Only for misuse of a blue badge, but it could still be a conviction under the Fraud Act.
A couple of days ago I saw a middle-aged couple park a newish BMW in a disabled space, display their badge, and walk normally down a path until I lost sight of them.
I'm no expert on badges, but have been assessed for one.
The determining factor appeared to be my inability to walk more than a few metres, so it seemed to me the BMW couple would not be likely to qualify.
Strapping granny in the back to enable the user to nip to the bank is one thing, but this was taking the mick.
I took a note of the badge number and emailed the issuing authority, inviting them to look into the use of the badge.
I didn't expect a response, let alone the result of the inquiry.
But an email landed this afternoon telling me the use looked fraudulent, not least because the registered badge holder is dead.
The matter, I was told, is now in the hands of the council's enforcement team and the police.
Hardly crime of the century, but some local authorities like to prosecute as an example to others.
So I might be responsible for an otherwise law-abiding couple getting a criminal record.
Good enough for them - their choice to misuse the badge.
|
|
Well done iffy. They shouldn't have been using it should they. They should have returned the badge when the person died.
|
>> They should have returned the badge when the person died.
They can't have had a very high opinion of the deceased.
|
|
I am pleased, but surprised, that you were given that much information - Data Protection and all that.
|
You're right Meldrew - with Data Protection excuses we don't often get told much.
I tried to stop some items bought with stolen credit card details last year. Sainsbury wouldn't talk to me because of Data Protection - and yet it was my card that was compromised. So they shipped the item (a TV).
|
They can't have had a very high opinion of the deceased.
Maybe they thought "It's what she would have wanted"
Good job though iffy.
|
...Maybe they thought "It's what she would have wanted"...
Like it - perhaps you should come out of retirement to defend them.
|
|
You could say you "disabled" thier parking! ;-)
|
Nice one Iffy.
Data Protection only applies to a 'living person'.
Doubt whether they will get much more than a request to hand it back. Any sort of fraud claim would have to be backed by evidence of payment avoidance. Bigger fish to fry I'm afraid. :-(. Would teach them a lesson and send out a message. But that's joined up thinking.
|
...Any sort of fraud claim would have to be backed by evidence of payment avoidance...
Money is not the issue, prosecutions can either be made under the Fraud Act or one of the road traffic acts.
Manchester City Council made headlines by prosecuting - and helping to publicise - lots of misusers a while ago.
We had a thread about it.
www.manchester.gov.uk/info/274/disabled_people-parking_bays/3642/blue_badge_enforcement_gallery/1
|
>> ...Any sort of fraud claim would have to be backed by evidence of payment avoidance...
>>
>> Money is not the issue, prosecutions can either be made under the Fraud Act or
>> one of the road traffic acts.
Money might be the issue, they may have bought it
|
Well done - I often get irritated by things like that - perhaps acting on them might make me feel better about them!.
Not sure there were any data protection issues - they just told you what you suspected (that the use was dubious) and that someone was deceased (who they didn't name)
|
...Not sure there were any data protection issues - they just told you what you suspected (that the use was dubious) and that someone was deceased (who they didn't name)...
Quite right, there aren't any data protection issues.
Although that wouldn't stop many public employees claiming there were, so fair play to this council for being grown-up about it.
And if they do prosecute, the whole lot - names, ages, addresses (mine included, if I'm called to give evidence) - will be in public.
|
>> Well done - I often get irritated by things like that -
+1
|
|
One down and ?,000 to go.
|
>> One down and ?,000 to go.
>>
More like ???,000 to go. :-)
|
...More like ???,000 to go. :-)...
Tend to agree, although I found the application process quite rigorous.
The renewal after one year was much less so, which leads me to think most badges are correctly issued, but there's little in place to check subsequent changes of circumstance.
Another common misuse is family members using badges in the absence of the badge holder.
|
As a valid blue badge holder, I salute you.
My badge though is valid for 3 years - thought that was standard
|
Here here!
I also think the authorities should be allowed to prosecute for parking wrongly in disabled places in private (supermarket etc) car parks.
|
ooh yes!
The disabled spaces in my local Sainsburys car park are usually full of able bodied people using the cash machines.
Last edited by: Slidingpillar on Tue 10 Jan 12 at 22:29
|
Like Sliding P, I have a blue permit and it's valid for 3 years. I've just renewed it and the letter said I must return the expired badge, which I have done.
Well done, Rob. But there is another aspect to what you saw. I use my badge a lot, that's what it's for, but you could easily think I was not entitled if you saw me park and walk away.....particularly downhill or on the level. Getting back to the car may be, and often is, a different matter. Any upwards slope or steps brings on an angina attack and I have to stop and use my GTN spray, waiting 'til I'm feeling better.
