SLDC faces £55,000 court case payout to disabled people after 'admin error'

4:22pm Tuesday 15th January 2013 in News Photograph of the Author By Ellis Butcher, Reporter

SLDC chief executive Lawrence Conway SLDC chief executive Lawrence Conway

SOUTH Lakeland District Council is to pay out £55,000 from the public purse following an 'administrative error'.

Four disabled people took the council to court after SLDC scrapped free parking for the disabled and introduced charges at council-run car parks from April 2011.

The claimants argued that the policy change did not recognise that it takes disabled people longer to get around on their errands, so they were effectively having to pay to park longer as a result.

SLDC's ruling Liberal Democrat Cabinet decided to settle the court action after taking legal advice.

As part of the agreement, there was no admission of liability or that the decision was unlawful, although the authority told the Gazette it was regarded as an 'administrative error,' the cause of which is now subject to an internal investigation.

The authority added that it was concerned that costs could rise if the case went to trial.

An SLDC statement said: "The authority decided to settle after finding its Cabinet had not been supplied with the full details on which to base its decision to introduce the charges.

"Cabinet first looked at the possibility of introducing district-wide charges for disabled car parking in January 2010.

"Cabinet at the time asked for a full consultation to be conducted and for the decision to be informed by a full Equality Assessment Impact (EIA).

"The consultation did not take place and Cabinet was not shown a completed EIA."

Lawrence Conway, SLDC chief executive, said: “SLDC agreed to settle this case rather than fight it in court due to the amount of costs that could potentially be awarded if the authority was to lose.

Related links

"SLDC will be investigating fully why the information required by its Cabinet was not supplied, and will take appropriate action if required.

"This is a case that has a long history.

"Since these administration errors occurred, SLDC has undergone a corporate restructure and implemented changes which ensure Cabinet and council are given all relevant information needed to make sound and informed decisions, particularly in respect of equality issues.”

He added: "The council takes its responsibility towards equality and disability seriously and has ensured that everything can be done to give those with disabilities the facilities and extended parking time needed to shop, visit and work in towns and villages throughout the district."

SLDC adjusted its parking charges in April 2012 to allow disabled car park users an additional free hour on top of any paid stay.

Councillor Ben Berry, a Conservative opposition councillor on SLDC, said: "I am flabbergasted that this policy was recommended in the face of all the evidence.

"That showed the council would be challenged by disabled groups and that similar cases across the country had been lost by public authorities.

"What I, and residents across the South Lakes, are now wondering is why do we spend hundreds of thousands of pounds every year on directors, internal and external legal teams, to bring forward recommendations, if they cannot bring forward advice that will not put vulnerable people at risk and cost taxpayers money in legal challenges?

"It is not good enough to simply say 'we are sorry and we won't do it again."

Helen Dolphin, of Disabled Motorists UK, a national disabled charity, said it went public with its concerns about the parking charges in January 2011 - three months before they were brought in.

Ms Dolphin said: "It could have saved them a lot of money if they had only listened at the time.

"The council had always said that bringing in charges for the disabled was about equality; that we should all pay the same for parking.

“But the Equality Act recognises that not everything is the same for disabled people.

"It’s a pity for disabled people that they have had to pay these charges, and it’s a pity for other people that the council is now going to have to spend more money on this."

 

Comments(139)

nickjohn says...
5:09pm Tue 15 Jan 13

Once again in their haste to raise even further money they fall flat on their face and happily give over tens of thousand of pounds to sort out their mess.

Until councillors have some form of personal responsibility for the money they spend they will continue to waste our money regardless of the outcome.

Report this post »

SandyScoot says...
5:54pm Tue 15 Jan 13

I am one of the four who took the legal action against S.L.D.C.. I can assure your readers that compensation was never a thought when I contacted a solicitor, Martin Harvey at Wake Smith in Sheffield,recomendat
ed by Disabled Motorists UK, regarding Disability Discrimination over the parking charges.

This was down to the principal of the councils actions, that no one was listening to local disabled people, that it does take longer for us to carry out our daily activities, thus disabled people having to pay more for parking than the Abled Bodied. All the evidence before us indicated that no proper Equality Impact Assessment had taken place but yet again no one listened.

I just hope that S.L.D.C. listen to the issues that disabled people face day to day in the future and carry out the correct proceedures before implementing any type of policy in the future. Let the parking issue be a lesson for them.

Report this post »

magical trevor says...
6:09pm Tue 15 Jan 13

As an able bodied person, who drives into Kendal and pays to park...I feel that there is a lack of equality whereby one portion of society is able to park for free....not only in car parks, but on double yellow lines causing obstruction and danger with no regard for other road users. EVERYONE should have to pay for parking....there really is no excuse.

Report this post »

magical trevor says...
6:11pm Tue 15 Jan 13

....oh...and if you were not taking SLDC to court for any sort of compensation....does that mean that you will be waiving your portion of the payout or passing it onto a charity? Probably not.

Report this post »

wezzyk says...
6:34pm Tue 15 Jan 13

If disabled drivers are paying to park why are there still loads of disabled badge cars parked in random places everywhere and getting away with it?

Also if compensation was not the intention, as above, accept the gesture and refuse the money i cant wait to see the photo on front page of the Gazette shaking hands with Councillors saying thanks for the admittance of guilt but you don't want the money. Go on, go on, go on, do it.

Report this post »

magical trevor says...
6:37pm Tue 15 Jan 13

Wezzyk....it isn't going to happen. It comes across as a cynical attempt by those who took SLDC to task, to raise their profile and make some money out of the council. There's no way they'll turn the money down....most likely they'll go out and buy themselves an even bigger 4x4 to park on double yellow lines.

Report this post »

oceancloud says...
6:44pm Tue 15 Jan 13

"Let the parking issue be a lesson for them"

It's not just a lesson to the muppets at the council but money that could have gone towards other cash starved services instead of filling the pockets of the four claimants out of our council tax contributions.

There doesnt's seem to be an end in sight to the catalogue of recent money wasting c**k ups by SLDC, this, the botched Local Development Plan and the car park ticket machines debacle to name but three.

Report this post »

Insanity 414 says...
7:12pm Tue 15 Jan 13

I am another of the people involved in the case. I agree with some of the comments about stupid and illegal parking of some disabled drivers. If it is parking illegally slap a ticket on it no matter if they are disabled or not. As regards the payout: 1) I contacted the council AND our M.P. 6 month before the charges came into effect. They would not listen. This could have resolved then AT NO COST. 2) The majority of the£55k is legal costs, over 4/5 3) It has never been about the money, but, we were advised it was the only legal route open to us. 4) It has always been my intention to donate a proportion to charity, as I believe the others intend as well.

Report this post »

magical trevor says...
7:16pm Tue 15 Jan 13

Cynical, cynical and I'll say it again....Cynical. Donate all the money to good causes to demonstrate that this wasn't the reason you took the council to task.

Disabled drivers should pay exactly the same as able bodied drivers. Simple as.

Report this post »

wezzyk says...
7:22pm Tue 15 Jan 13

Whats the point of giving to a charity!!! If you don't want the money give it back / don't accept it. Surely you can see its you that's going to pay for eventually with increased council tax when the purse strings finally snap altogether. Also 4/5ths goes to the legal guys... What a downer and a waste of council tax payers money, why could agree this ridiculous situation over a cup of coffee and biscuit on neutral ground in a local cafe then everyone wins. In industry i have seen this many times where two parties fall and manage to resolve things without this farcical episode which in the end only costs those who are not involved at all!

Report this post »

Dave Nelson says...
7:42pm Tue 15 Jan 13

Could I ask Magical Trevor why he feels disabled people should pay the same for parking?

If a none-disabled person can choose to walk into town (for free), but a disabled person HAS to drive.....and pay the standard fee, isn't the disabled person having to pay extra for being disabled?

Incidentally nothing about being a Blue Badge user permits one to park in a dangerous place (or on double yellow lines where there is "No Loading" in place. People doing so can an do get parking tickets for doing so.

Report this post »

magical trevor says...
7:53pm Tue 15 Jan 13

I don't have the option to walk into town....too far....so I have to drive. I therefore have to pay for parking....so why shouldn't all members of the community pay? And as for parking on double yellow lines in dangerous places...just check out the lane at the back of the SLDC offices at the end of yard 26 any time of any day, and you'll see what I mean. Blue badge holders on the whole seem to have no regard for other people's safety when parking their cars.

Report this post »

zaney5 says...
8:22pm Tue 15 Jan 13

Insanity 414 wrote:
I am another of the people involved in the case. I agree with some of the comments about stupid and illegal parking of some disabled drivers. If it is parking illegally slap a ticket on it no matter if they are disabled or not. As regards the payout: 1) I contacted the council AND our M.P. 6 month before the charges came into effect. They would not listen. This could have resolved then AT NO COST. 2) The majority of the£55k is legal costs, over 4/5 3) It has never been about the money, but, we were advised it was the only legal route open to us. 4) It has always been my intention to donate a proportion to charity, as I believe the others intend as well.
A proportion? Do the decent thing and donate it all.

Report this post »

Insanity 414 says...
8:25pm Tue 15 Jan 13

As mentioned previously, I tried to sort this without any cost to anyone. I said I intend to donate a proportion of my money to a charity only because I incurred costs trying to sort this. That is why not all of the money is going to charity. Why not give it all back you ask. Many times in the past court cases have been threatened but because cases have been dragged out people have just given in, we all have thought of giving up during the last 18 months. By taking the money it just might make SLDC THINK before introducing other dubious policies. As for the cynical point made, do you really think I would have had all of the rubbish I've had over the duration of this case for the small amount of money I will get. You have to be joking. Before I was forced to stop work due to my problems I could have earned as much in a few days, a week at the outside! If I was in it for the money I would want a hell of a lot more.

Report this post »

Kent123 says...
8:26pm Tue 15 Jan 13

So that's £55,000 this week and £100,000 last week (K Shopping Village unable to pay SLDC).

