EDLER VON RABENSTEIN /
SHUTTERSTOCK.COM
BLUE BADGE FRAUD
FEATURE
will seek prosecutions under the Theft Act, Fraud Act or Forgery and Counterfeiting Act.
Professional misuse
The scale of abuse has been breathtaking. In one case, a family of four pharmacists who owned a care home were found guilty of using business disability permits meant to be used by the staff and residents in the care home. One businesswoman was found to be abusing a badge that she had obtained using a business address as her home address, saving herself £700 in permits. The ‘disabled’ woman came in on crutches to the council premises for an assessment. She passed, but by chance the enforcement team saw her shopping and filmed her walking unaided.
circumstances to get themselves off the hook. Wandsworth decided on a more targeted
policy. It set up a two-man unit to gather incontrovertible evidence on repeat abusers, who would be observed driving from home to disability parking spaces, for instance. There could be no excuse that the badge holder had been let out of the car earlier.
The policy has undoubtedly paid off as a deterrent, regained revenue and made the streets safer for the genuinely disabled. Chris Green and Keith Parcel set up their permit fraud investigation unit in 2005, and since then more than 500 drivers have been prosecuted for 1,716 offences.
If there are aggravating circumstances – if a badge is not just out of date, but forged or stolen – then the case is prosecuted to the maximum extent of the law.
Normal misuse of a badge is a non-criminal summary offence under the Road Traffic Regulations Act of 1984, which carries a maximum fine of £1,000, but if there are other dishonest aspects to the case, Wandsworth
www.britishparking.co.uk
The policy has undoubtedly paid off as a deterrent, regained revenue and made the streets safer for the genuinely disabled
She was prosecuted for false application as well as fraudulently obtaining a badge, and was given a suspended prison sentence of one month with a three-month tagged curfew. Another case involved an indignant Balham solicitor whose Mercedes was towed away. He initially claimed his disabled wife was in the car with him. Then he claimed he had dropped her off around the corner – but the team had evidence that he had left his home alone and arrived at his destination alone. Initially, he claimed to his local councillor that he was being unfairly treated. This proved to be his undoing and led to further fraud charges. The man’s solicitor changed his plea at the last minute, just before the hearing. His intransigence cost him dear, as he was given a suspended three-month jail sentence, fines and costs of £4,000, 100 hours’ community service – and was struck off as a solicitor. Wandsworth’s determination to prosecute without fear or favour can be seen in one of the cases that went to court in July – when one of its own contractors was caught out. Dr Mohammed Salim from Barking, who pleaded guilty, was actually working for the council when he was caught in Battersea displaying a badge that belonged to someone else. He had to pay fines and costs of £1,566. But Wandsworth’s enforcement efforts could be sharply curtailed in future. New privacy regulations to be introduced mean that while gathering evidence in relation to fraud and forgery will still be permissible, enforcement officers will not be allowed to carry detailed surveillance into more regular abuse where a disability badge is passed around the family.
ABOUT the AUTHOR: Barry Wood is a freelance journalist
NOVEMBER 2012 33
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52