Supermarket parking is a joke. I've seen an able bodied young man park in a blue space, run to the staff entry door and key in his code...no badge. I told the manager, don't know what happened. Younger drivers seem to be the worst offenders, men and women. At my local Asda, a highish crime area, the police use the spaces when picking shoplifters up or keeping an eye on cash deliveries.
It is a very warm feeling, though, to see a City Parking Services truck craning on the , usually black, sporty Audi, BMW or Benz.......does the heart good.
Ted
|
I've always been totally sympathetic to the genuine Blue Badge holders, mainly on the grounds that there but for the grace of God etc.
I do however tend to become irritated with those who regard it as a right to park where they shouldn't ( usually in the middle of a loading bay, or on junctions which block my lorry and by definition stop the whole flow of traffic in the town) and then take it as an insult when a polite request to move is offered. The traffic wardens or and parking attendants, are inevitably reluctant to get involved for fear of being seen to discriminate against someone who "appears" to be disabled. I say "appears" because on one occasion, I had the "disabled" driver" get out of his car and physically threaten me; fortunately a passing policeman intervened and the matter was sorted out in my favour.
Well done Iffy, you get my vote!
|
Here's a clever one that a mate told me some time ago. He used to live on Merseyside and one of his friends there was a police officer, who had received some sort of award for crime clearup.
The secret to his success was that he'd go round the local supermarkets and check the cars parked in the disabled and "mother and child" bays. Any that didn't look like they had the right to be there, he'd run an owner check on and then cross-check the resulting name (assuming the first check didn't come up trumps as stolen) to the PNC.
Apparently the sort of person who does this sort of thing very often turns out to be a crook and wanted for something else. Hence his impressive clearup rates......
|
>>
>> Another common misuse is family members using badges in the absence of the badge holder.
>>
>>
>>
Yes; if caught, the statutory penalty should be forfeiture of the badge. Harsh, maybe, but enough to make the considerable number of people who do play this trick think twice.
|
Well done.
I had a genuine Orange badge many years ago and it was frustrating finding all the spaces occupied by apparently able-bodied people.
It might not actually come under data-protection, but surely expressing an opinion in writing about the likely commission of fraud by a specific identifiable person is questionable?
|
...but surely expressing an opinion in writing about the likely commission of fraud by a specific identifiable person is questionable?...
I've no idea how.
|
10 years ago, raining cats and dogs a VW GTi arrives at disabled parking bay - young couple get out - he sprints off in 1 direction, she in the other.
Doorman @ our office says they park there everyday 9am till 5.30 ish..........he wrote to the authority - letter back saying it is a valid blue badge............valid badge YES but the users could have applied for the Olympics after witnessing the sprint.
Let's hope the current clampdown works.
|
A couple of posters have mentioned disabled spaces in supermarket car parks.
Before complaining about misuse of those spaces, it's worth bearing in mind the blue badge scheme doesn't apply in a private car park.
The misuser is being inconsiderate in those circumstances, but I doubt any offence is committed.
Enforcement by the landowner is in the same realm as the scam tickets issued to those who stay for longer than the signs say.
|
>
>> I've no idea how.
If you send an email to someone saying that someone else has committed fraud, isn't that potentially libelous?
|
|
Not if you believe it to be true and your intentions are not malicious
|
...If you send an email to someone saying that someone else has committed fraud, isn't that potentially libelous?...
I couldn't libel this couple even if I wanted to - I don't know who they are.
It is possible to libel someone without naming them, but 'a couple in a BMW' doesn't come close.
And the statement I made to the council, even if I had included the names, was not libellous in any event.
|
>> Yes; if caught, the statutory penalty should be forfeiture of the badge. Harsh, maybe, but
>> enough to make the considerable number of people who do play this trick think twice.
Such a penalty should be available where the badge holder procures or connives in the offence. Quite wrong however for it to be automatic (which I presume is what you mean by statutory).
My MoL cannot walk any distance but her Alzheimers means she could not possibly be complicit in any misuse (not that she has a badge - leaving the care home is to distressing). Neither would withdrawal be appropriate in cases of family abuse.
|
>>
>> Such a penalty should be available where the badge holder procures or connives in the
>> offence. Quite wrong however for it to be automatic (which I presume is what you
>> mean by statutory).
>>
Sorry Bromps, I disagree. In many of the cases of this nature, people like your M-I-L are the actual names on the blue badge, even though they don't use them and would probably be horrified if they knew the privelege was being so blatantly abused. It is their offspring or carers who are profiting by the abuse, so by withdrawing the privelege it is in fact they who are hit as they'll have to pay to park thereafter, and perhaps walk a bit further. Just as effective as a fine.
Last edited by: Harleyman on Wed 11 Jan 12 at 21:02
|
I've got someone nicked - rtj70
