Two more overnighting facilities withdrawn. (1 Viewer)

[joncris]

Ok, I asked the Blue badge question and thanks for the answers from both voices.

Just wan't to say firstly to Barryd. No one, not one post, can I see knocking blue badge holders. All I can see is questions about the validity of said badges.

Now just a quick story, On Friday I was in Chester waiting to be picked up by Nikki. A Scottish guy came to me and asked if I was the attendant for the car park as he had a blue badge but no clock with it. He had already been given a ticket in Worcester a day earlier due to not having this clock (I know nothing about the clock system sorry). Any how he was asking if I thought it would be OK parking there as he was disabled. I said Im sure he would be but dont take my word for it. He did, he then with his 3 undisabled friends proceeded to walk in to Chester (quite a walk I might add). Now I thoroughly believe in the Blue Badge system, If you have ever taken some one with mobility problems or breathing problems out then you know what a god send it is.
BUT--
this gentleman was driving a 70k Merc nearly new. Yet he would of rather taken the risk than put £1-20 (which I offered him change for) in a car parking machine whilst touring Chester on a holiday.

I'm sorry Guys, but this is abuse of the system at its worst. :Angry: I have no idea what his illness is and it would be unfair to make a judgement on that. But, is that really what a Blue badge is used for?

In the same sense, is a blue badge to be used to gain FREE parking for holidaying? surely in the same way as all of us, have to, we could budget parking in to our costs of a holiday?

I am as poor as the next man, I would never be critical of those getting a blue badge, but in the same way I am being told I aint getting child bennefit but my neighbour is, Is there not a fairer way of giving out blue badges so that those that are poor get them and others make a contribution? but at the same time keeping parking spaces close to amenities and facilities to help those less able?

!st I don't know which thread you have been reading it can't be this one cos there has been critizisim of blue badge holders And for you to say your not making assumtions about the Mercedes guy is just not correct when you go on to critize him for parking in DB & then walking, walking mind you how dare he, into town. Did he tell you he personally was walking into town. You say you won't judge but you have.

By far the biggest problem with DB's is the none badge holders parking in them & its them you should critize

 

[Diabalo]

It is not the genuine Blue badge holders that's the problem it's the thousands of fruadulent ones that are.

Also the Audit Commission recently found that 16,535 blue badges – which allow drivers to park in designated spaces – were still in operation, even though their registered holders had died.

Need a better system me thinks.

 

[joncris]

Considering how many MH & RV owners are disabled I'm surprised to find so much anti sentiment against us on a site such as this all of it mean-minded & petty thinking. To begruge anyone, unlike them, who has a disability some small benefit smacks of rank jealousy

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[joncris]

It is not the genuine Blue badge holders that's the problem it's the thousands of fruadulent ones that are.

Also the Audit Commission recently found that 16,535 blue badges – which allow drivers to park in designated spaces – were still in operation, even though their registered holders had died.

Need a better system me thinks.

I'm sorry you've got that wrong. They may still be valid but they aren't all in use

When someone dies the last thing the bereaved think of is returning the blue badge they have other things to think about & as badge holders tend to be ill a lot of them die during the validity of the permit. I even expect it to happen to me one day

 

[joncris]

PS badges can last for 3 years

 

[joncris]

"Thousands of fraudulent ones" Does anyone, apart from badge holders, know the procedure for getting a Badge

I doubt it its a long drawn out affair in that you make an application describing your disability on a lenthy form & then they write to your GP & ask them the same questions & if they don't match tough you don't get oneoh:

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Reallyretired]

After some time on our parking fine appeals committee I have noticed the most common fraudulent use of blue badges is relatives/friends of the disabled person borrowing them to get free parking. Although the badge has a photo its not visible when displayed and is usually of appalling quality and could be almost anyone.

I worked with someone who always used her husbands disabled badge to get free or preferential parking, including for work, and seemed to think this was perfectly all right.

Incidentally we had one disabled gent who insisted on paying even though the attendant told him he didn't need to, as he resented the implication that he couldn't afford the parking charge.

In my experience the vast majority of the genuinely disabled park considerately.

 

[joncris]

After some time on our parking fine appeals committee I have noticed the most common fraudulent use of blue badges is relatives/friends of the disabled person borrowing them to get free parking. Although the badge has a photo its not visible when displayed and is usually of appalling quality and could be almost anyone.

I worked with someone who always used her husbands disabled badge to get free or preferential parking, including for work, and seemed to think this was perfectly all right.

Incidentally we had one disabled gent who insisted on paying even though the attendant told him he didn't need to, as he resented the implication that he couldn't afford the parking charge.

In my experience the vast majority of the genuinely disabled park considerately.

