Autistic boy wins blue badge battle with Brighton and Hove council

3:10pm Thursday 26th July 2012 in News By Ben Parsons

Tony Greenstein and son Daniel won their fight for a disabled parking badge Tony Greenstein and son Daniel won their fight for a disabled parking badge

An autistic boy has been awarded a disabled parking badge after taking his case to the High Court fight – but council officers say they will not give other people with his condition the same automatic right.

Daniel Greenstein’s father, Tony, took Brighton and Hove City Council to court over its refusal to grant him a blue badge, on the grounds that the schoolboy’s mobility was not badly enough affected by his condition.

A judge ruled in his favour and the council relented – but only in Daniel’s case.

Mr Greenstein, a well known grassroots political activist in the city, said: “Because Daniel did not receive higher rate mobility disability living allowance, he did not automatically qualify for a badge.

“Although he can physically walk, his mental condition means it is dangerous to walk in town with him for any distance, because he has no road sense and runs off.”

A spokeswoman for Brighton and Hove City council said officers did not initially feel the guidance allowed them to issue a badge.

She said: “Like every council, Brighton and Hove must follow national legislation and guidance when issuing blue badges which we felt did not allow us to issue this badge.

National regulations

“The council’s view is that the interpretation of the regulations is a matter for the Department for Transport, and after consulting with the DfT we have agreed to exercise our discretion to grant a badge in this case.

“The council is unable to change the national regulations, so cannot alter the way it issues blue badges.

“Within the regulations set out nationally, Brighton and Hove has been proactive in providing an efficient and fair service for blue badge holders.”

The Department for Transport said eligibility for a blue badge was not “condition specific”.

Its guidance says: “Councils should assess how a person’s disability affects their ability to walk.”

The council said it welcomed work by the Government to clarify the law.

Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat MP for Lewes and a Government transport minister, is leading a consultation on whether eligibility for blue badges should be based on eligibility for disability benefits.

Comments(18)

righton says...
3:31pm Thu 26 Jul 12

Brighton and hove are never giving those with needs the help they are legally entitled to they are a law unto themselves when will they be held accountable for anything they make a decision and there is nowhere to go unless like tony greenstien you have the connections to fight your case for you which many haven't

Report this post »

Phani Tikkala says...
3:52pm Thu 26 Jul 12

Don't you love how the council has spun a loss in Court into some sort of victory.

I'd like to see them try to not issue a badge in the future, considering case law has now gone against them. They'll lose again and we, taxpayers, end up paying costs for both sides in the High Court....

Report this post »

Maxwell's Ghost says...
4:52pm Thu 26 Jul 12

Who paid the court costs?

Report this post »

Claude Back says...
5:11pm Thu 26 Jul 12

righton wrote:
Brighton and hove are never giving those with needs the help they are legally entitled to they are a law unto themselves when will they be held accountable for anything they make a decision and there is nowhere to go unless like tony greenstien you have the connections to fight your case for you which many haven't
'When will they be held accountable'? When you learn to use punctuation I expect.

Report this post »

righton says...
5:46pm Thu 26 Jul 12

Claude Back wrote:
righton wrote:
Brighton and hove are never giving those with needs the help they are legally entitled to they are a law unto themselves when will they be held accountable for anything they make a decision and there is nowhere to go unless like tony greenstien you have the connections to fight your case for you which many haven't
'When will they be held accountable'? When you learn to use punctuation I expect.
Sorry reflection on Brighton education standards me thinks.

Report this post »

mimseycal says...
12:07am Fri 27 Jul 12

Everything is a fight. Convoluted processes mean that applications for all sorts of things can get bogged down.

Report this post »

mickeymonkeyman says...
4:37am Fri 27 Jul 12

were do these so called councillors park there cars,do they pay to display,id like to see they are,all they do is put up parking charges business,s closing down,i live in thailand,and there are no parking metres,you park not on red and light zone area,bangkok has twice the amount of people in there capital,than in england,there is clamping but really ever uses,why in england tax tax and tax.

Report this post »

righton says...
9:27am Fri 27 Jul 12

Can't afford to park by the level anymore to use the park.
I go to hove much more reasonable,Eastbourn
e is a dream for low no cost parking also brighton is becoming no go area as the bus charges are so high also go away from Brighton I say

Report this post »

redwing says...
9:57am Fri 27 Jul 12

righton wrote:
Brighton and hove are never giving those with needs the help they are legally entitled to they are a law unto themselves when will they be held accountable for anything they make a decision and there is nowhere to go unless like tony greenstien you have the connections to fight your case for you which many haven't
It's got nothing to do with Tony's "connections" unless you mean by that his tenacity and dedication to standing up for anyone he can possibly help who's getting a raw deal.
Hopefully, his actions for one of his own in this case, will make it much more likely that others with autism won't be denied the consideration they deserve, whatever the council likes to think about Daniel being an 'exception'.

Report this post »

thewhitehawker says...
10:01am Fri 27 Jul 12

So what about familys with young children they run off as well ? The father should just get some reins to strap around his child like any other parent would .

