Disabled woman claims council bailiffs-illegally seized her car

[Peterbard]

It also means that the badge must be on display at the time and then there must be some kind of evidence that the car is used for the benifit of the disabled person(preferably their presence).

 

Say for instance the person went to a center three times a week for whatever reason. Her son drops her off in his car and her daughter picks her up in her car.

The badge would not make both cars exempt, just either car whilst in use for that purpose.

That is why the act says specifically on display.

[lookinforinfo]

There is obviously going to be a grey area where a Blue Badge is freely able to be transferred from car to car. Dodgeball your point about the son and the daughter is well made though it does appear in this instance that the seized car belongs to her or her husband. But you would have thought that as the car would be the main vehicle for the carriage of a disabled person even if the car may not have been displaying the card at the time of an offence, that their particular car would have come under the exemption rule.

[Peterbard]

The section says:

 

(d)a vehicle on which a valid disabled person’s badge is displayed because it is used

 

As PT says not many will keep the badge on the vehicle unless it is in use, however it is a precondition(for this section) that the badge is on display.

 

As said the badge must be portable in order to enable the disabled persons use of parking privileges etc whatever vehicle they are in. It does seem to be a grey area as you say.

[Leakie]

This is the trouble there are too many grey areas,

I thought the TCE was meant to clear all this up?

 

I suppose it is all down to interpretation, at the end of the day.

 

As you say we have not heard the whole story,

 

Leakie

[josephbloggs]

as is always the case with newspaper articles relating to bailiff enforcement there is nearly always a lot of misinformation to try and sell the story

 

it clearly states the car was not a motability vehicle, on finance or displaying a blue badge and yet the paper automatically believes the woman. well maybe they should look a bit closer at her past.

 

she has been found to of cheated her employer by having 12 years off sick when it appears she wasn't.

AND

when her employer sent out a private investigator, her husband lured him into the house, held him hostage and threatened him with a machete!!! which she was found to of played a part in as well. links to show this below...

 

there's your other side of the story ...

 

 

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/great-barr-mum-off-work-for-12-151622

 

http://www.employmentcasesupdate.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed6015

[Bailiff Advice]

as is always the case with newspaper articles relating to bailiff enforcement there is nearly always a lot of misinformation to try and sell the story

 

it clearly states the car was not a motability vehicle, on finance or displaying a blue badge and yet the paper automatically believes the woman. well maybe they should look a bit closer at her past.

 

she has been found to of cheated her employer by having 12 years off sick when it appears she wasn't.

AND

when her employer sent out a private investigator, her husband lured him into the house, held him hostage and threatened him with a machete!!! which she was found to of played a part in as well. links to show this below...

 

there's your other side of the story ...

 

 

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/great-barr-mum-off-work-for-12-151622

 

http://www.employmentcasesupdate.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed6015

 

These reports have been 'doing the rounds' all week and sadly, even though they concern events from a couple of years ago, they nonetheless may explain why so many police officers (supposedly three vehicles) were in attendance.

 

The local authority were aware that this story would be featuring in the media and I would assume that they are confident that their version of events is correct.

[Bailiff Advice]

It is also reported that the vehicles that was taken was worth £15k and that before removal, the enforcement agent checked to see whether it was subject to finance or registered with Motability. I would assume that the value of the car has also raised serious questions. After all, it would seem that last year the debtor was declared bankrupt (supposedly in relation to her quarter of a million pound legal bill). As I have said before, this story once again, casts doubt on the debtor instead of the enforcement agent.

 

If an individual deliberately introduces personal information about themselves onto the internet (as this lady did by giving an interview to the media) then they can hardly blame others for making further enquiries.

 

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/police-helped-bailiffs-seize-disabled-10973357

[caledfwlch]

Just because she has misbehaved in the past does not mean she has this time. I would point out that it is entirely possible that the Insolvency Practitioner may well have been informed about the car, and decided not to order it sold and a cheaper car bought due to the owners disabilities. It is equally possible that her husband or partner is on a good wage and bought her the car after she went bankrupt.

 

No mention in the links of a Private Investigator being kidnapped and threatened, though since they have no legal rights or powers, I wonder why they sent one to the house, given there could have been a risk of the woman claiming harassment.

 

I am absolutely astonished this company kept her on the books, as sick for 12 years though - not even a Council Employee with the stronger protections they have could get away with that, all employers have a right to dismiss after a certain length of time - they must have just forgotten about her.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

No mention in the links of a Private Investigator being kidnapped and threatened, though since they have no legal rights or powers, I wonder why they sent one to the house, given there could have been a risk of the woman claiming harassment.

 

In fact, it was only because of the wrongful detention of the private investigator (who was investigating a possibly fraud) and the part that she supposedly played (in the detention) that lead to the employer finally dismissing her.

 

Full details are in this link: (Paragraphs 4,5,6 and 7):

 

http://www.employmentcasesupdate.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed6015