PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Advisory Disabled Bays
Silas M
post Mon, 8 Jul 2019 - 12:08
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 8 Jul 2019
Member No.: 104,651



My sister-in-law is disabled and applied to Sheffield for an advisory disabled parking bay. Click to access relevant website info.

Her application was rejected. I offered to look into it.

From my research it appears that no council should be offering to place advisory disabled parking bays. This is because the General Directions pertaining to Schedule 7 prohibit placing road markings that include a “word or phrase” unless given the force of law. Click and scroll to bottom. Typically this would be a TRO.

My research also leads me to believe that Sheffield has no power to charge a £100 assessment fee or a £120 road marking fee in relation to advisory disabled parking bays. This is because neither the RTRA 1984 nor The Local Authorities (Transport Charges) Regulations 1998 provide any authority for them to do so. Obviously they would not, if the law prohibits the placing of advisory disabled bays in the first place!

There is no need for Sheffield to act as they are doing because they can provide disabled bays for specific users. All they have to do is include the disabled bay in a TRO and add a unique alphanumeric identifier to the road marking. It seems that they cannot charge for doing this though.

Assuming my research is correct, I want to take this up with Sheffield as they should act within the law and not charge without authority, but I do not want to ruin anything for the disabled.

What do members suggest as the best course of action?

Silas.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Mon, 8 Jul 2019 - 12:08
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 8 Jul 2019 - 13:05
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,907
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Well in the first instance you could tell us why they rejected the application. Or even better, post a redacted copy of the decision letter, just remove personal details.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Mon, 8 Jul 2019 - 13:25
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,667
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Not sure what your aim is - is it to stop putting in advisory bays (which are unenforceable) or stop them being charged for?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Silas M
post Mon, 8 Jul 2019 - 13:42
Post #4


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 8 Jul 2019
Member No.: 104,651



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 8 Jul 2019 - 14:05) *
Well in the first instance you could tell us why they rejected the application. Or even better, post a redacted copy of the decision letter, just remove personal details.


The letter is just a generic rejection letter about 2 sentences long saying her application has been unsucessful. I do not have a copy. They kept the £100 assessment fee.

She telephoned and was told that as her garden has a hardstanding she does not require an advisory disabled bay. She wanted one because the hardstanding is on a steep slope and her disability makes it impossible for her to use it safely. She always parks on street but cannot always park within the street due to the volume of cars. She is disappointed but accepts being unsuccessful.

After looking into it, it seems wrong to me that:

1) Sheffield offer an advisory disabled bay service when the law appears to explicitly prohibit the placing of disabled advisory bays.
2) Sheffield charge a considerable sum (£220 total) for something they appear to have no legal power to do or charge for.

I was wondering on the best way to tackle Sheffield about this. The law enables Sheffield to provide enforceable disabled bays through a TRO (and they can designate these to specific blue badge holders) but as far as i can see they cannot charge the public for their provision.

If I go steaming in, Sheffield may not offer any disabled bays if they cannot charge for them and if I say nothing, Sheffield can continue acting outside of the law and pocketing money from disabled people.

Just wondering what the consensus is on the best thing to do.

This post has been edited by Silas M: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 - 16:34
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 8 Jul 2019 - 13:48
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,907
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Does the letter give no option to challenge the decision? If that is the case, the council's standard complaints procedure would be the way to go.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
phantomcrusader
post Wed, 10 Jul 2019 - 15:11
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 113
Joined: 27 Sep 2008
Member No.: 22,840



QUOTE (Silas M @ Mon, 8 Jul 2019 - 14:42) *
After looking into it, it seems wrong to me that:

1) Sheffield offer an advisory disabled bay service when the law appears to explicitly prohibit the placing of disabled advisory bays.
2) Sheffield charge a considerable sum (£220 total) for something they appear to have no legal power to do or charge for.