Quite when I drive my BH to the shops & intend remaining in the car I always park in a normal bay

 

[buttons]

"Thousands of fraudulent ones" Does anyone, apart from badge holders, know the procedure for getting a Badge

I doubt it its a long drawn out affair in that you make an application describing your disability on a lenthy form & then they write to your GP & ask them the same questions & if they don't match tough you don't get oneoh:

Yes some do!
If you feel you have a genuine disability you sit down with the doctor and agree together that you warrant a disabled badge. You then send off your completed form. The council then ask the doctor to confirm your statements and a badge is issued.How can the details not match?oh:

What is lengthy and long drawn out about that. How can your form be rejected. The doctor will give you a print out describing your disability just transfer this to your application form. How could it be more straightforward..?:Confused:

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[f6c]

:Angry:I have stayed on the car park n several occasion's and loved it.
What a crying shame that a few have spoilt this great facility.
Shame on Them.

 

[joncris]

Yes some do!
If you feel you have a genuine disability you sit down with the doctor and agree together that you warrant a disabled badge. You then send off your completed form. The council then ask the doctor to confirm your statements and a badge is issued.How can the details not match?oh:

What is lengthy and long drawn out about that. How can your form be rejected. The doctor will give you a print out describing your disability just transfer this to your application form. How could it be more straightforward..?:Confused:

Clearly you don't know how the councils work they need more than the doctors word. They also check with the DWP. It is no longer as easy as you claim ask those who have been rejected

Also my doctor was never consulted by me why should I, I know whats wrong with me

 

[joncris]

:Angry:I have stayed on the car park n several occasion's and loved it.
What a crying shame that a few have spoilt this great facility.
Shame on Them.

But have they! Your assuming the reasons given by the council are geniune if they knew it was being abused why not just fine or move on the abusers. After a few 'hits' it would soon stop

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[GJH]

But have they! Your assuming the reasons given by the council are geniune if they knew it was being abused why not just fine or move on the abusers. After a few 'hits' it would soon stop

Why assume the reasons given by the council[HI]s[/HI] - there are two mentioned in the OP - are [HI]anything but[/HI] genuine? There is no reason whatsoever to suspect that it should be otherwise.

This whole discussion about blue badges is a smoke screen. It matters nothing whether the people concerned have paid for the parking or not.

We have two situations here - both in areas where there are plenty of sites (club, commercial and CL/CS) where a bending of the rules by councils in favour of motorhome owners has been abused by a few people. They have spoiled it for everyone else.

 

[joncris]

Why assume the reasons given by the council[HI]s[/HI] - there are two mentioned in the OP - are [HI]anything but[/HI] genuine? There is no reason whatsoever to suspect that it should be otherwise.

This whole discussion about blue badges is a smoke screen. It matters nothing whether the people concerned have paid for the parking or not.

We have two situations here - both in areas where there are plenty of sites (club, commercial and CL/CS) where a bending of the rules by councils in favour of motorhome owners has been abused by a few people. They have spoiled it for everyone else.

You may be correct but why throw the baby out with the bath-water If it was problem & they must have known why not just police it for a while it would soon have stopped & the 'genuine' users would not have been affected

 

[ShiftZZ]

You may be correct but why throw the baby out with the bath-water If it was problem & they must have known why not just police it for a while it would soon have stopped & the 'genuine' users would not have been affected

Thats easy to answer COST.
Why should they spend more of their council tax to police something thast was and may well be abused in the future.

Remember the car parks need maintaining etc and if its not generating any revenue then the council will have to get the funds from somewhere. If 80% are not paying then why should the council spend more policing it?

As the original posting suggests, a small number have abused the system and thats the bottom line. The greed of some has destroyed it for the majority, I just hope they are pleased with themselves.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[joncris]

Cost What cost

An occasional purge ain't going to cost anything not when its clear they have been watching the CP anyway otherwise how do the know its being abused or how often

 

[wasp]

I am amazed they didn`t have cameras on it like they do everywhere else to spy on the the parking cheaters:Angry::Angry::Angry:

 

[GJH]

Cost What cost

An occasional purge ain't going to cost anything not when its clear they have been watching the CP anyway otherwise how do the know its being abused or how often

The cost of employing people outside normal hours. Remember, the restriction is between 4am and 5am. The sheer fact that people have been staying for several days means it can be observed during the daytime.

And why should councils have to have purges anyway? It isn't as if it is them to blame. If the police have a purge on drug dealers we don't blame the police for the focus of their purge do we?

