That’s right – and check out the picture on the right if you don’t believe me, Telecom had effectively roped off four of the most valuable mobility parking spaces in the Auckland CBD, all in the name of a bloody brand launch. So I had to park miles away, and got really wet en route to class. Needless to say, I wasn’t impressed.

So I approached one of the official-looking guys patrolling the Telecom area, and asked if they’d had Council approval to occupy these four parks. Yes, he said, and it cost them $28,000 for the whole rig.

Let me get this straight – Telecom can buy mobility parking spaces, at the expense of many individuals’ independence? I almost couldn’t believe it. I checked with the Council; sure enough, it was all permitted, and as far as they were concerned, there were plenty of other mobility parks I could use. Of course, they were all used up, leaving me one very wet, disgruntled student this afternoon!

UPDATE: I’ve been told by Telecom that the parks did not cost $28,000, and that figure is one ‘invented’ by one of the ground staff. However, I’m sure some money must have changed hands in exchange for the parks, I’m just not exactly sure how much. (yet )

What do you think about all this? Should mobility parking spaces be able to be ‘bought’? Should the Council be more pro-active in providing alternative parks? Let me know in the comments!

“Sorry lass, we can’t pull up outside. We’ve had to park 200m that way,” says the driver to the woman in the wheelchair.

Pushing and pulling the wheelchair over kerbs past the disabled parking spots, the driver manages to help his disabled customer to the van. It happens all the time and it is frustrating, says the only specialist mobility taxi company in Auckland, Re-li-on-us.

Because mobility parking cards are issued only to people with disabilities, Re-li-on-us misses out on card-carrying membership – despite providing mobility to the people who need it most.

For Barbara Broome, the mobility service has changed her life.

“It means I can hold down my job and turn up to meetings on time. I depend on them to get around.”

She says there are still some big gaps in aid for the disabled. Despite improved access in many areas, some disabled people still are unable to catch buses or trains. For instance, says Re-li-on-us owner and driver Gary Todd: “If a man has a broken neck, you don’t want them catching a bumpy bus or rickety train.”

The problem is, his vans cannot provide a door-to-door service without using mobility car parks.

“We need to be delivering as near as possible to the destinations,” Mr Todd says. “You can’t have someone with a severe disability in a wheelchair wheeling through the parking lot.”

But when drivers do tempt fate and park closer, they are fined. Chris Ross, marketing manager for Re-li-on-us, says the firm has a pile of parking tickets in the office more than an inch thick, with each one costing $150.

Mobility cards are issued through CCS Disability Services which says it empathises with Mr Todd but there is a danger in giving mobility cards to a registered taxi company, even though it is disability-focused.

Candy Smith, Northern region team leader for CCS, says there is already a shortage of mobility parking in the city and giving dispensations to individual taxi services is the wrong approach.

“It would be far better for us team up and lobby councils and developers for more drop-off zones,” she says. “It is more than
just the disabled community. There are also elderly people and parents with prams where a drop-off area close to the entrance would help.

“We can’t keep impacting on already-limited disabled parking when there is the bigger issue the community needs to address of getting developers of malls and shopping centres to provide more drop-off zones.”

Grounds for complaint
Parking is even more of a problem at hospitals, says Re-li-on-us owner Gary Todd.

Hospitals across the Auckland region give access to selected taxi companies on a contract basis but don’t take disabilities into account, he says, adding that hospitals often permit taxi companies that might only have one or two vehicles in their fleet that can carry disabled people.

One hospital in the region gave the contract to a taxi company that didn’t have any vehicles that could take people with disabilities. This means Re-li-on-us has to pay for access to hospital parking and drivers must park hundreds of metres away from the entrance, despite transporting people who have the greatest difficulties with access.

“Again, we really need the shortest possible distance for disabled people, especially when it is to the hospital,” says Mr Todd. “Two hundred metres is too far, especially in some cases where the person involved has to keep their core from getting too cold.”

He says the company doesn’t have a problem with tendering for access to hospital grounds but thinks there should be more of a
focus on people with disabilities. “Taxis might be fine for 90 per cent of the population but the other 10 per cent need something too.”

We were parked on the Mobility Carparks there, while hubby did the shopping (he’s able-bodied, I’m disabled, but parking there gives me the chance to access the shop if I need to, given the extra room to offload my crutches, etc.). My mobility card was on the dashboard. While waiting, I saw several motorists stop in the surrounding mobility spaces who looked quite able-bodied and had no mobility card. Finally, I could take no more.

Click the link below to continue reading Honor’s story…

I beckoned a passing staff member who had a kid with him who also wore the Pak’n'Save uniform (maybe a schoolkid who worked there part-time in the holidays), and asked the older man if there was anything they could do about these freeloaders using the disabled spaces. I pointed out one man, sitting in a car across from me, who had a second earlier stood outside his car while sending a text, and I said that he didn’t look disabled, and didn’t have a Mobility Card.

“I know,” was the staff member’s reply, “It’s not my problem.”

Keeping my cool, the only reply I could make was, “But you work here!”, to which he retorted, “Oh, well, I might get the Security Guard to have a talk with him later.” With a dismissive wave of his hand, he and his child companion were gone.

Just then, the offending driver drove off, probably spooked by my pointing finger as I was talking to the Pak’n'Save worker about him. As this staff member was still not far from my car, I said, “Oh well, there you go, I guess it’s not a problem now, is it?”. Then, noticing the young fellow in hoots of laughter at the situation, I added (quite loudly, as they were by this time some distance from my car, “Why should disabled people shop at Pak’n'Save when you treat us like this?” That was the end of the exchange, I put my car window up and thought no more about it.

(I should add here that I have asked this shop before – politely, once – if they would consider putting chairs around the shop, so that people like me can sit for a while as we get our groceries, but I was told such a move would be a fire hazard – that’s a joke – the place is the size of a small city, you’d be very unlucky to trip over a chair there, even while evacuating in the dark for a fire).

Five minutes later, as I was still sitting in my car minding my own business, a senior staff member came over to my car. “You harassing my staff?”

I had to ask him to repeat himself as I was so amazed, but I told him no, I had not been harassing my staff, unless you called expressing my opinion of the blase attitude of his staff to people who cheat on disabled carparks ‘harassment’. I couldn’t resist adding that the last time I looked, New Zealand was a democracy and we still had a right to express ourselves (I know it was sarcastic, but he took a very smarmy and sarcastic attitude with me). He reminded me that the people who do this are CUSTOMERS, to which I replied that disabled people are customers, too. Looking very dismissive of this point, he went on to say that he had been told I had sworn at his staff. I calmly told him this wasn’t true, to which he replied, “Well, as long as you don’t do it every week”. I replied that I hadn’t ‘done it’ (swearing) at all, he walked away, I once again wound up my window, and that was it.

What do others think? I realise it’s not the job of staff to warn off offenders, but to say “Its not my problem” seems like awful customer relations to me, let alone being ‘harassed’ (a more appropriate word for Pak’n'Save’s actions towards me, I think, rather than the other way around) for complaining. It seems to me this organisation puts profits of able-bodied customers before the comfort or convenience of the disabled. As one in five of us are disabled, I see this as a serious mistake.

Thoughts?

Some people just don’t think, do they.

Ha.

Cheers to Matt from CCS Disability Action for the great pic!