When are you going to resign Thornton?

Report this post »

magical trevor says...
8:37pm Tue 15 Jan 13

It's not about councillor Thornton resigning....it's about the cynical court action by a small minority who seem to think that they can ride rough-shod over the tax paying majority who have to pay for parking. A ridiculous case of positive discrimination.

Report this post »

boris plasticmac says...
8:38pm Tue 15 Jan 13

I'm glad that magical trevor is able bodied and I hope he will remain that way for the rest of his life. However, if he is like the rest of us he will eventually end up using a blue badge and when that happens I hope he reflects on the mean spirited words he's used today.

Report this post »

Kent123 says...
8:42pm Tue 15 Jan 13

magical trevor wrote:
It's not about councillor Thornton resigning....it's about the cynical court action by a small minority who seem to think that they can ride rough-shod over the tax paying majority who have to pay for parking. A ridiculous case of positive discrimination.
I'm sorry but it is. SLDC made a mistake which has cost the public £55K (at least)

Report this post »

magical trevor says...
8:48pm Tue 15 Jan 13

No...this more to do with a minority claiming positive discrimination in order to get out of paying for something that, let's be honest, costs only a few pounds per hour to use, If it was a really big deal, and people's lives were at risk, Peter Thornton should stand down....but it's not...it's parking fees which all members of the community should have to pay...regardless of their physical well being. This was a purely cynical move by the disabled minority to make sure that they kept their free parking as a perk.

Report this post »

Insanity 414 says...
8:52pm Tue 15 Jan 13

So as it would probably take me twice as long to do the same amount of shopping as an able bodied person I should pay twice as much to park? That sounds fair.
I am not after free parking policy only a fair parking charge policy.As I have already said it was the ONLY legal route we had. If SLDC had listen initially or followed the legally required steps before introducing the policy this case would not have been started. Please do not have a go at disabled people because the council, with all of their consultations and legal advice, make a right muck up of something. It is not our fault they can't get things right and that they will not listen.
By the way magical trevor I pay taxes like everyone else.

Report this post »

boris plasticmac says...
9:13pm Tue 15 Jan 13

Since when has parking for the disabled been a perk?

Report this post »

magical trevor says...
9:14pm Tue 15 Jan 13

It's obviously a perk for blue badge holders because they get it for free....therefore it's a perk.

Report this post »

tictoc1 says...
9:24pm Tue 15 Jan 13

I'm not suprised this country is financially on its backside when things like this are happening. If its not about the money, don't take the money. Too many times we hear disabled people don't want to be treat any different. They want to be accepted the same as any "normal" person...then live your life as "normally" as you can, including paying for parking.

Report this post »

SandyScoot says...
9:32pm Tue 15 Jan 13

This was not about going back to totally free parking. I am happy to pay to park if the system is fair. An hours shopping trip for an abled bodied person, like for like, could take a disabled person two hours or more. Therefore, ends up having to pay more for parking for the same trip, which is discrimative.

With respect, I just hope that some of those who have made comments today never have to experience the difficulties of everyday living for a disabled person and the abuse from those who don't understand and don't want to understand those difficulties.

Report this post »

Insanity 414 says...
9:34pm Tue 15 Jan 13

We do not get it free. The current policy is that when we pay for parking we get an additional one hour for free. If we pay for one hour we can park for two, if two are paid we can park for three. The case was started because SLDC were charging the same for everyone with not thought of the increased time it takes for disabled peopled to get around. So please before any more comments are made please check the facts. It has been over 4 years since the disabled have been able to park for free in the main Kendal (Westmorland Centre)car park and nearly two years in ANY SLDC run car park.

Report this post »

magical trevor says...
9:38pm Tue 15 Jan 13

Blue badge holders can park wherever they like outside of SLDC carparks.....so Insanity 414....what's the problem? If you don't want to pay the extortionate parking fees that seem to be at the root of the problem, carry on parking anywhere you please....that's what most of our blue badge holders seem to do....so I don't really see the problem.

Report this post »

onelocal says...
9:48pm Tue 15 Jan 13

Insanity, Sandyscoot, when you go to bed tonight, look in the mirror and feel proud that you have cost the council, in other word the residents of South Lakes, £55,000, at a time that they cannot afford it. Charities have had their funding cut off and have had to close because of the shortage of funds coming from the council. Enjoy your money.

Report this post »

SandyScoot says...
9:51pm Tue 15 Jan 13

Blue badge holders cannot park anywhere, there are rules as to where you can and cannot park.

Like I have said previously some people just don't and don't want to understand the difficulties of the disabled.

Report this post »

magical trevor says...
9:56pm Tue 15 Jan 13

We understand SandyScoot....but don't make the rest of us pay for your problems. £55,000 will be stripped from SLDC's funds now, so someone somewhere will see a shortfall in their funds thanks to the cynical court action taken by blue badge holders defending their rights to free parking. It would be laughable if it wasn't so costly to the rest of the council tax paying community.

Report this post »

Insanity 414 says...
10:24pm Tue 15 Jan 13

Some people just don't want to understand. It isn't us causing the problem. If you are so upset by us taking the council to court, complain to them about it. They are the ones wasting our money by doing as they please and ignoring any advice and the law. A major national disabled charity also warned them that they were not following the legal requirements before the policy was introduced. It wasn't just us saying we do not want to pay. I think some people just don't like disabled people, in fact I know it as we experience their dislike and irritation on a frequent basis. Blame the people mucking things up not the ones trying to put things right. If the council had done the job correctly they would not be paying out on various mistakes not just this one. Magical trevor, didn't you read my previous we haven't had free parking for years. I park in the car park because I get annoyed by some ignorant drivers who park anywhere they feel like, not just Blue Badge holders and don't get me started on the abuse of the system. I try to obey the law and try to be considerate for ALL other road users. With that, Good night all.

Report this post »

snuggle-bunny says...
10:34pm Tue 15 Jan 13

Corporate restructuring- is that a euphemism for jobs for the boys with a pay salary to boot. one wonders who the sacroficial lamb is on this ocasion

Report this post »

onelocal says...
10:37pm Tue 15 Jan 13

We understand, but at the end of the day, the residents of South Lakes have had to pay for this, not the council. You have channeled money to the solicitors who are only too willing to take on your case. Sleep well

Report this post »

onelocal says...
10:43pm Tue 15 Jan 13

oceancloud wrote:
"Let the parking issue be a lesson for them"

It's not just a lesson to the muppets at the council but money that could have gone towards other cash starved services instead of filling the pockets of the four claimants out of our council tax contributions.

There doesnt's seem to be an end in sight to the catalogue of recent money wasting c**k ups by SLDC, this, the botched Local Development Plan and the car park ticket machines debacle to name but three.
That's just the start, then there are the legal costs of trying to shut down Holme House Farm, the losses incurred from the Lake Users debacle, the funds lost from K village going to the wall, the recent planning issue in Cartmel where a councillor objected to her next door neighbors planning application, and so on and so on. What's next?

Report this post »

Ladyxxmacbeth says...
10:50pm Tue 15 Jan 13

Take the money and go to Vegas is my advice...don't listen to the whiny Tory twonks on here. Or hire a gangster to break their legs see how they like being disabled.

Report this post »

Ladyxxmacbeth says...
10:51pm Tue 15 Jan 13

And I love your name sandyscoot!

Report this post »

blade stall says...
12:04am Wed 16 Jan 13

What i find astonishing is that, a, someone has the time and morale to take sldc to court over parking, (if you dont like it park somewhere else),,, and how did we end up in a world where an individual could actually take action over such a petty issue... i mean yeah the council have made some major blunders recently but give them a break... they really don't need this right now.

Report this post »

848848 says...
12:50am Wed 16 Jan 13

All credit to the disability group as it shows councilors are paying lip service to officers of the council.
They do not debate or challenge and just smile when attendance fees get paid after their rubber stamping afternoon out.
SLDC makes 6 million pounds a year from car parks and the Westmorland Car Park revenue nearly tops a million. The cost of running the pay on exit scheme with equipment and staff costs were another councilor gaff compared to the far cheaper pay and display machines that they removed. Do ask Cllr Vincent!
Ask him the cost of running the Westmorland Car Park before and after the installation of Pay on Foot.
The disabled pay on foot machine cost over £11,000 to install on level 3 and the councilors approved its purchase!
The Council just wastes money.
Also ask why all the Traffic Wardens/Civil Enforcement Officers were allegedly told that any Council SLDC vehicle must not be issued a Penalty Charge Notice whilst parked in contravention yet all other private vehicles should have the yellow bag placed on to the windscreen until Cumbria CC took that enforcement away from them recently.
Well done the disabled group that enables the focus now placed on this terrible department.

Report this post »

blackpooldonkey says...
7:09am Wed 16 Jan 13

You could argue that it takes a mum with 2 toddlers twice as long to do her shopping.

Report this post »

Dave Nelson says...
7:43am Wed 16 Jan 13

Trevor, may I widen my question a little. Should a person who can't walk around any particular town pay the same for parking as someone who can? And if so, why?

If, because of their disability it takes them longer to shop, should they get extra time for what they pay? And if not, why not?

Thank you.

Report this post »

magical trevor says...
8:19am Wed 16 Jan 13

Absolutely vile comments from Ladyxxmacbeth as usual....and not saying anything helpful or constructive.

The cynical claiming of money from the council is going to cost us all....it's therefore punishing everyone for something that need never have happened.....whomeve
r's fault this debacle is\was.

We should all pay for parking....and Blackpooldonkey's statement is correct....maybe we should have tarrifs in our car parks for all parts of the community according to their difficulties in getting around. Imagine the confusion this would cause.

Report this post »

zaney5 says...
8:26am Wed 16 Jan 13

blackpooldonkey wrote:
You could argue that it takes a mum with 2 toddlers twice as long to do her shopping.
Amen to THAT!

Report this post »

zaney5 says...
8:37am Wed 16 Jan 13

Why is it that disabled people always want to be treated as no different to the rest of the general population, but when they have a gripe about something then they like to set themselves apart from the rest and expect special treatment?