Bottom line is that these removals of tolerance are the fault of a few people committing abuse.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[ShiftZZ]

Dear me... You have got a bee in your bonnet.
“occasional purge” , people have to be deployed, enforcement, campers will turn up at 9:00PM and stay over, complaints to the council, staff having to turn up early in the morning to move them on, supervision, rotas, risk assessment, legal implications etc..
Ok, so the council staffs turn up and say, "You can’t park here overnight move on" so what if they don’t or refuse? Do they call the police? I suspect the old bill would say, it’s a civil matter. So they send the Camper a fixed penalty notice, that gets ignored, it goes to court , it gets appealed, more cost, council gets fed up puts up a barrier.
All of the above COSTS, the local taxpayers are up in arms, why should they have to pay to subsidise the overnight campsite. Message spreads, all sites now closed, they cant risk the legal issues/complaints.
Local Campsite owners, who pay business rates, complain as its taking business away from them. If the 24 had paid for a commercial site for the several days they were camped up that would have been a bonus for the local campsite owners. Let’s say 24 X 7 X £15 = £2,520, that would have gone local, but oh no, a group decided they would do it on the cheap/free and exploit something, so the council/locals get really pi$$ed off and now we have all lost it.
I bet you would be less than happy to have some camper pour his/her toilet into your local stream/river.
I suspect you would be the 1st to complain if you wanted to use the public convenience only to find the remnants of someone bog spilt all over the floor/pan/walls.
The bottom line is this, a small number have abused it, we have now lost it and I suspect this will now be the thin end of the wedge. Councils will reduce the number of sites or put up barriers, or remove free parking for Blue Badge Holders.
Can I blame them?
Actually NO.

 

[robinmclaren]

you do have to wonder how these minority of people treat their own homes when they abuse everything around them, any one who has stayed at disney knows the coach toilets and showers are accepted to be used by motorhomes but seeing the state some people leave them in i am sure this superb spot will be withdrawn soon and everyone will scream and shout, 2 vans last year plugged extension leads into the coach socket and ran extension leads to vans for over a week , this is blatant taking the p....s .

 

[haganap]

!st I don't know which thread you have been reading it can't be this one cos there has been critizisim of blue badge holders And for you to say your not making assumtions about the Mercedes guy is just not correct when you go on to critize him for parking in DB & then walking, walking mind you how dare he, into town. Did he tell you he personally was walking into town. You say you won't judge but you have.

By far the biggest problem with DB's is the none badge holders parking in them & its them you should critize

Actually whilst your on your horse,,, he did.

so with a 60+ thousand pound Merc, legs good enough to take him on a 1/2 mile walk ON THIS OCCASION as I don't know he might be in agony tomorrow and thats why he has a badge, he would rather take the chance than pay a £1 parking charge?

sadly, I think its you that is missing the point, no one, is having a go at you personally, the whole blue badge and disabled parking thing is much of a scam, many getting them when they dont need them, many getting them by fraud, borrowing their Mum & Dads, and then to top it off, ignorant people parking in disabled bays in order to get closer to the shops and no doubt getting very fat with it.
However, what I fail to understand is why on this site people would not or did not make a contribution regardless of if they had a blue badge or not to show support for a overnight stop over which I have used on several occasions AND PAID for it. :thumb:

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[SpongeBobsDad]

Watching this thread with interest it, seems to me that there is no reason to make all council owned car parks free for blue badge holders. Yes provide wider bays etc for disabled but just because you are DISABLED does not make you UNABLED to pay for a service like evreyone else.If this was applied everyone would be treat the same there would be no bias or anamosity towards blue badge holders. the only concesion would be on street parking witch is dealt with by wardens. I am disabled myself and hold a blue badge and yes i have parked on car parks for free if it states so but i also have payed to park when their is no concesions for disabled.I reiterate if all car parks removed the concesions and everybody payed it would be much fairer for all.

 

[joncris]

Watching this thread with interest it, seems to me that there is no reason to make all council owned car parks free for blue badge holders. Yes provide wider bays etc for disabled but just because you are DISABLED does not make you UNABLED to pay for a service like evreyone else.If this was applied everyone would be treat the same there would be no bias or anamosity towards blue badge holders. the only concesion would be on street parking witch is dealt with by wardens. I am disabled myself and hold a blue badge and yes i have parked on car parks for free if it states so but i also have payed to park when their is no concesions for disabled.I reiterate if all car parks removed the concesions and everybody payed it would be much fairer for all.

Clearly like many able bodied your missing the point Many disabled have no choice but to use personal transport whereas you do AND your ignoring that free parking is only avalable to a very few & that depends on the local council some of who make no concession whatsoever when it comes to charging

 

[bungy]

because you are DISABLED does not make you UNABLED to pay for a service like evreyone else.If this was applied everyone would be treat the same there would be no bias or anamosity towards blue badge holders. the only concesion would be on street parking witch is dealt with by wardens.

and in my humble opinion - here in lies the root of the issue with animosity towards BB in general. The BB scheme is about, or at least should be, mobility challenges. So providing BB parking areas etc is absolutely right - I doubt whether any 'able' bodied person would trade places with someone who is genuinely 'differently abled' and really wouldn't begrudge them parking arrangements to make life that bit easier and i dont think anyone on this thread has said anything to contrary

But distinguishing financially between a BB holder and a none holder is wrong (in my view!) because by definition the free parking for BB creates a perception that holders are 'low' income, and i appreciate many are, but many aren't - and I belive that is what is being questioned in this thread - and it is a fair question.

