Disabled spaces

[jackangel]

Thanks for the words of support chaps.

The Council, on grounds of confidentiality, refuse to admit that a Blue Badge holder lives at the address, let alone reveal identities. Similarly, the Blue Badge does not identify its associated vehicle. The Council are the obvious people who should be investigating (because they have access to information, they have allowed the situation to arise and they would deflect any personal reprisals) ? but I agree, the allowed abuse by this family has become such that it should be a police matter. The group of surrounding neighbours haven?t approached the police. You can imagine the reception at the police station!

Are there any national/government bodies that can remind Southwark of its responsibilities?

[Moos]

Hmm, I'm wondering whether I too live on the same road as Jackangel and PGC! Howdy, neighbours.

Anyway, the parking spaces at Sainsbury's are definitely monitored - we were once fined for parking in one of the parent-and-child spaces, because we had taken the Moosling into the shop in his car seat, so we looked as though we weren't bona fide tot-toters. The fine was removed when we produced the baby as evidence, but if they can police the parent spaces, they can surely check disabled spaces.

[snorky]

Moos Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hmm, I'm wondering whether I too live on the same

> road as Jackangel and PGC! Howdy, neighbours.

>

> Anyway, the parking spaces at Sainsbury's are

> definitely monitored - we were once fined for

> parking in one of the parent-and-child spaces,

> because we had taken the Moosling into the shop in

> his car seat, so we looked as though we weren't

> bona fide tot-toters. The fine was removed when

> we produced the baby as evidence, but if they can

> police the parent spaces, they can surely check

> disabled spaces.

They cant fine you anyway

[Moos]

Actually, apologies for my poor memory - have just checked with the other half and in fact what we were issued with was a do-it-again-and-we'll-fine-or-clamp-you warning.

But that sounds to me as though they could indeed fine us. I guess it's their space, their rules?

[macroban]

Comrade snorky has previously rehearsed the legal status of "fines" and private parking areas.

Perhaps snorky could now explain the legal status of differential contract pricing of (say) charging ?50 to park in a disabled parking space in a private car park without a valid diasbled badege.

[snorky]

not exactlly

I had this with Lidl and got to the bottom of it - its not an offence and they cant "fine" you , even if it appears to look like a fine - its a private matter involving acceptance of implied contract

they could theoretically take to to county court for breaking a contract with them, but punitive penlties are not allowed under civil law- just compensation for loss incurred - and seeing as its a non pay car park, they cant lose anything - they have nevet actually gone to court as far as I know.

anyway, they cant "fine" the legal owner/ registered keeper of the car or take out a summons on the car itself - a car cant make a decision as to where it drives , they have to make a summons on the driver that day and they need to be able to prove on the balance of probability that you implicitly accepted the terms of the contract when you were parking etc - they alos have to be able to prove that the person summonsed to CC was indeed the driver

basically, its a load of ole toss, but if it keeps scum from abusing reserved parking bays, then Im not bothered ( not you of course ! )

[snorky]

macroban Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Comrade snorky has previously rehearsed the legal

> status of "fines" and private parking areas.

>

> Perhaps snorky could now explain the legal status

> of differential contract pricing of (say) charging

> ?50 to park in a disabled parking space in a

> private car park without a valid diasbled badege.

Its not about fines, its about decency and consideration for others

[Moos]

Thank you, Snorky. Blimey. What sheep we all are - if I had been fined I should certainly have paid up meekly (not of course in my particular baby-wielding and righteous instance). That said, I think your 2 required points (the acceptance of contract and the driver of the car) don't sound very hard to prove.

Absolutely agree with you (and Macroban) about d and c for others - of course, parent-and-child spaces are a nice to have (or to look at it differently, the privilege of the preferred customer) but disabled spaces are a different situation. I wish I could now remember how much our putative fine would have been, but I hope less than a parking-in-a-disabled-bay fine.

P.S. Afraid I am quite scummy. But thank you for the vote of confidence.

[snorky]

Under your basic human rights, you dont have to admit anythying to anyone or supply this tyope of information - refuse to accept you were in the car / admit you were driving ( even if you were, you are under no obligation to confirm it to them ) and let them do the running - they cant chase you for a debt unless it gone to court and been found in their favour - and I have yet to hear of one that has gone to court

Sadly, so many people pay the "fines" that its lucrative enough without the hassle of actually going thro' the legal hoops for the odd obstinate non payer like me.

it doesnt excuse using disabled spaces though - private car park or not