Here's the arrogance of some disabled drivers. I was parking in Morrisons car park a few weeks back, indicating to turn into a parking space when a car pulled right out in front of me causing me to break sharply. The woman then parked in the same space I was indicating to use. Ok, not a problem, I just parked in the space next to her. But when I got out I did ask her, had she not seen me? Did she realise that she had nearly caused an accident? She apologised and I went on my way. I had barely taken 3 steps when she shouted after me "I am disabled you know". BIG MISTAKE! My reply? No love, you are not. But what you are is a **** driver!
I appreciate that disabled people have blue badges. I would never dream of parking in a blue badge space (unlike numerous disabled people I have seen parking in parent and child spaces, but don't get me started on THAT one). I appreciate that it may take them longer to do things than more able bodied people. But DON'T use your disability as an excuse for any shortcomings like the lady mentioned about. I have seen it too many times. You want to be treated like anyone else? Well that's what you get from me.
Can I also say, I find this whole thing as using disability as an excuse to be treated different rather galling, consider the wonderful achievements we have seen this year by our excellent paralympians?

Report this post »

tictoc1 says...
8:44am Wed 16 Jan 13

zaney5 wrote:
Why is it that disabled people always want to be treated as no different to the rest of the general population, but when they have a gripe about something then they like to set themselves apart from the rest and expect special treatment? Here's the arrogance of some disabled drivers. I was parking in Morrisons car park a few weeks back, indicating to turn into a parking space when a car pulled right out in front of me causing me to break sharply. The woman then parked in the same space I was indicating to use. Ok, not a problem, I just parked in the space next to her. But when I got out I did ask her, had she not seen me? Did she realise that she had nearly caused an accident? She apologised and I went on my way. I had barely taken 3 steps when she shouted after me "I am disabled you know". BIG MISTAKE! My reply? No love, you are not. But what you are is a **** driver! I appreciate that disabled people have blue badges. I would never dream of parking in a blue badge space (unlike numerous disabled people I have seen parking in parent and child spaces, but don't get me started on THAT one). I appreciate that it may take them longer to do things than more able bodied people. But DON'T use your disability as an excuse for any shortcomings like the lady mentioned about. I have seen it too many times. You want to be treated like anyone else? Well that's what you get from me. Can I also say, I find this whole thing as using disability as an excuse to be treated different rather galling, consider the wonderful achievements we have seen this year by our excellent paralympians?
Here here!! Well said!
To "blackpooldonkey", your comment is so right!

Report this post »

Insanity 414 says...
8:49am Wed 16 Jan 13

Yes it does take longer for parents to get around with children,I have three, but, for many (not all) it is a choice to have children and the toddlers are for a few years not a lifetime.
One point I would make in support of magical trevor, it was not completely the councillors fault. They were not given all of the information that they had asked for, although they didn't listen when told. So asking any to resign would be wrong, as long as they have leant to check.

Report this post »

magical trevor says...
8:54am Wed 16 Jan 13

What we have to remember here, is that no one has died. No one's life has been put in danger. This £55,000 that the council now has to pay out will be paid for by me, my neighbours and all the other council tax payers in the region. Do those few who brought this action against SLDC not realise this. Do they not realise that this money will have to come from someone's grant, from their services, be added onto next years council tax? It has to be paid for by us all....and we can only say a big "Thank you" for doing this.

Report this post »

Dave Nelson says...
9:41am Wed 16 Jan 13

Positive Discrimination is illegal in this country.....but Blue Badge use isn't Positive Discrimination.

Report this post »

Ladyxxmacbeth says...
9:54am Wed 16 Jan 13

Gosh people are really horrible to the disabled, I wish I had a broken back or couldn't walk more than 50yards because I'd save on my parking! If you don't like giving money to the SLDC parking go park on Kirkbarrow or Hallgarth and walk into town.
I find it shocking there is so many comments that seem to misunderstand disability and the difficulties (mental and physical) that disabled people have.
Whilst I agree that free parking for the disable is unfair there is no need to personally attack members of your community. There's your own opinion and then there is being down right cruel and nasty !

Report this post »

Helvellyn55 says...
10:02am Wed 16 Jan 13

SandyScoot wrote:
I am one of the four who took the legal action against S.L.D.C.. I can assure your readers that compensation was never a thought when I contacted a solicitor, Martin Harvey at Wake Smith in Sheffield,recomendat ed by Disabled Motorists UK, regarding Disability Discrimination over the parking charges. This was down to the principal of the councils actions, that no one was listening to local disabled people, that it does take longer for us to carry out our daily activities, thus disabled people having to pay more for parking than the Abled Bodied. All the evidence before us indicated that no proper Equality Impact Assessment had taken place but yet again no one listened. I just hope that S.L.D.C. listen to the issues that disabled people face day to day in the future and carry out the correct proceedures before implementing any type of policy in the future. Let the parking issue be a lesson for them.
I thought disabled people received the likes of Disability Living Allowance to compensate them for this.

This looks very much like some slick lawyer has earned a large fee at public expense to compensate the disabled twice for the same thing.

It is an outrage and all involved should be ashamed of themselves at mounting this action.

Report this post »

craggy says...
10:47am Wed 16 Jan 13

A lot of the ill-feeling evident here is in my opinion down to the relative ease with which anyone can get a blue badge. I don't imagine anyone (not even Trevor) would begrudge a wheelchair user a decent parking place with easy access and maybe even discounted parking fee. What gets many peoples backs up is the sheer number of 60-somethings in expensive motors who have carte blanche to park anywhere they like because they have a slight limp! (if you can clamber in and out of a Range Rover why do you need a parking space closer to the shops than everyone else?)
And no, Blue badge owners, you are not entitled to park in Parent/Toddler parking bays, they are for Parents with Toddlers!
And finally, dont forget Motorbility- free cars for disabled!

Report this post »

boris plasticmac says...
11:15am Wed 16 Jan 13

If you ever had to fill in an application for a "blue badge" it might change your opinion about "relative ease"

Report this post »

zaney5 says...
11:23am Wed 16 Jan 13

Ladyxxmacbeth wrote:
Gosh people are really horrible to the disabled, I wish I had a broken back or couldn't walk more than 50yards because I'd save on my parking! If you don't like giving money to the SLDC parking go park on Kirkbarrow or Hallgarth and walk into town.
I find it shocking there is so many comments that seem to misunderstand disability and the difficulties (mental and physical) that disabled people have.
Whilst I agree that free parking for the disable is unfair there is no need to personally attack members of your community. There's your own opinion and then there is being down right cruel and nasty !
Downright cruel and nasty?

Wasn't it you who posted "Or hire a gangster to break their legs see how they like being disabled."

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Report this post »

craggy says...
11:25am Wed 16 Jan 13

boris plasticmac wrote:
If you ever had to fill in an application for a "blue badge" it might change your opinion about "relative ease"
No, it wouldn't. Please explain to me how if I am able to clamber in and out of a large, high up 4x4 vehicle I am in need of a parking space with extra access and close proximity to shopping areas. And if I can afford a £40,000 car why do I require free parking?

Report this post »

zaney5 says...
11:25am Wed 16 Jan 13

craggy wrote:
A lot of the ill-feeling evident here is in my opinion down to the relative ease with which anyone can get a blue badge. I don't imagine anyone (not even Trevor) would begrudge a wheelchair user a decent parking place with easy access and maybe even discounted parking fee. What gets many peoples backs up is the sheer number of 60-somethings in expensive motors who have carte blanche to park anywhere they like because they have a slight limp! (if you can clamber in and out of a Range Rover why do you need a parking space closer to the shops than everyone else?)
And no, Blue badge owners, you are not entitled to park in Parent/Toddler parking bays, they are for Parents with Toddlers!
And finally, dont forget Motorbility- free cars for disabled!
Agreeing with trevor is one thing, but agreeing with craggy too? Jeez, must be a cosmic shift somewhere cos both have happened today! ;-)

Report this post »

lancashirelife says...
11:55am Wed 16 Jan 13

Not being disabled I can't really see it from a disabled person's view point. I do know of people who have a blue badge and who only use it if/when they really need to. Remainder of the time they (a) have a year round ticket for convenience (b) let the spaces stay free for those who are more severely disabled. It can be handy to be able to park on double yellow lines as blue badgers can, but this doesn't sit easy with me since double yellows are usually there for a very good reason, that of general safety and access for emergency vehicles.

A friend of mine said they didn't think it fair that you can't get a blue badge if you don't put a claim in before a certain age. I then said well in that case everyone would end up with a blue badge over a certain age and what a mess that would create. I also know plenty of disabled people who can't walk very far, if at all who certainly do NOT 'have' to drive and have other methods of transporting themselves. A car isn't a right for anyone.

I do think SLDC are very short-sighted at times and ignore things thinking they'll go away, it all ends up costing them in the end.

In the meantime plenty of able bodied people park regularly on double yellows and pavements, and there's some great revenue to be had there.

Report this post »

TomHarvey says...
12:05pm Wed 16 Jan 13

Its interesting that most of the debate is over what sort of assistance disabled users should or shouldn't be given.

Putting that aside, its clear that both SLDC and our MP were warned that pushing ahead with the changes would be discriminatory in the eyes of the law (whether you agree with that or not is a different matter, but its enshrined in law) yet they ignored this advice and went ahead illegally, with the results costing taxpayers £55k.

It won't have escaped anyones attention that its Council officers doing the apologising and not a single Councillor who took the actual decision to be seen.

Tims team at SLDC have now cost taxpayers the best part of £1/4m through a series very avoidable blunders, its our money that's been wasted. How many Council officers have been held accountable? How many councillors have stepped aside? The clue is that its a number slightly less than one.....

Report this post »

magical trevor says...
12:27pm Wed 16 Jan 13

Ahhh....I wondered how long it would take for one of our esteemed councillors to wade into the fray and claim this as some sort of political ammunition to launch back at the Lib Dems.