It is wrong. Leicester City Council has stopped offering them because of it. https://www.leicester.gov.uk/transport-and-...arking-at-home/

This post has been edited by phantomcrusader: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 - 15:12
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Silas M
post Fri, 26 Jul 2019 - 03:44
Post #7


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 8 Jul 2019
Member No.: 104,651



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 8 Jul 2019 - 14:48) *
Does the letter give no option to challenge the decision? If that is the case, the council's standard complaints procedure would be the way to go.


Not that I know of. Sister-in-law has enough to cope with just getting by each day with her disability and does not like to rock the boat. I'm peeved on her behalf and think she should at least get her £100 fee back. It's not right to charge for an advisory (or even a regulatory) disabled bay when it's unlawful to do so .

I'm also thinking of all those other disabled people nationally that are getting ripped off. Someone contacted me and told me about a council that charges £529.00 (click here).

I've never heard of that council. My guess is that lots of councils must be raking it in off disabled people, without any accountability. Any suggestions on a letter of complaint?

This post has been edited by Silas M: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 - 04:14
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Charlie1010
post Fri, 26 Jul 2019 - 05:32
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 253
Joined: 8 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,324



https://www.torbay.gov.uk/roads/parking/dis...ed-parking-bay/

That seems like a waste of time and money if anyone can park in it.

‘They are not limited to a specific person’s use (i.e. you as the applicant) and therefore can be used by other road users. The bay is advisory only and does not have the backing of a legally enforceable Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) therefore if other vehicles park in the bay, with or without displaying a blue badge, no enforcement action can be taken by us or the Police.’

When parking in the disabled bay, you must display your Blue Badge at all times.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Fri, 26 Jul 2019 - 06:04
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 42,826
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Lots of councils use them, there was a local resident with one who would get very voluble with anyone parking in it, even those with blue badges.......
Like white lines across driveways, they provide a deterrent to those who don’t know the law!

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 - 06:05


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 26 Jul 2019 - 08:20
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,093
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Section 93 here

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/26/section/93

is the likely basis on which the council may and do make the charge


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Silas M
post Fri, 26 Jul 2019 - 11:41
Post #11


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 8 Jul 2019
Member No.: 104,651



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Fri, 26 Jul 2019 - 09:20) *
Section 93 here

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/26/section/93

is the likely basis on which the council may and do make the charge


It can't be. If the law explicitly forbids something, it stands to reason that the law does not make provision for a charge.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 26 Jul 2019 - 11:50
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,093
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Silas M @ Fri, 26 Jul 2019 - 12:41) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Fri, 26 Jul 2019 - 09:20) *
Section 93 here

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/26/section/93

is the likely basis on which the council may and do make the charge


It can't be. If the law explicitly forbids something, it stands to reason that the law does not make provision for a charge.


are you referring to this ?

QUOTE
3. The road marking provided for at item 9 of the sign table in Part 4 must not be placed except in combination with a relevant upright sign within the meaning of paragraph 1 of Part 6.


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Silas M
post Fri, 26 Jul 2019 - 12:31
Post #13


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 8 Jul 2019
Member No.: 104,651



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Fri, 26 Jul 2019 - 12:50) *
are you referring to this ?

QUOTE
3. The road marking provided for at item 9 of the sign table in Part 4 must not be placed except in combination with a relevant upright sign within the meaning of paragraph 1 of Part 6.



No, this

QUOTE
PART 7
The Schedule 7 General Directions

1.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2), the signs provided for in this Schedule must only be placed to indicate the effect of an Act, order, regulation, bylaw, resolution or notice which prohibits or restricts the use of the road by traffic.

