SCC Start to Enforce Against Blue Badge Misuse

Good news for genuine blue badge users. Sheffield Council are now enforcing against wrongful use of blue badges. See: http://www.sheffieldnewsroom.co.uk/seventeen-prosecuted-for-wrongful-use-of-blue-badge/

Which begs the question:

Why wasn't it enforced all along?

Just the cost I assume?

Just the cost I assume?

But enforcement proceedings would presumably include a claim for the defendant (if guilty/liable) to pay SCC's enforcement costs.

Good news for genuine blue badge users. Sheffield Council are now enforcing against wrongful use of blue badges. See: http://www.sheffieldnewsroom.co.uk/seventeen-prosecuted-for-wrongful-use-of-blue-badge/

Its about time and as you say good news for the genuine blue badge holders.But then again ,some of them are guilty of letting relatives use them at times when they are not in the car.Should they not be fined as well.

Its about time and as you say good news for the genuine blue badge holders.But then again ,some of them are guilty of letting relatives use them at times when they are not in the car.Should they not be fined as well.

Yes- maybe on grounds of conspiracy!

Which begs the question:

 

Why wasn't it enforced all along?

Councils have only had the powers to prosecute for drivers misuse of the badge for the past few years.

Rotherham Council were a pilot project for this type of enforcement. I believe SCC took the view it was best to let others blaze the trail and be early adopters. Better to let others make the mistakes and learn from them.

SCC have always issued penalty charge notices to vehicles misusing a blue badge, but that only entails a penalty of £35 for early payment. Some people have received multiple penalties and it clearly isn't much of a deterrent to some.

Prosecution for fraudulent use of the blue badge carries a fine of up to £1000 plus prosecution and court costs totaling up to aprox £450. The offender then has a criminal record and in some circumstances the blue badge can also be withdrawn.

---------- Post added 24-05-2017 at 18:10 ----------

Its about time and as you say good news for the genuine blue badge holders.But then again ,some of them are guilty of letting relatives use them at times when they are not in the car.Should they not be fined as well.

In the event of a successful prosecution for misuse, the blue badge can also be withdrawn in appropriate cases. I'd think that is a significant deterrent.

The driver of the car who commits the misuse is the one the Council can prosecute. They might only prosecute the blue badge holder if the driver of the vehicle could not be identified and the badge holder refused to name them. That's a pretty rare occurrence as I understand it.

I wonder why there are differing amounts of the fine applied. I realise some plead by post, some turn up to face the beak, but taking that into account the fines awarded do differ.

Angel1.

But enforcement proceedings would presumably include a claim for the defendant (if guilty/liable) to pay SCC's enforcement costs.

The Council can claim for their costs to cover legal officer and investigator time etc. However, fines and costs actually awarded vary a lot from case to case, often depending on the means of the defendant.

There's a lot of time and effort goes into setting up this type of initiative.

---------- Post added 24-05-2017 at 18:18 ----------

I wonder why there are differing amounts of the fine applied. I realise some plead by post, some turn up to face the beak, but taking that into account the fines awarded do differ.

 

Angel1.

Fines tend to be less for defendants of limited means.

You'll note that the ones who got higher fines are the ones who were tried in absence. ie they did not turn up at court or enter a plea. Clearly the court takes a dim view of that.

I've seen elsewhere examples of higher level fines approaching the maximum figure, that's been where, for example they used a deceased relative's badge, or had been prosecuted before.

...You'll note that the ones who got higher fines are the ones who were tried in absence. ie they did not turn up at court or enter a plea. Clearly the court takes a dim view of that.

 

I've seen elsewhere examples of higher level fines approaching the maximum figure, that's been where, for example they used a deceased relative's badge, or had been prosecuted before.

That would account for this, then:

"Ixxxx Axx, 43, of Birley Moor Avenue, pleaded guilty to using a disabled blue badge in Surrey Street, Sheffield, on 10 October last year and was ordered to pay £120 fine, £45 costs and £30 victim surcharge."

"Lxxxx Kxxxxx, of Adkins Road, Sheffield, was found guilty in her absence to using a disabled blue badge in Surrey Street, Sheffield, on 30 September last year and was ordered to pay £440 fine, £410 costs and £44 victim surcharge."

It's about time.

Victim surcharge? Exactly who is the victim in these cases? Could it by any chance be the council?