Report this post »

Ladyxxmacbeth says...
12:42pm Wed 16 Jan 13

Its the never ending morphing story that loves to give...actually I can't remember what the fuss was about in the first place.
Some people got money, someone said it was wrong. Then they shouldn't have money or get too much money, no it gets it's own political slant on it....I have a headache!
Roll on the next story that gets everyone hot under the collar!

Report this post »

SandyScoot says...
12:48pm Wed 16 Jan 13

magical trevor and those others who have critised what they call 'perks' of the disabled, maybe they would like to come on a few trips out with me, maybe then they would see the difficulties disabled people face daily.

My two teenage children and I on my scooter have had nightmare journeys on trains which puts you off trying to use public transport thus using a car more essensial.

Political or not TomHarvey has hit the nail on its head regarding this situation.

Report this post »

Reluctantly anonymous says...
3:46pm Wed 16 Jan 13

I also am one of the four involved in the court case. I took part on behalf of all disabled people as many; of these vulnerable people have not the strength to go through, as it turned out, two years of litigation which we have suffered.

I am donating all the money I receive to the charity, One Voice, previously Shopmobility. (They had to diversify for eligibility for grants to keep going.) Shopmobility very nearly closed as a direct result of the action taken by the Council to charge full parking fees for blue badge holders. They had previously had a return for running the scheme whereby disabled people were charged £l, which kept them going financially. Parking fees for scooter users are in addition to additional expenses of Membership and fees for hiring a scooter.

At the time the action was brought there was no thought of settling out of court, which we did as we were getting nowhere with the Council, who were forced into a not entirely satisfactory solution of allowing a free hour after paying for the first. To obtain this one has to go through the hoops of re-parking near the exit office and walking, wheel chairing or whatever to the office and then if going left out of the car park, facing two lines of traffic that will not let you in.

Many disabled people, including myself do not now come to Kendal, unless absolutely necessary and this includes tourists who used to shop in Kendal.

I have sympathy for the disabled people who park in mother and child, as I think, though they do not, disabled should have priority over older children. (Even a toddler can run). Prams are an exception. If they park in mother and child, it is only because the disabled bays are all taken, frequently with people who are not disabled and they need to be near the premises.

At the time of the instigation of full fees, I wrote endlessly to the then leader of the Council, pointing out what would and did happen, receiving totally unsympathetic, misguided, and inaccurate (I won’t say lies), in reply. They were determined to do it in spite of all contra advice so I hope a lesson has been learned.

Report this post »

Adam_Kendal says...
3:55pm Wed 16 Jan 13

Insanity 414 wrote:
I am another of the people involved in the case. I agree with some of the comments about stupid and illegal parking of some disabled drivers. If it is parking illegally slap a ticket on it no matter if they are disabled or not. As regards the payout: 1) I contacted the council AND our M.P. 6 month before the charges came into effect. They would not listen. This could have resolved then AT NO COST. 2) The majority of the£55k is legal costs, over 4/5 3) It has never been about the money, but, we were advised it was the only legal route open to us. 4) It has always been my intention to donate a proportion to charity, as I believe the others intend as well.
Why will you only donate a proportion to charity? Why not all of it? Why should the tax payer have to fund your compensation?

You already have designated parking places in all the car parks as well as allocated parking places on Highgate, to give you easy access to the shops! Why should you now feel you should be given extra time to do your shopping on top of this?

I agree with the above comments, it infuriates me when blue-badge holders feel it’s their “right” to abandon their vehicle where they feel like it, including on double yellows.

You were probably advised that it’s the “only legal route open to you” so your solicitor could make a fat packet out of it!

I am all for equality but this is taking the p*ss!

Report this post »

magical trevor says...
4:00pm Wed 16 Jan 13

Reluctantly anonymous....what a load of rubbish from start to finish.

What is all this rubbish about having to re-park to get your free hour of parking....? Where did that come from? And as for traffic not letting you out of the carpark...well that's the same for everyone....are you saying that traffic is discriminating against disabled\blue badge drivers?

I cannot believe the argument that many disabled people do not bother coming into town....what a load of twaddle....are you really trying to tell me that they all stay at home now? Of course they come into town....just saying that though seems to add some imaginary ammunition to your argument.

And....how can you possibly speak for all the tourists that you mention in your post...do you know them all...have you spoken to them all?

You have sympathy for blue badge holders who park in parent and child parking spaces.....shame on you. How many times do you drive into a carpark in the South Lakes area only to see no parking spaces, but loads of disabled spaces empty? That is a ridiculous thing to condone.

So....the lesson that you hope that the council has learned, should be paid for by me and all the other council tax paying members of the public. We all have a big hearty thank you for the action you have taken and the money you have cost us.

Report this post »

Adam_Kendal says...
4:07pm Wed 16 Jan 13

SandyScoot wrote:
This was not about going back to totally free parking. I am happy to pay to park if the system is fair. An hours shopping trip for an abled bodied person, like for like, could take a disabled person two hours or more. Therefore, ends up having to pay more for parking for the same trip, which is discrimative. With respect, I just hope that some of those who have made comments today never have to experience the difficulties of everyday living for a disabled person and the abuse from those who don't understand and don't want to understand those difficulties.
I understand where you are coming from but where will you draw the line? Will it ever be "fair"? Can it ever be "fair"?

Why should all able-bodied people be held accountable and be tret differently (by being changed standard parking) just because it takes you longer to shop?

That would mean we are then being discriminated against becasue we are being tret differently.

Report this post »

zaney5 says...
4:43pm Wed 16 Jan 13

"I have sympathy for the disabled people who park in mother and child, as I think, though they do not, disabled should have priority over older children. (Even a toddler can run). Prams are an exception. If they park in mother and child, it is only because the disabled bays are all taken, frequently with people who are not disabled and they need to be near the premises."

This is the kind of attitude of disabled drivers that really grates me. Do you realise that parent and child spaces are bigger because they allow for getting babies out of car seats (try doing THAT in a minute space in the Westmoreland Shopping Centre car-park without either scratching your own vehicle or the one next to you, or, even worse, bumping said baby's head whilst maneuvering), or getting children out of the car safely in general.. Personally, I wouldn't care if said spaces were at the other end of the car park but supermarkets put them where they see fit. I was confronted by a very rude couple in Booths Windermere car park - the woman was disabled - who parked in the last P&C space because there were no disabled spaces left. Their attitude was, well there's no disabled spaces, therefore we'll park here. I asked them, so by the same token, if there are no parent and child spaces left shall I park in a disabled space? (Obviously the disabled community would be kicking up a stink if THAT happened on a regular basis!)
I appreciate that there are many many disabled people that DON'T abuse the system but when confronted by rude elderly - and it's ALWAYS the elderly - disabled people, is it any wonder the general population are becoming biased.
Funny, cos I was always brought up to be polite to my elders.

Report this post »

onelocal says...
4:45pm Wed 16 Jan 13

What is really sad is that the three people involved in taking the council to court seem so proud of the fact that the council has had to pay council tax payers funds to them. Even worse, all the other disabled people in South Lakes are contributing to this payment, including all those disabled people who don't drive cars.
Questions for the lawyers on this blog. Why were there only four plaintiffs? And does the fact that the council settled out of court mean other disabled drivers can come with their begging bowls?

Report this post »

Moonbase says...
6:20pm Wed 16 Jan 13

I remember when disabled drivers went round in fibre glass cars.
I bet there would'nt be as many taking a blue badge if they had to drive them.
I see badge holders getting out of sports cars,4x4's.
Sorry but yet another abused system.
Generally speaking it's usually the elderly who are so rude and oblivious to good manners and think they have a right to disrespect signs.

Report this post »

craggy says...
6:27pm Wed 16 Jan 13

Parent & toddler spaces are not only designed for getting prams and pushchairs in and out cars, they are also placed in such a way to avoid young children having to walk through busy car parks and so lessen the risk of a young child getting knocked down. The statement by one of the plaintiffs condoning blue badge holders parking in this spaces is shameful. If you can exit your vehicle on your own feet, even with some difficulty, how can you justify such selfish behaviour?

Report this post »

craggy says...
6:27pm Wed 16 Jan 13

Parent & toddler spaces are not only designed for getting prams and pushchairs in and out cars, they are also placed in such a way to avoid young children having to walk through busy car parks and so lessen the risk of a young child getting knocked down. The statement by one of the plaintiffs condoning blue badge holders parking in this spaces is shameful. If you can exit your vehicle on your own feet, even with some difficulty, how can you justify such selfish behaviour?

Report this post »

craggy says...
6:27pm Wed 16 Jan 13

Parent & toddler spaces are not only designed for getting prams and pushchairs in and out cars, they are also placed in such a way to avoid young children having to walk through busy car parks and so lessen the risk of a young child getting knocked down. The statement by one of the plaintiffs condoning blue badge holders parking in this spaces is shameful. If you can exit your vehicle on your own feet, even with some difficulty, how can you justify such selfish behaviour?

Report this post »

Whinfell says...
6:34pm Wed 16 Jan 13

Strange how disabled people are always pressing forequal rights except when it suits them to be treated differently.
Like Andy in Little Britain they just can't seem to be able to make their mind up!

Report this post »

boris plasticmac says...
6:45pm Wed 16 Jan 13

So summarising the discussion, the disabled are a group of elderly, rude, arrogant, 4x4 driving,undeserving, unthinking people who have sued the council to get the money to buy bigger 4x4's so they can annoy even more people parking in mother and baby spaces.

Report this post »

magical trevor says...
6:58pm Wed 16 Jan 13

From what's been said here, one must draw this conclusion....thank you for summing it up for us Boris Plasticmac.

Report this post »

craggy says...
7:03pm Wed 16 Jan 13

Not one person has suggested that all disabled people are in the wrong, and it is pathetic to suggest that is so. What is clear however is that many people are very unhappy about the abuse of the system by many blue badge holders.

