Posted By Sean Fraser Interesting question Darren. it is something we have a particular "problem" with at the moment. We have a small car park in front of our building, and the parking spaces are quite tight (but not as tight as some I've had to endure!). Due to oeprational reasons, the car park can sometimes be half-full and at others chock-a-block. We have one designated disabled parking spot, clearly marked and with wider access. We have no disabled personnel, nor are we visited by persons who are disabled. So, one member of staff routinely (i.e. daily) parks in the spot. Since he arrives first thing in the morning, it cannot be an issue of the car park being full and being forced to use it - he choses to do so. In conversation, although flippantly expressed, the reason was "wider access and less chance of being damaged by someone else opening their doors". The thing is, I can see the point. We are providing a resource for which we have no direct need. Should we employ a disabled person then the space will automatically be assigned to them and this measure will be enforced. Should we require it on a temporary basis, the car can be moved and the space allocation enforced until no longer required. The bit I struggle with is the message this puts out. People seeing the car of someone they know is not disabled sitting in the allocated space may presume this to be another example of double standards, no matter how justifiable it may be.