Report this post »

redwing says...
10:31am Fri 27 Jul 12

No thewhitehawker that's wrong. Very reasonably, when assessing those with a disability, people are compared to others at the same stage of development, but without the disability. Thus, it may be normal behaviour for an unrestrained 2 or 3 year old to put themselves in danger where there's traffic, but not a much older child. Imagine how much more difficult it must be to keep safe a teenager with far more strength.

Report this post »

tonygreenstein says...
12:13am Mon 30 Jul 12

I can assure people I had no 'connections' when fighting this case. I was told by a Council official, who will remain anonymous, that if Daniel ran in front of a bus that was not because of a lack of mobility but too much mobility!

She seemed to have forgotten that walking is not just a physical process but is mental too - your brain guides you but Daniel has no road sense.

The idea that you can put reigns on a 22 year old boy is absurd. He would have no difficulty in breaking free.

I obtained a barrister from the Bar Pro-Bono Unit (no connections there) and she said it was a condition that I first obtain legal aid, which was granted (until the Tories removed that too). The Council wasted thousands of pounds on an indefensible case.

I e-mailed every Green Party councillor - just one replied. I comment no further. My solicitors were excellent Deighton Pearce & Glynn, Union Street London. They are looking for further test cases as I and they wanted to take it to trial but the Council backed down at the first set back. So if you have a child in a similar situation contact them.

Report this post »

mimseycal says...
1:05am Mon 30 Jul 12

The thing is that these guidelines are merely guidelines. Officers however tend to interpret them as ruling. So any instance that does not clearly fall within the categories presented will be dismissed initially.

Report this post »

Tyneside says...
1:29am Mon 30 Jul 12

This article just makes me sick to my stomach. The whole point of the Blue Badge scheme being conceived was to help people who have seriously impacted mobility so much so that having a parking space 100 foot nearer a location makes all the difference. That and also needing to manage mobility equipment safely, hence the wider space. Cases like this where there is just simply no need for the person to have the badge, but they have decided they want one anyway because they can still be classfied as disabled in some form, show how ridiculously out of control the system is. If they can't have what they want, they make a fuss until they get it, eligbility rules not considered.

I have tried but cannot understand how this man can justify needing it. He doesn't need the bigger spaces, so that's straight out, so how does needing to be in closer parking spaces keep his son safe? He could just as easily abscond from a parking space nearer to a building. Since the disabled spaces are (usually) always nearer building entrances it means they're often located at the busiest part of the car park, making them actually more dangerous in the situation given here anyway, however I'll hazard a guess they will still use these spaces rather than a safer regular space.

People with missing limbs, heart conditions, defects and other real mobility problems can't get parked because people like this who don't need them are taking up all the spaces. In many cases, they have to return home because traipsing across the car park or trying to get out of a normal size parking space simply isn't an option.

If he reads this, I hope it will give him something to think about when he takes up the last disabled space. But I doubt it, ext stop, Motability.

Report this post »

mimseycal says...
2:11am Mon 30 Jul 12

I presume the fact that it is distance that increases the likelihood of the young man absconding and thereby endangering not just himself but others as well.

Report this post »

hursthill says...
9:04pm Mon 30 Jul 12

Tony Greenstein is described in the article as " a well known grassroots political activist".

A correct description is -" a self-righteous activist". ie he thinks he is more virtuous than others.
As he says above he found a clever barrister & won the case. Not even the loony green councillors would support this raving political extremist.

My sympathy is with Daniel,but I am sure the Council officials acted with total integrity when they made their original decision.

Report this post »

tonygreenstein says...
12:32am Tue 31 Jul 12

Hursthill has form for making personal attacks in lieu of anything substantive to say, so I'll disregard him.

Tyneside is plain wrong. Daniel can be left in the car, often he won't budge, near a shop but I can't leave him, nor can his mother, in a parking lot.

Sorry u feel sick about this but we donät park in disabeld spaces but normal parking spaces. It makes it easier. Councillors have them but you don't believe autistic children s hould be entitled - ok you're entitled to your view but I disagree.

I have since been contact by an elderly gentleman with a Downs Syndrome grandchild who has been refused a blue badge by East Sussex CC. I won't give the name but his situation is worse than mine and yes my clever legal team will be weighing up a JR challenge on that too.

Some people like attacking those who assert their rights and defending the privileged and powerful. It was always thus but without those who stand up to authority 'self-righteous if u like' then the authorities would walk over you. No doubt Thomas Paine was also described thus by the servile lackeys and Hursthills (no name of course) of the day. We can live with the puny insults of those who have never achieved anything except the admiration of those who control society and power.

Report this post »

Tyneside says...
1:30am Tue 31 Jul 12

I don't think it's that authorities are walking all over people, it's that they aren't actually entitled under the rules but won't accept it and make a fuss until they get what they want.

If you don't use disabled spaces as you say then I do have a little more respect for you. This would mean the only reason you wanted the badge is to avoid parking charges, and with Daniel being this way, I can understand that you may need to use the car more often than a regular family would.

However, I can imagine one day when a car park is very busy, and there's a disabled space free, you will use it just this one time, but then you'll use it again the next time it's quite busy, until the point that you circle the car park until a disabled space is free. I've seen this happen to people, and it's usually the ones that need the special spaces the least.

You'll need to reiterate your point about councillors further if I'm to respond as I'm not clear what you're referring to.

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