Report this post »

A view From Cumbria says...
8:00pm Wed 16 Jan 13

A convoluted message and just another aspect of the folly of the controlling group on SLDC with respect to parking charges.

In essence they were advised by one officer, who they brought in, as to how they could maximise car parking revenue. This meant amongst other things, charging at night, no local permits and charging the disabled. The first and the last were just plain stupid because neither could raise the revenue to compensate for the implementation.

The second is just throwing money away. Where they have been tried, i.e. Sedbergh, they have been a fantastic success for residents and the parish alike.

When Tim and his tribe of Zombie's call, three questions,

1) Did the candidate vote to charge for disabled parking ?

2) Did the candidate vote in favour of local permits in 2012 ?

3) Did the candidate vote for the now redundant parking machines at £340k ?

If they give answers other than YES, NO, YES then the candiate is a liar as well.

Report this post »

gadgetgadget says...
8:44pm Wed 16 Jan 13

Ignoring the subject matter for a moment :

SLDC ignored the law, the people affected warned them about it, SLDC proceeded regardless and the people affected take legal action ... and most of you here are condemning the people taking those people for sticking up for their legal rights.

mmm - had SLDC ridden rough shod over your rights would you be so biased ?

This whole issue isn't really just about disabled parking fees ... it's REALLY about how our local council disregards the opinion, needs and indeed the legal aspects of our local community.

It's happened time and time and time again ... New Road ? LDP ? Highgate funding from K Village ?

What people should be focussing their ire at are the people who you elect to make sure that none of this ever happens. They are the ones who fail time and time again to make sure that council officers are advising them accurately. They are also the ones who then pass the recommendations quite often without question or indeed just going along with a party line.

They are there to represent US not their party not their own interest and certainly not to ride roughshod over the law.

Regardless of the fact this is about disabled parking, the real issue should be why SLDC keep repeating the same old mistakes - which KEEP ON costing the tax payer more money or indeed preventing that lost money from being spent properly. Even worse that this sort of thing is happening when the public purse is being tightened.

And it's not just Lib Dems who should hang their heads in shame, every councillor has let the community down. They ALL have questions to answer ... how many will dare show their faces at doors though come the next election or will they rely upon "reputation" or "party" allegiances.

Report this post »

gadgetgadget says...
8:52pm Wed 16 Jan 13

Oh and yes I resent council tax being spent on legal cases - but I resent even more that the money we already pay in council tax is being wasted on people who can't do their jobs properly - especially when something fundamental is already enshrined in law.

Report this post »

Reluctantly anonymous says...
9:45pm Wed 16 Jan 13

I did say I was donating all the money received to charity. Those that donate a portion are entitled (though you may not agree) use some for the expenses, effort, and time and stress they have spent in fighting for the vulnerable disabled and that is why there are only four. Other disabled are not fit, do not have the stamina, or experience to do so.

Regarding the comment that everybody is in same position in getting out of the car park. This is not so. From the office one has to turn into the existing queues. If turning right out of the car park and across two queues if turning left for Windermere etc.

As regards disabled people no longing using Kendal to shop. I have been in a position to judge this as a proven fact and as I said this does include myself who used to visit about once a fortnight and now only come when have a meeting or something, really necessary. Perhaps every few months. I and others shop in the villages or other towns.) I have also been in a position to talk to visitors to the town, (not all I know but a good proportion) who say they will not visit Kendal again.

As regards mother and child parking as against disabled parking. I did not say I condoned the action of the disabled people who can find no other means of being within accessible distance to get into the premises. I said I had sympathy. Sympathy which is sadly lacking in some of the contributors to this debate. Most especially Trevor, who is positively viciously against the disabled. . I am not saying all disabled behave as they should (I hope I do) but there are disabled and disabled. Just as with the non disabled. I am pleased the authorities are making it tougher to obtain a blue badge and I agree some people do abuse the system and I do not condone this either, but so do the none disabled who park in the disabled bays, etc. and I have seen many instances of this which can seriously impede the access of a disabled person.

As for disabled places being empty. Annoying it must be but the council were not asked to build more spaces. It was among the excuses for charging full fees and some of the extra spaces they built at the time are too long a walk to get to shopmobility or the shops so of course they remain empty. Most spaces did not remain empty before the council put obstacles in the way of the disabled visiting Kendal, but it was noticeable that after they did so, the bays are frequently empty and this proves disabled are not visiting Kendal as before.

I too was concerned that I find that I and other tax payers are funding this consequence of the council’s actions. Perhaps the council should have thought of this among the other consequences that were pointed out to them at the time. Including funding Shopmobiity through practical grants for running as an asset to the town. I am therefore donating money by this diverse means, which really should have come direct from the council in the first place. It is the council that is to blame, and not me or my colleagues.

Of course I expect people to disagree with some of what I say but wished to put the point of view of a person, who is lame as the result of a stroke and damage in the brain; who would much rather have her ‘legs back’ than a blue badge; and other genuine disabled by birth, accident, medical, age and I don’t mean just over 60. Speaking as an 80 year old,
I mean genuinely incapacitated by age linked with medical condition. Trevor I hope you are never old or medically unfit, with your attitude you would find it very hard and would be very bitter. Please read my contribution more carefully if you wish to pour more vitriol. Let’s have it accurate.

Report this post »

snuggle-bunny says...
10:34pm Wed 16 Jan 13

SandyScoot wrote:
I am one of the four who took the legal action against S.L.D.C.. I can assure your readers that compensation was never a thought when I contacted a solicitor, Martin Harvey at Wake Smith in Sheffield,recomendat

ed by Disabled Motorists UK, regarding Disability Discrimination over the parking charges.

This was down to the principal of the councils actions, that no one was listening to local disabled people, that it does take longer for us to carry out our daily activities, thus disabled people having to pay more for parking than the Abled Bodied. All the evidence before us indicated that no proper Equality Impact Assessment had taken place but yet again no one listened.

I just hope that S.L.D.C. listen to the issues that disabled people face day to day in the future and carry out the correct proceedures before implementing any type of policy in the future. Let the parking issue be a lesson for them.
If compensation was not in your thoughts then I take it you wont be accepting any, or if you have then perhaps you've given it back? Being as it was never in your thoughts

Report this post »

snuggle-bunny says...
10:43pm Wed 16 Jan 13

Why do you have to use a car park anyway- just abandon your vehicle in the street- isnt that what a blue badge is for

Report this post »

848848 says...
11:29pm Wed 16 Jan 13

Did you know that you do not need to be disabled to use a disabled parking space.

For example park a vehicle in the diadled bay opposite McDonalds in Kendal and if you are a blue badge holder just allow your badge to be placed on the dashboard and sit in the vehicle whilst your able bodied companion runs their own errands.

Your just out for the ride and allow your family/friends to abuse the system.

You would believe that parking there so close to the shops would help you yet you don't even get out of the car.

The blue badge system is abused.

Report this post »

gadgetgadget says...
8:55am Thu 17 Jan 13

I am quite shocked at the amount of prejudice on this thread. No wonder some of the genuinely disabled feel victimized at times.

Just because Blue Badges are abused by some doesn't mean they are abused by ALL. Many are law abiding citizens and do not abuse the blue-badge system. Those who do should have the badges removed or at least suspended. But that is a COMPLETELY different issue to the one in the article.

SLDC are reviewing again .. what a surprise ! This demonstrates yet again they can't get decisions right in the first place.

Oh and if people are gonna go quoting figures about how much revenue parking charges bring in please offset the revenue with the costs that SLDC have wasted on so many reviews, consultations and the likes of new machines eh ?

Let's not forget either that the amount of money they've wasted on vanity projects etc could have kept open the likes of public toilets etc for longer. Let's not also forget the amount of money wasted on the likes of the LDP which could have been corrected had they listened (!) to the responses they got from the community.

Sadly there is a mentality within SLDC that they are always right ... then they are often proved to be wrong at the cost of tax payers each time.

If ever there was a local council that needed to be really reviewed from top to bottom by the Local Government Ombudsman etc it's SLDC.

I would suggest some need to stop blaming the disabled for sticking up for their LEGAL rights and actually look at the CAUSE of the problem not the effect.

Report this post »

Dave Nelson says...
10:09am Thu 17 Jan 13

Yet another incorrect assumption. Motability cars are not free. They are on a rental contract (like a lease car).

Report this post »

zaney5 says...
11:56am Thu 17 Jan 13

snuggle-bunny wrote:
Why do you have to use a car park anyway- just abandon your vehicle in the street- isnt that what a blue badge is for
Judging by the amount of "abandoned" cars you'd be mistaken for thinking thats what they are for. Windermere is bad enough to get through anyway. Couple that with blue badge holders double parking - most memorable was the elderly (yep again!) gentleman that parked his car up on the kerb outside the building society just down from WH Smiths, stopping the double decker bus from getting through and causing a traffic jam through the town that I got stuck in for 10 minutes!
It's the arrogance of these people that believe by having a blue badge they are entitled to park ANYWHERE they feel, regardless of the disruption they cause.

Report this post »

Spotty Fish says...
2:11pm Thu 17 Jan 13

Gosh, what a lovely welcoming, warm, understanding bunch we are in South Lakeland. No wonder tourists are flocking here to be treated with such respect and kindness!

Some of the comments on here are incredibly discriminatory and bigoted, and you really should be ashamed of yourselves, but of course you wont be because you can say anything on the Internet. Very brave of you all.

A system was put in place by SLDC that was blatantly wrong, and they had been advised as such. The group who were affected by the system (and had tried to talk to the council about it), then resorted to the only avenue left open to them, and now they are being pilloried for it in the most aggressive way I've ever seen on here.

Where and how disabled people park on yellow lines is another subject altogether and has nothing to do with the article above. You put a system in place, it will be abused. this is the same in all walks of life and disabled people are no better or worse than able bodied people.

Report this post »

zaney5 says...
3:52pm Thu 17 Jan 13

Some of the comments on here are incredibly discriminatory and bigoted, and you really should be ashamed of yourselves, but of course you wont be because you can say anything on the Internet. Very brave of you all.