(2) Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply to the road markings provided for at the following items in the sign table in Part 4—

(a)6, but only where the marking—

(i)does not include a word or phrase; and

(ii)is not in a controlled parking zone


The bay marking is item 6 in the sign table. If the marking does not include a word or phrase, no TRO is necessary but by including the word "Disabled" a TRO is necessary.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
roythebus
post Mon, 29 Jul 2019 - 11:26
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,440
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
From: Near Calais
Member No.: 9,683



Surely any charge made for disabled facilities such as this are contrary to whatever the latest disability laws are? i.e. you can't charge a disabled person more than you can charge an able-bodied person for the same facility.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Mon, 29 Jul 2019 - 13:08
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 42,826
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



How are they charging a disabled person more? Anyone can apply for one and has to pay the same £100.

Noting the 'advisory' bays are usually given to those who don't actually qualify for a real one (but get close enough to qualify for an advisory one) as a way to shut them up from keep whinging to the council about people parking 'in my space'. I guess the application fee is non refundable to prevent abuse of the system with spurious requests.

QUOTE (Silas M @ Fri, 26 Jul 2019 - 13:31) *
. If the marking does not include a word or phrase, no TRO is necessary but by including the word "Disabled" a TRO is necessary.

Doesn't stop Warwickshire, despite a formal complaint and taking it to the LGO (who wouldn't consider my complaint as they said I wasn't directly affected).

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 - 13:09


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Charlie1010
post Wed, 31 Jul 2019 - 06:38
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 253
Joined: 8 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,324



Still weird.
Not a disabled bay but a parking bay that anyone can park in with or without a badge but the person who paid and applied for it has to display a badge.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 31 Jul 2019 - 06:52
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 42,826
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Charlie1010 @ Wed, 31 Jul 2019 - 07:38) *
but the person who paid and applied for it has to display a badge.

Why do they?


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Silas M
post Wed, 7 Aug 2019 - 17:01
Post #18


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 8 Jul 2019
Member No.: 104,651



I think I may send this and see what they have to say. My main concern is the charging that goes on without any authority.

QUOTE
To Sheffield

I observe from your website that the council actively engages in the placing of disabled parking bays that lack the force of law. Your website calls these bays, “advisory” disabled bays.

I bring to your attention that the law explicitly prohibits the placing of a bay marked “Disabled” unless it is placed to give effect to a decree. In the case of a parking bay marking, the decree is in the form of a traffic regulation order made under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

The current prohibiting law is Schedule 7 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. I guide you to paragraph 1 under part 7. Previous to this, it was prohibited by the TSRGD 2002 under directions 7 and 25.

My complaint is three fold.

1. The council has acted unlawfully by placing marked disabled bays that do not indicate the effect of a traffic regulation order and thereby lack the force of law.

2. By failing to introduce these disabled bays via a traffic regulation order, the council has denied the general public and other consultees, access to a proper and formal consultation that accords with the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996.

3. The council’s £100 assessment charge and £120 road marking charge for placing an “advisory” disabled bay is unlawful as there is no statutory authority permitting the Council to make such charges.

Where there is a need to provide disabled bays, this must be done lawfully through a traffic regulation order made under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and by following the order making process set out in the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996.

I trust the council will confirm the immediate cessation of placing any further unlawful “advisory” disabled bays.

For those bays already placed, I trust the council will confirm your intention to immediately commence action to ensure all “advisory” disabled bays gain the force of law by means of a traffic regulation order.

I also trust the council will confirm your intention to refund all those who have been unlawfully charged. It’s common sense, the law does not allow you to charge for an action the law says you must not do.

I look forward to your reply.


This post has been edited by Silas M: Thu, 8 Aug 2019 - 04:54
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Silas M
post Mon, 26 Aug 2019 - 08:59
Post #19


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 8 Jul 2019
Member No.: 104,651



As there has been no recommended edits, I assume it's good to go?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
phantomcrusader
post Fri, 6 Sep 2019 - 12:17
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 113
Joined: 27 Sep 2008
Member No.: 22,840



QUOTE (Silas M @ Mon, 26 Aug 2019 - 09:59) *
As there has been no recommended edits, I assume it's good to go?


Looks good to go to me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Tuesday, 22nd October 2019 - 22:53
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.