals, have had policies for many years, before the Equality Act.

(And it included the requirement for a BB to use disabled spaces, but made allowance for non badge holders to access parking if they had limited mobility. As far as I'm aware, no one has ever challenged them in court over it, and they still have the same policy now.)

Edited by peanutsallergy
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...