Why should anyone be ashamed of themselves? it's called freedom of speech and personal opinion. I don't think anyone has said anything on here that isn't true in some form or another.

I've already pointed out that I am aware that not all disabled people abuse the system. The fact is that it is those that do that leave a sour taste in the mouth of the general public.... those people spoiling it for the others if you will.

I'm also sure that this is not a problem that is exclusive to Kendal and the surrounding areas so why that should have ANY bearing whatsoever on tourism is beyond me.

And yes, you are correct in saying that where and how disabled people park on yellow lines is another subject and nothing to do with the above article. But, like most conversations, they ebb and flow, go off on a tangent, new ideas are brought forth, etc etc.

Report this post »

Spotty Fish says...
4:06pm Thu 17 Jan 13

This particular conversation doesn't seem to have been much more than a character assassination of the disabled. And other than criticism there don't appear to have been many new ideas, do there?

Report this post »

magical trevor says...
4:07pm Thu 17 Jan 13

Blimey....I find myself agreeing with Zaney5....!


I think this flow of comments just goes to show the depth of feeling there is surrounding these issues.

Report this post »

Spotty Fish says...
4:26pm Thu 17 Jan 13

Depth of feeling, yes trevor. Plenty of criticism, yes trevor, but no positive suggestions as to how to resolve these issues. I don't know the answer for the life of me, but I can't see how the misplaced anger being shown on here helps in any way. And most of it is misplaced because the people who took the council to task don't appear to be doing it to get free car parking, but to get fair car parking. What's so wrong with that?

Maybe any councillors reading this could organise a public meeting where all the feelings expressed on here could be talked out face to face.

Report this post »

zaney5 says...
4:40pm Thu 17 Jan 13

magical trevor wrote:
Blimey....I find myself agreeing with Zaney5....!


I think this flow of comments just goes to show the depth of feeling there is surrounding these issues.
Hey, stop it now, this could end up becoming a habit! ;-)

Report this post »

magical trevor says...
4:54pm Thu 17 Jan 13

Zaney5....I have strange feelings....I think I love you!

Report this post »

zaney5 says...
4:55pm Thu 17 Jan 13

Spotty Fish wrote:
Depth of feeling, yes trevor. Plenty of criticism, yes trevor, but no positive suggestions as to how to resolve these issues. I don't know the answer for the life of me, but I can't see how the misplaced anger being shown on here helps in any way. And most of it is misplaced because the people who took the council to task don't appear to be doing it to get free car parking, but to get fair car parking. What's so wrong with that?

Maybe any councillors reading this could organise a public meeting where all the feelings expressed on here could be talked out face to face.
We are taught not to discriminate against people, be they a different race, religion, or indeed down to disability.

My main issue is down to the fact that many disabled people SET THEMSELVES apart, using their disability as an excuse to behave differently, to behave in a way that they EXPECT preferential treatment if you will. And yes, I've heard it out of the mouths of people directly. Take the case in point of the woman I met in the car park that I talked about further up the thread. It's as if saying "Oh, but I'm disabled..." is going to make me say "Oh well in that case don't worry about the fact that you've nearly crashed into the front of my car." Disability shouldn't have been a factor in that scenario. And if it somehow did contribute to her actions, then maybe she shouldn't have been behind the wheel in the first place.

That said I know blue badge holders that don't abuse the system and, believe it or not, as long as they can get a decent accessible parking place, they don't mind paying for it.

The thing is this. Maybe the argument for fairer parking charges for the disabled has some weight behind it. But by the same token, doesn't the argument for having discounted parking fees for the unemployed, or the low waged also make sense. What about single parents?

Disabled people cannot expect to be treated just the same as everyone else in one breath and then expect to be treated differently in the next, just because it suits them.

Report this post »

zaney5 says...
4:56pm Thu 17 Jan 13

magical trevor wrote:
Zaney5....I have strange feelings....I think I love you!
Ah don't worry, we'll be back to baiting each other within a week!!

Report this post »

Spotty Fish says...
5:24pm Thu 17 Jan 13

Get a room you two!!!

Report this post »

boris plasticmac says...
8:44pm Thu 17 Jan 13

Lot of self congratulations going on, they must deserve it but where to now? May be a campaign to get rid of these annoying old people who clutter up buses or may be try and tidy up the elderly and infirm you find lounging around in Drs Surgeries.
Something has to be done about these people and trevor and zaney you're the people to do it.

Report this post »

magical trevor says...
9:27pm Thu 17 Jan 13

Nah....too busy.

Report this post »

Ladyxxmacbeth says...
11:44pm Thu 17 Jan 13

Best not to mention my sons disability then....whoops too late!
There are many different disabilities and it would be wrong of everyone to put them all in the same category. We should all respect one another without judging them on their race, faith, sexual orientation, abilities, class or disability. let us live in a world of peace and love, free your mind and free your soul, and learn to,love everyone no matter how jealous or angry you are. Love and peace everyone x

Report this post »

BillyBob86 says...
9:27am Fri 18 Jan 13

Talking about SLDC parking charges and parking tickets, has it been noted by anyone that in the small car park behind SLDC they have blocked off the panel to put registration numbers in? So all that money was spend to install the new machines, just for them now to work exactly the same as the previous ones. Not sure about other car parks due to only parking in this car park recently.

Report this post »

848848 says...
10:28am Fri 18 Jan 13

Disabled give me more of your money......

As the revenue from car parks in the SLDC area amounts to a highway robbing 4.1 million pounds, yes its correct a whopping 4.1 million... they can afford to waste 340k on new logistical self reporting machines.

The new machines tell parking services if they are low on pay and display tickets yet do not give change if you do not have the correct amount and this bags an whopping extra 8% per year.

Of course you can pay by card saving SLDC money with the lesser chance of losing cash by theft (Westmorland Shopping Centre car Park has recently had a robbery losing £11,000) through poor management by skipping a cash collection day over a Christmas weekend to be nice to their car park cash collectors I am told! Another senior management gaff by the council leaders!

Councillor Vincent needs to be asked the cost of the pay on foot installation which removed the conventional pay and display ticket machines in the Westmorland Shopping Centre car Park - the profit before its install and profit after and how many extra staff it takes to run it now. The only difference it made besides the awfully long time it now takes to exit out are fewer instances of anti social behavior and graffiti but at a massive staffing bill. They had to give half an hours parking free to accommodate the school children collection opposite the bus station and I believe that is the only reason why

Luckily for us all Cumbria CC has just removed SLDC's ability to issue penalties in yellow bags to motorists on the street and no SLDC Civil Enforcement Officer can reprimand a motorist unless they are in their car park.

All said and done the senior management team want to extract the highest tolerable amount including charging the disabled as much as they can.

I read in the meeting minutes recently published on SLDC's internet site that a parking report is due in April 2013 and it will be reporting on the feasibility of night time charging beside other revenue generating thoughts.

Report this post »

magical trevor says...
10:39am Fri 18 Jan 13

But it's ok for Ladyxxmacbeth to speak about hiring hitmen to break legs....hypocritical statements from the best of them.

BillyBob86 - that's old news I'm afraid....the registration keyboards were disabled before Xmas. Catch up.

848848 - since when has 8% ever been "a whopping" amount?
"Luckily for us all Cumbria CC has just removed SLDC's ability to issue penalties in yellow bags to motorists on the street and no SLDC Civil Enforcement Officer can reprimand a motorist unless they are in their car park." It was a negotiated aspect of the SLDC restructure....don't make it something it obviously wasn't...you make it sound as if CCC were\are punishing SLDC. Get your facts right.

Many people keep forgetting that car park revenue contributes to keeping council tax down....so stop harping on about the council ripping you off. It's boring now.

Report this post »

BillyBob86 says...
11:00am Fri 18 Jan 13

Oh, well my life is not to sit on hear and read every artical that is written and commented on. Sorry for missing that news

Report this post »

Spotty Fish says...
11:04am Fri 18 Jan 13

Honestly magic trevor. 8% of 4.1 million is actually quite a lot of money!

I take it you always put a little extra in the machine in an effort to keep our council tax down? Very public spirited of you.

Report this post »

848848 says...
11:12am Fri 18 Jan 13

Magical Trevor you are correct.... but you need to delve a little more....

Yes your right 8% of nothing is a little yet 8% of 4 million is a lot and I am aware that council tax band d saves £90 per year on rates with the windfall of 4.1 million from extracting money from motorists.

So what your supporting is'discourage' car use in Kendal or as demonstrated at Booths Supermarket - it gives you cash back on car park fees so maybe shop keepers in Kendal need to do the same?

As far as SLDC being punished by Cumbria CC - we both know the true facts here as we may have bumped into one another in the corridor

SLDC was not making enough cash from the issue of PCN's on street enforcement - its that simple - Cumbria CC removed SLDC's ability to issue yellow bags to motorists on the highway and now performs that role itself. Cumbria CC was happy to take it back as SLDC wanted to make a profit.

You will also be aware in 2008 SLDC paid approx £60,000 to have a survey conducted on car parking - another true waste of money. Lets us all know your thoughts on that one as well as: -

£60,000 survey
£340 new logistic P & D machines
£55,000 disabled gaff
£11,000 disabled Pay on foot machines
4 extra full time staff to run Westmorland car park since pay and display machines replaced (£80,000)
We are up to half a million wasted...

Report this post »

magical trevor says...
11:37am Fri 18 Jan 13

Which corridors may we have bumped into each other in....my mind boggles!

I know that SLDC have wasted alot of my money.....but I'd prefer to have my council tax maintained at a slightly lower rate at the cost of a few extra pounds paid at the parking meters.....so many people forget this.

Report this post »

848848 says...
1:03pm Fri 18 Jan 13

Magical Trevor I'm shocked that you want others to contribute to your monthly bills.

Surely SLDC's ability to waste money on the scale put forward here cannot be supported yet they then want the disabled to top up their coffers.

I applaud the disabled pioneers for their stance here and highlighting the council's shortcomings.