How do you distinguish between the those that are and those that aren't, then how do you differentiate between this 'group' and none disabled but on limited means - without discriminating.

A lot has been done over the last decade or so to provide amenities and facilities for the disabled to ensure they are not discriminated against, but when those facilities and amenities effectively discriminate against the none disabled, such as the free parking that is in the spotlight here - then that has a negative impact on the positive work that has been done and perceptions have/will/do change

and before i get lambasted for knocking the disabled - i am registered disabled. I have been since my mid 20's, various ailments like many on here by the look of it, no idea if i qualify for a BB or not - not even looked to be honest and the main reason is that i feel that i am able to get by without one and count myself fortunate that i can - for now at least

But anyway - back to the main purpose of this thread - abuse of lax rules - bad for everyone, local communitie loose some potential revenue (major 'sell'' point of the Aires system is it not?), creates a bad 'rap' for the MH community - knock on effect impacts the good work being done to convince councils etc to provide facilities for MH which results in less available etc etc

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[SpongeBobsDad]

As i say disabled does not mean unabled, yes i like you rely on my own transport and we take advantage of on street parking concesions offerd to disabled, you can park usualy where none disabled can not. But when it comes down to local authorities pay and display car parks why should we park for free.I don`t mind paying, it certanly stops all this grumbling by none blue badge holders .i am sorry that you think i am missing the point as you say but what valid point is there to differ between the disabled and none disabled when it comes down to paying to park your car or not on a council owned carpark; after all we can park on street free for up to 3 hrs on double yellow lines if you need to .I have allways been under the impression that the idea of the blue badge scheme was to help the disabled person or persons be mobile, and to get as near to there destination as possible in thier own transport and to be able to park. thats certainly the way i use it.:thumb:

 

[joncris]

and in my humble opinion - here in lies the root of the issue with animosity towards BB in general. The BB scheme is about, or at least should be, mobility challenges. So providing BB parking areas etc is absolutely right - I doubt whether any 'able' bodied person would trade places with someone who is genuinely 'differently abled' and really wouldn't begrudge them parking arrangements to make life that bit easier and i dont think anyone on this thread has said anything to contrary

But distinguishing financially between a BB holder and a none holder is wrong (in my view!) because by definition the free parking for BB creates a perception that holders are 'low' income, and i appreciate many are, but many aren't - and I belive that is what is being questioned in this thread - and it is a fair question.

How do you distinguish between the those that are and those that aren't, then how do you differentiate between this 'group' and none disabled but on limited means - without discriminating.

A lot has been done over the last decade or so to provide amenities and facilities for the disabled to ensure they are not discriminated against, but when those facilities and amenities effectively discriminate against the none disabled, such as the free parking that is in the spotlight here - then that has a negative impact on the positive work that has been done and perceptions have/will/do change

and before i get lambasted for knocking the disabled - i am registered disabled. I have been since my mid 20's, various ailments like many on here by the look of it, no idea if i qualify for a BB or not - not even looked to be honest and the main reason is that i feel that i am able to get by without one and count myself fortunate that i can - for now at least

But anyway - back to the main purpose of this thread - abuse of lax rules - bad for everyone, local communitie loose some potential revenue (major 'sell'' point of the Aires system is it not?), creates a bad 'rap' for the MH community - knock on effect impacts the good work being done to convince councils etc to provide facilities for MH which results in less available etc etc

OMG How many times does this need said before some people grasp it ohisabled parking is very seldom free we usually pay like anyone else. Also the DB is not means tested its given because we are CRIPPLES & NEED our transport whereas YOU DONT

 

[ShiftZZ]

our transport whereas YOU DONT

I dont need transport , why?

Do you not use any other form of transport? Trains, Buses, Cars, Flights, Boats?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[joncris]

I dont need transport , why?

Do you not use any other form of transport? Trains, Buses, Cars, Flights, Boats?

No I can't use a train or a bus or fly I can only use my car OR my RV & probably a ferry & I can't see the local council being happy were I to park a ferry in their CP

 

[joncris]

To those who think much has been done to facilitate the disabled I suggest YOU use a wheelchair for a day & see just what has been achieved:thumb:

 

[joncris]

I dont need transport , why?

Do you not use any other form of transport? Trains, Buses, Cars, Flights, Boats?

Because you don't actually need it If your vehicle broke down tomorow would you be housebound no probably not whereas a disabled person without transport probably will be particularly if they have no one they can rely on

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}