Councillors need to make better judgements.

Report this post »

BillyBob86 says...
1:17pm Fri 18 Jan 13

Councillors do indded seem to need to think more about what they are imposing. However, I agree with a number of people on these comments. The fairest way for everyone, disabled/able-bodied
/families/elderly/in
jured/etc. is to have a set limit for parking for all. I agree that disabled people may take longer to do a round of shopping, but what about (as previously said) a parent with children, or someone with a broken leg in cast, or an massively unfit person that has to walk very slow, and various other situation that can not all be accounted for. I don't even want to go into the blue badge allowed to park on double yellow lines, cos in my view double yellow lines are there for a purpose, usually safety, and no one should be allowed to park there, especially elderly or disabled.

Report this post »

magical trevor says...
1:20pm Fri 18 Jan 13

The whole community tax paying wider community benefits from funds raised through parking....ie, by keeping council tax down a tiny bit. That helps everybody...not just me.

Report this post »

life cycle too says...
2:26pm Fri 18 Jan 13

Ladyxxmacbeth wrote:
Best not to mention my sons disability then....whoops too late!
There are many different disabilities and it would be wrong of everyone to put them all in the same category. We should all respect one another without judging them on their race, faith, sexual orientation, abilities, class or disability. let us live in a world of peace and love, free your mind and free your soul, and learn to,love everyone no matter how jealous or angry you are. Love and peace everyone x
One of my customers had a lung complaint that meant he had to breath oxygen from a cylinder several times a day, and got short of breath if he had to walk too far.
He told me disabled spaces were only useful to him if not too far from his destination - he therefore was occasionally forced to park on yellow lines - but since he could not walk far was always close by - and usually therefore only for as short a time as was necessary.

To any observer he looked fit and well, and I'm sure he must have been roundly abused behind his back by people who wondered why he left his vehicle on yellow lines, and used a blue badge!

This case hinges on the behaviour of the council, who ignored advice from officers and interested parties, and as a result were punished by a court.
My experience has been that any action is costly in terms of time, and sundries such as stationary, postage, and travel etc., and if you try and give the money away, you face further difficulties, such as legal aid being withdrawn, and the money being swallowed up in legal expenses!

Report this post »

zaney5 says...
2:54pm Fri 18 Jan 13

But surely a blue badge DOESN'T give you the right to park on double yellow lines? As already stated, double yellow lines are there for a reason.

Report this post »

craggy says...
4:39pm Fri 18 Jan 13

The law states that Blue Badge holders can park anywhere as long as they do not cause an obstruction. Unfortunately it is only the subjective opinion of a police officer than can decide whether or not a poorly parked vehicle is an obstruction or not. Where this falls down is when an elderly person with a limp is handed a blue badge they immediately assume they can park wherever they like without a second thought for the inconvenience they are causing others. And no, I am not being discriminatory, I am suggesting that too many people have blue badges and that many holders abuse them.

Report this post »

life cycle too says...
5:08pm Fri 18 Jan 13

My mother in law qualifies for a blue badge - but is too proud to apply for one!
Since she doesn't drive, it is not too much of a problem - I drop her off with my wife, then go and park the car - I enjoy the quiet walk back!

I agree that many people are not so thoughtful and choose to park where ever "because they can" causing problems - but that sort of driver is not restricted to blue badge users!

One does not have to wait long for somebody to park causing an obstruction on Crag Brow in Bowness while the driver or passenger uses the cash point - and Taxis are often at fault there!

In Windermere we have the perverse situation where you can park for free on the main road, or PAY dearly to walk from and back to the council run car park on Broad Street!

Report this post »

SandyScoot says...
5:20pm Fri 18 Jan 13

http://www.direct.go
v.uk/prod_consum_dg/
groups/dg_digitalass
ets/@dg/@en/@disable
d/documents/digitala
sset/dg_186198.pdf

Above is a link to;
The Blue Badge scheme: rights and responsibilities in England

Have those who have critised, where the holders of Blue Badges park especially on - street, bothered to make their own enquiries before they comment, as to a holders rights and responcibilities?

For those who missuse the badge, then they should be punished accordingly, as should all motorists who park where they shouldn't.

For pram, wheelchair and mobility scooter users etc., it is most annoying and dangerous when any motorist chooses to park on pavements and next to and blocking dropped curbs inparticular.

And yes I have a Motability car. No it is not a 4x4 (far too big and I couldn't get into one) it is a modest family car, a Ford Focus, big enough to accomadate me, my children and my scooter. It is not a luxury it is a nesessaty for my independance. Also IT IS NOT FREE as someone as already stipulated. I lease the car for 3 years and is paid for with the highter rate mobility componant of my Disability Living Allowance. I give up my benefit for the independance of a car.

All the nasty comments on here are down to ignorance, a lack of knowledge and understanding. No wonder there as been a rise in 'Hate Crimes' towards disabled people. My teenagers, who have been (I am a single, not by choice, parent) Young Carers for nearly 10 years, are appauled by some peoples attitudes on here!!!!!

Report this post »

zaney5 says...
6:18pm Fri 18 Jan 13

"All the nasty comments on here are down to ignorance, a lack of knowledge and understanding. No wonder there as been a rise in 'Hate Crimes' towards disabled people. My teenagers, who have been (I am a single, not by choice, parent) Young Carers for nearly 10 years, are appauled by some peoples attitudes on here!!!!!"

I am far from ignorant. I just have a difference of opinion to you. If you don't like that then fine. Just cos you are disabled I'm not going to treat you any different that anyone else.

Report this post »

craggy says...
6:29pm Fri 18 Jan 13

Spotty dish & Sandyscoot, do you agree that some blue badge holders abuse them? If so, does that mean you are prejudiced, ignorant or offensive?

Report this post »

craggy says...
6:33pm Fri 18 Jan 13

SandyScoot wrote:
http://www.direct.go

v.uk/prod_consum_dg/

groups/dg_digitalass

ets/@dg/@en/@disable

d/documents/digitala

sset/dg_186198.pdf

Above is a link to;
The Blue Badge scheme: rights and responsibilities in England

Have those who have critised, where the holders of Blue Badges park especially on - street, bothered to make their own enquiries before they comment, as to a holders rights and responcibilities?

For those who missuse the badge, then they should be punished accordingly, as should all motorists who park where they shouldn't.

For pram, wheelchair and mobility scooter users etc., it is most annoying and dangerous when any motorist chooses to park on pavements and next to and blocking dropped curbs inparticular.

And yes I have a Motability car. No it is not a 4x4 (far too big and I couldn't get into one) it is a modest family car, a Ford Focus, big enough to accomadate me, my children and my scooter. It is not a luxury it is a nesessaty for my independance. Also IT IS NOT FREE as someone as already stipulated. I lease the car for 3 years and is paid for with the highter rate mobility componant of my Disability Living Allowance. I give up my benefit for the independance of a car.

All the nasty comments on here are down to ignorance, a lack of knowledge and understanding. No wonder there as been a rise in 'Hate Crimes' towards disabled people. My teenagers, who have been (I am a single, not by choice, parent) Young Carers for nearly 10 years, are appauled by some peoples attitudes on here!!!!!
You may not like the word 'free', but as your motorbility vehicle is paid for in lieu of benefits, then that is 'free'. Not a judgement, just an observation.

Report this post »

zaney5 says...
9:01pm Fri 18 Jan 13

Regarding the link, provided by sandyscoot, very enlightening. Some disabled drivers could do with actually reading it.

Report this post »

Ladyxxmacbeth says...
10:02pm Fri 18 Jan 13

I have followed this comments page for a laugh but I genuinly am scared and astonished by the comments on here. I find it sad, Jane (yes you Zaney) and Trevor you are changing the comments page into a slagging off match against the disable. Something which I am sure is discrimination and technically illegal !
Yeah yeah yeah , bring it on .... yawn ! I bet the office workers at Westmorland Gazette love it !

Report this post »

zaney5 says...
10:55am Sat 19 Jan 13

On the contrary LadyMcB, What I am doing is highlighting the fact that there are miss uses of the system and have drawn those conclusions from incidents that I have witnessed. If you had read my posts in depth you will have noted where I state that I am aware that not ALL disabled people behave in a certain way,but unfortunately some do. This is NOT an attack on the disabled population in general. I know people who are disabled and have no issues with them whatsoever. But like in EVERY walk of life, there are people that will abuse the system for their own gain without thought for anyone else. THOSE are the ones I am talking about.
As for my reply to SandyScoot, I genuinely meant it when I said I found the link enlightening and it cleared up points that I wasn't aware of. By the same token I also meant it when I said SOME drivers could do with re-reading it. See that word there.... SOME. Not all.
You accuse people of attacking members of the community and yet you yourself were the one making silly comments about getting peoples legs broken. Surely that could be construed by some as a threat. Wouldn't that be illegal?

Report this post »

magical trevor says...
11:58am Sat 19 Jan 13

Agree....Ladyxxmacbe
th should really refer back to her threatening post regarding leg breaking. Her puny attempt at shock at the comments here are a bit on the weak side.

Report this post »

Moonbase says...
7:06pm Sat 19 Jan 13

I was in Morecambe today and a badge holder was parked on a zig zag on a pedestrian crossing.
Illegal.They were like spring chickens returning to the car.
Just a totally abused system that needs to change.
Flat fee of 1K would sort it out.

Report this post »

boris plasticmac says...
8:14pm Sat 19 Jan 13

Summary execution should be the minimum sentence for these people, they offend common decency at every turn - imagine they parked on a zig zag!

Report this post »

craggy says...
8:30pm Sat 19 Jan 13

boris plasticmac wrote:
Summary execution should be the minimum sentence for these people, they offend common decency at every turn - imagine they parked on a zig zag!
So its OK to put people at risk of being run over if you have a blue badge?

Report this post »

craggy says...
8:30pm Sat 19 Jan 13

boris plasticmac wrote:
Summary execution should be the minimum sentence for these people, they offend common decency at every turn - imagine they parked on a zig zag!
So its OK to put people at risk of being run over if you have a blue badge?

Report this post »

boris plasticmac says...
8:58pm Sat 19 Jan 13

If you go to the traffic lights at Allhallows as I write, you will find about 3 taxis and probably two cars facing the right and wrong way on both sides of the road, collecting pizzas.These people are not using blue badges.
So it all comes down to good manners and common sense being used by all road users.

Report this post »

craggy says...
9:15pm Sat 19 Jan 13

boris plasticmac wrote:
If you go to the traffic lights at Allhallows as I write, you will find about 3 taxis and probably two cars facing the right and wrong way on both sides of the road, collecting pizzas.These people are not using blue badges.
So it all comes down to good manners and common sense being used by all road users.
Well that my dear Boris is what I and others have being saying all along, the difference is that you are permitted to point out the faults of taxi drivers yet if I suggest that some blue badge holders behave badly then I am being prejudiced!
Are you still maintaining that parking on zig zags at a crossing is acceptable?

Report this post »

boris plasticmac says...
9:48pm Sat 19 Jan 13

Haven't tried to argue dear craggy that parking on zig zags is not an infringement for either the able bodied or the disabled.
However, there is a theme going through this thread that blue badge users are the cause of most of the hassle experienced by motorists in town centres.
As you're well aware, aggro is not commodity confined to either group so maybe i'm asking for a little perpective is applied to the discussion, rather than the black and white thinking which has been going through the last 119 comments.

Report this post »

craggy says...
10:04pm Sat 19 Jan 13

boris plasticmac wrote:
Summary execution should be the minimum sentence for these people, they offend common decency at every turn - imagine they parked on a zig zag!
?

Report this post »

KendalMintCrackers says...
11:07pm Sat 19 Jan 13

Some of the comments here are pretty offensive, and sadly indicative of the cynical times we live in. I'm sure being disabled is bloody hard work, and the state legislates to attemp and make this better.

The fact of the matter is that the council did not act within the law. They were advised that this was the case, but chose to carry on regardless.

There was no other option other than the courts. It is a shame that it cost so much, but sadly that is the world we live in.

The blame lies solely with the council. Certainly not with the disabled, or the 4 who stood up for their rights and won.

This thread should tackle that, not provide a place to take cheap shots at a specific group of people.

Report this post »

boris plasticmac says...
11:25pm Sat 19 Jan 13

Well said.

Report this post »

Insanity 414 says...
12:10pm Sun 20 Jan 13

Shame on the Westmorland Gazette. I have now seen the hard copy. The person pictured is not the person named and she is NOT a badge holder, it's a relatives I believe. It's not surprising genuine badge holders get accused of abusing the system and the rest of the above comments when the media can't get it right!

Report this post »

SandyScoot says...
1:04pm Sun 20 Jan 13

Well said KendalMintCrackers! Also I too have learnt of the Gazettes errors in its hard copy and agree with Insanity 414, shame on you!!!!!

Report this post »

848848 says...
6:37pm Sun 20 Jan 13

Just to make it clear...

This is how how parking enforcement staff were trained by SLDC whilst observing a vehicle parked displaying a disabled persons blue badge either parked in a marked disabled bay or on double or single yellow lines where there is not a loading ban restriction.
1) the badge has to be displayed clearly with the expiry date showing and not the holders photograph.

2) If parked on a yellow line the commencement time of parking has to be clearly displayed on a time clock as there is a national limit (except Scotland) of 3 hours.

3) The holder of the badge has to be with the vehicle when it parks and leaves yet does not have to get out of the vehicle - to be clear the driver does not have to be the badge holder.

4) So you can now appreciate the vehicle can park near to the shops at no charge for 3 hours on yellow lines and the disabled badge holder does not need to alight the vehicle which seems wrong.
Errands can therefore be performed without question by a non disabled passenger/driver and the whole point of using a disabled badge is for a disabled person to park close to where they need to be to get out of the vehicle.

Dealing with the disabled who are clearly disadvantaged is a political nightmare for those who do not consider and hooray for the disabled four who were always correct.

The problem here is that Councillors are not doing their jobs correctly, they are given a report produced by an officer of the council and they do not challenge at the meeting - they are wholly to blame just rubber stamping.

Don't believe that a "Since these administration errors occurred, SLDC has undergone a corporate restructure"

As this is performed every 5 years. The management team (corporate structure) are sacked their jobs are re-evaluated and re-advertised at a higher rate of pay with a minor/slight change of duties.....

Ask your Councillor how many corporate restructures have been performed in the last 5 years and heads of departments are sacked and re-employed on a higher rate of pay!

Report this post »

magical trevor says...
8:21pm Sun 20 Jan 13

848848 - where do you get your SLDC restructure information from? Do you really think that management get 'sacked' (as you put it) and then re-employed at a higher rate of pay. You are living in cloud cuckoo land my friend....way off the mark. If you claim to be 'in the know' at least try and get your information correct, instead of peddling myths and lies....and you know I'm right....don't you? Ask any member of staff that has lost their job at SLDC about the restructures that have occured and you will get a real picture of what goes on behind closed doors. Don't lie 848848 and don't try to impress the world with your misinformation about local government. Shame on you.

Report this post »

Insanity 414 says...
10:49pm Sun 20 Jan 13

I slight correction to 848848s info. If the badge holder stays in the car, any errands done by any passengers should only be on behalf of the badge holder. They should NOT be doing their own errands. If they are doing their own, that is not what the badge is for and is abusing the system. If you see it, report it!

Report this post »

848848 says...
11:31pm Sun 20 Jan 13

Magicall Trevor again your correct but you need to delve a little more...

But you have heard that before and really did not reply with any facts.... to substantiate your previous posting, did you?

So lets begin to get the truth about SLDC restructures....

Can you inform us here with the facts regarding the restructure following the quote - SLDC has undergone a corporate restructure - and tell us all what that means in simple terms and also lets us know was any person sacked and then re-employed in a different position with a larger salary and of those that were not re hired did they get their pension and lump sum earlier than the everyday worker in the street?

Prior to Peter Ridgway's retirement with ill heath he organised a restructure with the fantastic Brendan Jameson (who all the staff admired) and we also had one in May last year - always to save money we are told yet it lets those senior staff take an early retirement pay off far easier than the cutting edge worker can.

As I've said before we probably could pass one another in the corridor this week and the whistle blowing can continue if the Council don't listen as has been resoundingly shown by the disabled four who have been wholly mistreated in this forum.

The law says they were correct and its sad that it has to be settled without prejudice but that is how it is in this country Justice cannot be afforded by an ordinary working person!

Report this post »

magical trevor says...
9:26am Mon 21 Jan 13

You're talking a load of rubbish....if you're a member of staff at SLDC you already know you're talking cobblers. No-one is 'sacked' to start with....that implies that they were not up to the job or committed an act that resulted in their dismissal. Redundancy is another matter....and if you really think you know your facts about what's going on at SLDC, speaking to staff who have been made redundant, I know for a FACT, that staff are not re-employed at a higher salary.....whistle-b
lowing my ar*s?

And....not many staff get to take early retirement....and those that do are only allowed to do so if the costs can be balanced against savings over a set period of time. But of course you already know that don't you...but choose to ignore the facts. And...you're arguments add absolutely nothing to the flow of thoughts regarding these particular issues....it's just a way of voicing your angst and vitriol against your employers.

Report this post »

gadgetgadget says...
9:45am Mon 21 Jan 13

The hypocrisy in Trevor's posts is risible.

Goes on about not knowing the facts etc to others but then disregards the facts of this case completely in his earlier posts in the thread.

This is NOT really about whether disabled people have cost SLDC money - this is about SLDC not getting it right in the first place.

Had they done so there wouldn't be any money involved to pay out and your stance on this would be null and void.

Simple.

But then again Trevor's so busy holding up the SLDC "end" he must dress like Superman - underpants on outside of trousers. Cold in this weather I'd bet.

Come on Trevor - get real.

SLDC screw up on such a regular basis you can only protect them so far.

Better to admit a mistake and sort it out up front than cost the taxpayer more and more money isn't it - or is pride written into SLDC contracts now ?

Officers screwed up with this farce - you know it, they know it - the councillors went along with it - they screwed up too.

Frankly a ****-up of this magnitude should result in disciplinary proceedings - someone failed to do their basic job. I don't mean getting the sack necessary but certainly some kind of warning - £55k is probably a lot more than most earn at SLDC to start with. And remember that £55k is just the tip of the iceberg taking into account previous mistakes.

And let's face it - it's not the first time at SLDC have screwed up and cost the taxpayer a LOT of money is it ....

Report this post »

whiskeydelta says...
11:05am Mon 21 Jan 13

Does the subject really need 130 odd comments. What it all boils down to is SLDC not listening to advice & costing the public money. Not for the first time either.

Report this post »

848848 says...
2:06pm Mon 21 Jan 13

Magical Trevor.......

I've read your numerous replies to my knowledge of the facts (which may not be available to you within your position at work) and I am also dismayed with the written tone of your comments...

Hopefully you might stop being aggressive and calm down and become a supporter of fairness and accountability.

Its damming that you cannot agree that this issue of discrimination has been paid off without prejudice to wash it away.

I hope the disabled four take comfort that some here are proud of their determination and would desire an honest and sincere apology as we both know car parking revenue is 4.1 million pounds every 52 weeks for us here in the SLDC area....

Report this post »

backatyou says...
10:43pm Mon 21 Jan 13

848848 its nice to see resident of lancaster and person formally employed as a civil enforcement officer standing up for disabled rights i wonder what your agenda is sorry vendetta

Report this post »

snuggle-bunny says...
11:47pm Mon 21 Jan 13

Spotty Fish wrote:
Honestly magic trevor. 8% of 4.1 million is actually quite a lot of money!

I take it you always put a little extra in the machine in an effort to keep our council tax down? Very public spirited of you.
Here here (applause)

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree