PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Went to Court today: Blue badge holder vs. Parking co, Judge adjourned case - Help needed writing Defence
tld2004
post Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 12:39
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 59
Joined: 14 Oct 2016
From: london
Member No.: 87,760



Hi All

I attended Court today as a McKenzie friend for family friend vs parking co. Just want to provide a summary of events as I think its helpful for others.

To cut a long story short, family friend received a PCN from parking co last year whilst collecting daughter from daughters property. The driver is disabled and parked outside door to property displaying her blue badge in window as no disabled parking pays on site. Pictures from PCN show disabled badge on display.

Parking co got keeper details from DVLA, all the letters followed addressed to Keeper (not the driver at time), parking co filed Claim at Court. Family friend did not file defence etc (they are elderly and found it overwhelming so kept it quiet etc) but asked Judge in the DQ to set case in the aside due to driver being disabled and only being there to collect daughter. The claim proceeded to Court.

I only found out about this Court date yesterday(!) as the Keeper didn't really understand the paperwork/process. I offered to be McKenzie friend, looked over the paperwork etc and went to Court this morning.

We provided lease doc which does not state the parking co are instructed to patrol the site, said driver is disabled, and no disabled parking on site. Parking co seemed to think that they are instructed and showed a one page 'contract' between themselves and managing agent (not landowner). Judge queried chain of contracts. Judge asked why land (and 'contract') not providing for disabled drivers. Parking co said it didn't need to provide disabled parking as it was private land. She disagreed.

PCN photos also show other vehicles in background parked in similar location as the driver did, and Judge asked parking co if they were ticketed. Parking co said 'no' as they are excluded. Judge queried that adjustments clearly made on private land for maintenance vehicles, but not disabled.

Judge authorised defendant to file formal defence asap stating breach of Equality Act.

This post has been edited by tld2004: Wed, 6 Jun 2018 - 11:08
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 12:39
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
tld2004
post Thu, 7 Jun 2018 - 16:15
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 59
Joined: 14 Oct 2016
From: london
Member No.: 87,760



Thank you Nosferatu.

Do you recommend submitting an amended defence for the daughters court case? We submitted a defence similar to the first draft (above) but wonder if its worth submitting a revised defence focusing just on the EA and failure to make reasonable adjustments etc. Her Court date is in 4 weeks time.

The daughter has spoken to other neighbours on site who seem to park where ever they want and none of them are being ticketed and taken to Court over parking, so we believe that they are targeted disabled drivers, due to both her impending Court case and also the one against her parents.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 07:15
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,699
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



You can only submit an amended defence to the OTHER case IF the judge has allowed it. Otherwise you have to pay £255 to do so.
Just hammer them with the witness sttaement. You can get away with an awful lot here, at small claims, and if you dont try you wont know.

No chance of proving that contention, not easily at any rate. Stick to the current case.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tld2004
post Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 12:52
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 59
Joined: 14 Oct 2016
From: london
Member No.: 87,760



So you don't think its worth writing to the Judge on the daughters case, i.e. a 1 page letter saying that new evidence has come to light and we're asking permission to re-submit amended Defence?

I'm concerned that her current defence isn't strong enough on the EA points, as we've recently discovered (via her parent's case) that the Claimant is making adjustments for others on site (maintenance vehicles).

She hasn't been asked to provide a witness statement at this stage - will that come after her initial hearing?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kommando
post Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 13:09
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,167
Joined: 6 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,558



QUOTE
Do you recommend submitting an amended defence for the daughters court case? We submitted a defence similar to the first draft (above) but wonder if its worth submitting a revised defence focusing just on the EA and failure to make reasonable adjustments etc.


Why remove part of your defence, as long as its relevant then use all the ammo you have rather than trying to guess the golden bullet, leave it to the judge to pick the bullet, just hope they picks at least one.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eljayjay
post Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 13:10
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 884
Joined: 1 Apr 2017
Member No.: 91,235



No, it will be needed for the Court hearing. The Court normally specifies the date by which the witness statement and any exhibits must be received by both the Court itself and the Claimant. The date is usually two weeks prior to the hearing, but do check with the Court.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tld2004
post Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 16:13
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 59
Joined: 14 Oct 2016
From: london
Member No.: 87,760



Thank you both.

She has not received a request for Witness Statement, and the hearing is scheduled for 4 weeks time, so any request should have probably been received by now.

Therefore, she has contacted the Court and asked them for clarification re: witness statement and when it is needed by.

Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 17:28
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,699
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



It isn't called a ws, it's just you're told to exchange all documents , usually two weeks before.

Usually to amend a defence costs, because you're asking permission and that costs, as there has to be a hearing. Hence why I said you really need to include the lease etc anyway - just in the witness statement.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 20:16
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,372
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



QUOTE
She has not received a request for Witness Statement, and the hearing is scheduled for 4 weeks time

Oh yes she has!

And she's missed reading it.

At least she is now (hopefully) in time to re-read (properly) the letter she should have read at the time, the one allocating the court date.

QUOTE (Eljayjay @ Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 14:10) *
No, it will be needed for the Court hearing. The Court normally specifies the date by which the witness statement and any exhibits must be received by both the Court itself and the Claimant. The date is usually two weeks prior to the hearing, but do check with the Court.

As above, she has a letter with this information already on it and has missed it. Happens far too often.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 20:30
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,372
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



QUOTE (tld2004 @ Wed, 6 Jun 2018 - 12:04) *
Judge authorised defendant to file formal defence asap stating breach of Equality Act.

Any other suggestions?

Just discovered - the daughter of the family friend is now due in Court soon for similar 'offence' - parked in same location a few weeks previous in order to unload the vehicle due to being disabled.

This will be the 3rd time LPS are trying to take the same family to Court, even though they have been told in the past they are disabled.



Preliminary
1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

2. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct.

Background
3. The Claimant’s operation is unprofessional and predatory, with their staff having been seen operating on site in the past issuing tickets to other disabled drivers, both indicating a breach of the IPC Code of Conduct and discrimination in accordance with The Equality Act 2010. This has been brought to the Claimants attention many times, yet they continue to target disabled drivers on this site.

4. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXXXXXX which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured with two named drivers permitted to use it, one of which is registered disabled and a Blue Badge holder.

5. It is admitted that on 23 February 2017 the Defendant's vehicle had stopped at XXXX, for no longer than 15 minutes, to collect the Defendants daughter. A disabled Blue Badge was placed on display.

6. The purpose of the vehicle stopping in this location was to collect the Defendant’s daughter, who is also registered disabled and a Blue Badge holder, as there are no disabled parking bays on site.

6.1 The vehicle had stopped in this location for the purpose of enabling the disabled driver to alight the vehicle without aggravating their medical condition, and enter the premises to collect the Defendants disabled daughter.

6.2 The vehicle had also stopped in this location to assist with the Defendant’s disabled daughter boarding the vehicle without aggravating her medical condition.

7. No evidence has been provided to show a valid Notice to Driver was given to the driver in accordance with Paragraph 7, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”).

7.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the POFA.

7.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
7.2.1. there was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
7.2.2. that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.

It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements as the lease does not stipulate that the Claimant is instructed by the landowner to manage parking on site.

7.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle’s keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of Parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

The Equality Act 2010
7. There is no disabled parking available on site for disabled drivers which is in breach of the Equality Act 2010.

Alternative Claim – Failure to make reasonable adjustments – The Equality Act 2010
8.1. Maintenance vehicles are regularly present on site and parked in the same location as the Defendant’s vehicle, but are not ticketed by the Claimant, indicating that the Claimant exercises discretion and makes ‘reasonable adjustment’ for maintenance vehicles, but has failed to make ‘reasonable adjustment’ for disabled drivers.

8.2 Despite there being a valid Blue Badge clearly on display when the vehicle was observed, the Claimant failed to make ‘reasonable adjustment’ for the disabled driver and still ticketed the Defendant’s vehicle.

Alternative Claim – Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
9. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park vehicle(s) deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms.

9.1. There is no agreement within the Defendants’ lease that states the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle having to pay parking penalties to the Claimant or any third party parking management company when the leasehold agreement permits the parking of vehicles on the land.

9.2. Primacy of contract cannot be amended by private parking company signs unless there has been a variation of the tenancy, which has not been the case.

9.3. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot:

9.3.1. override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors.

9.3.2. that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease.

9.4. Accordingly it is denied that:
9.4.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
9.4.2. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson vs Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed vs Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011, in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

Alternative Claim – No standing to bring a Claim
10. It is believed that the Claimant has no standing to bring this claim nor is entitled to any sums sought. The proper Claimant is the landowner. The Claimant has failed to establish their legal right to bring a claim either as the landholder or the agent of the landholder. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to the Claimant. The Defendant claims that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no locus standi to bring this case.

10.1. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass, not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.


Alternative Claim – Vehicle was not parked
11. The vehicle was stopped on the access way for the purpose of assisted boarding and alighting only due to the driver and passenger both being disabled, and was not “parked”. This was found in the Appeal case decided by His Honour Judge Harris QC at Oxford County Court in Jopson vs Home Guard Services B9GF0A9E.

11.1. In the Jopson appeal in June 2016, the Senior Circuit Judge found that the position was analogous to the right to unload which was the subject of Bulstrode v Lambert [1953] 2 All ER 728. The right of way in that case was: “To pass and re-pass with or without vehicles… for the purposes of obtaining access to the building… known as the auction mart.''

11.2. In the Jopson appeal it was also held as a finding of fact, that stopping to unload was not “parking”. The Judge also confirmed that the concept of “parking”, as opposed to “stopping”, is that of “leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it. Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams would consist of lines of parked cars”.

11.3. The vehicle was stopped on the access way because the Defendant is registered disabled, and stopping on the access way was to provide ease of access to the building only.

11.4. The lease provides use of a private garage at the address, causing no need for the vehicle to be “parked” on the access way other than for ease of unloading due to disability, but the garage was obstructed by a maintenance vehicle at the time. This can be seen from the Claimant’s photographs.

11.5. Strict proof is required that the vehicle was not loading/unloading.

Alternative Claim – Signs do not say “No Loading/Unloading”
12. The vehicle was not “parked” because it was “unloading”. The common differences in term between the two is enshrined in law in Section 86 (8) (b) of the Traffic Management Act 2004.

12.1. The Claimant’s signs that are displayed on the land only state “no parking” and do not clearly define the term “parking” to include “stopping”, “waiting”, “boarding”, “alighting”, “loading” and “unloading”. Therefore, the vehicle was not "parked" according to the well understood definition of the term, and no charge is due.

Alternative Claim – No offer to park

13. The signage forbids parking and makes no offer to park, meaning no contract can be formed without an offer. This has been well documented from several other cases, particularly PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6 [2016] and Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016].

13.1. The Court will be referred to these cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

Alternative Claim - Failure to set out clearly parking terms

14. The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
14.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate:

14.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording, lighting, and free of foliage to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;

14.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and

14.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3.

15. The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye distinguished.

16. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought (apart from properly incurred Court fees) as any added solicitors fees are made up numbers, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in any event.

17. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.


The Judge gave you a heads up as to what to concentrate on so that's what to do, and provide evidence with the defence because you will not get a second stage, the adjournment will lead to a second hearing with no WS stage in between, IMHO.

QUOTE
3. The Claimant’s operation is unprofessional and predatory, with their staff having been seen operating on site in the past issuing tickets to other disabled drivers, both indicating a breach of the IPC Code of Conduct and discrimination in accordance with The Equality Act 2010. This has been brought to the Claimants attention many times, yet they continue to target disabled drivers on this site.
Show evidence of other disabled drivers being ticketed, letters, proof that the EA ''has been brought to their attention'' already, and when/how.

The point is, if you can show that they ''knew or should have known'' that the driver of this car is disabled and needs a reasonable adjustment, then for a service provider to ignore that is DIRECT DISCRIMINATION under the Act, and a specific breach of the statutory EA Code of Practice for Service Providers:

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advi...rvice-providers

Print out and take a copy to court (and put a copy in evidence as well with the info about ''knew or should have known'' and ''direct discrimiation'' and ''reasonable adjustments'' highlighted.

Evidence is key! The Judge gave you the clue.

DO NOT put in evidence a lease if it says that cars can't be parked. It will not help, so think what your strongest suit is.

Also at the same time, file with the Court and the Claimant as well, the Defendant's detailed COSTS SCHEDULE for attending the first hearing, and the provisional cost of attending a second hearing (travel, parking and any loss of salary/leave of the Defendant and their McKenzie friend). And ask for costs on the indemnity basis, because the Claimant KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN ALREADY that this driver is disabled (prove that), and as such they have broken the law to demand money from her for what should have been made available as a reasonable adjustment under the EA, years ago.

As such ask for the costs to be DOUBLED for the vexatious claim, sending a message to the parking firm about the Equality Act which also includes the fact that harassing a disabled person is illegal.

Say in your HIGH Costs Schedule (well into 3 figures) that contract terms cannot supersede statute law designed to protect people who need provisions made for them, and this is hardly new law, the EA was enacted in 2010 and before that, the DDA existed since 1995, over TWENTY YEARS ago! So you invite the Judge to uplift the costs applicable and show the disgust of the court against a Claimant who are oblivious to their statutory duties under the EA.

Make sure you BOTH attend each time, a McKenzie friend can't attend alone.

Where you say ''alternative claim'' it should read ''alternative DEFENCE''.

But I think you have gone far too scattergun, and I think the EA is what the Judge wants to hear from you. So read the EA Code of Practice for Service Providers and spot how they've breached it!

This post has been edited by SchoolRunMum: Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 20:36
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tld2004
post Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 21:39
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 59
Joined: 14 Oct 2016
From: london
Member No.: 87,760



Excellent advice that was easy to follow - thanks SRM!

Defence already submitted for the parents case, and we’ve almost finished drafted the Daughters witness statement for her hearing in mid July, gathered evidence, photos etc. I will post WS up here for advice shortly.

Few questions on the Costs Schedule though... how and when do we submit the Costs Schedule? Do we include it with WS (in the evidence pack) that we’ll submit 14 days before her hearing?

When do we ask the Judge to award our costs if successful - at the hearing?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 21:40
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,699
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Yes, at the hearing. After is too late.
About three days before hearing
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tld2004
post Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 21:46
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 59
Joined: 14 Oct 2016
From: london
Member No.: 87,760



thanks Nosferatu.

So include costs schedule in evidence pack? Does it need to be referred to in body of witness statement?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 23:59
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,372
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



QUOTE
Few questions on the Costs Schedule though... how and when do we submit the Costs Schedule? Do we include it with WS (in the evidence pack) that we’ll submit 14 days before her hearing?


You can if it's ready, or just a few days before is also OK for a costs schedule.

Then take it in your bundle on the day, with proof of income/loss of leave/salary, travel costs, parking, et al.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 07:39
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,699
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Costs schedule and skeleton argument would be about three days before
A skellie is good, it gives you a bullet point run down of your key points, plus you can put down their issues when you get their WS - you need to go through and point out all the rubbish theyve spouted, check contract, check signs etc...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tld2004
post Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 21:21
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 59
Joined: 14 Oct 2016
From: london
Member No.: 87,760



Hi All

Heres the draft Witness Statement for the daughters court case. I've tried to keep it blunt. Mentioned that the Claimant was notified in 2016 that she was disabled and reminding them to make reasonable adjustments first time round, explained the circumstances of the current event (saying they were previously informed of her being disabled in 2016) but have failed again, and then mentioned the case against her disabled parents (where they were intentionally targeted for being disabled as blue badge was on car when ticketed), so it should read that the Claimant is in breach of the Equality Act for the third time. I'll back it all up with photo's/evidence in the appendices.

Look forward to seeing your comments and recommended changes:



I, XXXXXXXXX, WILL SAY as follows:
1. I am the Defendant in this claim and I make this statement in defence of a claim from London Parking Solutions Ltd for a parking charges from xxxxx 2017.

2. The facts in this come from my personal knowledge except where stated otherwise.

3. I am registered disabled and in possession of a Blue Badge as a result of bronchiectasis.

4. The Claimant was informed in October 2016 that I am a disabled Blue Badge holder following an appeal against a previous parking ticket.

5. At that time, the Claimant was reminded of their obligation to make reasonable adjustment for disabled drivers in accordance with the Equality Act 2010.

6. Despite this, the Claimant has, once again, failed to make reasonable adjustment in accordance with the Equality Act 2010, and is attempting to pursue me for further parking charges.

7. In addition to this, evidence is enclosed proving that the Claimant has unlawfully discriminated against other disabled drivers, including my disabled parents (also disabled Blue Badge holder), by failing to make reasonable adjustment in their case.

8. The Claimant’s operation is discriminatory, predatory, and vexatious.

BACKGROUND – PREVIOUS PARKING TICKET APPEALED AND CLAIMANT REMINDED OF THEIR OBLIGATION UNDER THE EQUALITY ACT 2010
9. I was issued a parking ticket in 2016 by the Claimant for stopping my vehicle outside the front door of the entrance to the property – a property containing a flat I had only recently moved into – for the sole purpose of unloading my grocery shopping.

10. There is no dedicated disabled parking bays on site.

11. I have a private garage on site, but it is not near the entrance of the building, and unloading shopping into my garage would have proved difficult for me.

12. In the very short time I had been a resident at this property, I had witnessed other residents, visitors and maintenance vehicles park in the same location without receiving any parking tickets, so I presumed it would be ok for me to do the same to unload my grocery shopping.

13. When I returned to my vehicle a few minutes later to move it into my garage, there was a parking ticket on the windscreen.

14. I appealed the above parking ticket via the Claimant’s preferred online appeals service, Independent Appeals Service (“IAS”), in an attempt to resolve this situation with the Claimant.

15. In my appeal, I informed them I was a disabled driver, provided photographic evidence of my Blue Badge, and asked for reasonable adjustment to be made in accordance with the Equality Act 2010.

16. The IAS declined my appeal.

17. Despite the Claimant being made aware via the appeals process that I was disabled and a Blue Badge holder, the Claimant sent me a number of predatory-styled payment demands.

18. I then began receiving letters from the Claimant’s ‘debt resolution specialists’, Ultimate Customer Solutions, threatening me with legal action unless I paid. I did not respond.

19. The Claimant then called me a number of times. I ignored it.

20. The Claimant then sent four harassing text messages to my mobile phone chasing me for payment and threatening to take me to Court unless I paid.

21. At no time had I provided the Claimant with my mobile phone number, but they had obtained it from my appeal with the IAS and were now using it to harass me.

22. The repeated letters, calls and harassing text messages caused me significant distress and worry that had an adverse impact on my health.

23. On 24 October 2016, I sent letters to the Claimant and Ultimate Customer Solutions, via Royal Mail recorded delivery, informing them (once again) that I am a disabled driver, in possession of a Blue Badge, and told them they had failed to make ‘reasonable adjustment’ in accordance with the Equality Act 2010.

24. In the letters to the Claimant and Ultimate Customer Solutions, I informed them that, should they wish to pursue me for payment, then do so via the Courts where I will file a counter-claim for them failing to make ‘reasonable adjustment’ for disabled drivers in accordance with the Equality Act 2010.

25. I also informed them that my counter-claim would include a claim for harassment, in accordance with the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and Malicious Communications Act 1988, as a result of the letters, telephone calls and harassing text messages they sent me.

26. Copies of these letters to the Claimant and Ultimate Customer Solutions are included in Appendix X.

27. No further correspondence was received from the Claimant or Ultimate Customer Solutions in this respect, and no Court paperwork was received.
.
CIRCUMSTANCES IN RELATION TO THIS CASE
28. On 30 June 2017, I stopped my vehicle outside the front door of my property to unload grocery shopping as there is still no dedicated disabled parking bays on site.

29. I had no intention of leaving my car where it was, as in case of point 11, I have a private garage on site which I park my car in, but it is not close to the front door of the property and unloading shopping into my garage would have proved difficult for me.

30. After taking my shopping into my property, I returned to my vehicle a few minutes later and moved it into my garage.

31. On 7 July 2017, I received a letter from the Claimant saying I owed them money for my vehicle being “parked” outside the front door of the building. This was a surprise to me, as no notice was placed on the windscreen at the time of the alleged “offence”.

32. The Claimant had clearly obtained registered keeper details from the DVLA in order to write to me.

33. I did not contact the Claimant to appeal the parking ticket for fear of being harassed again by the Claimant (see points 7-11).

34. On 18 August 2017, I received a letter from Ultimate Customer Solutions, threatening me with Legal action unless I paid. I ignored it again, due to fear of harassment if I contact them.

35. The Claimant was fully aware, that I, xxxxxxx, was the same Ms xxxxxxx that was registered disabled and a Blue Badge holder that disputed the first and only other parking ticket issued against me in October 2016 (see points: 5 – 15).

36. Other residents in the property, have done, and continue to this day, to stop or park their vehicles in the same place I had (sometimes overnight or for a number of consecutive days). Photographic evidence can be seen in Appendix X (please note: photographs taken on various days and different times).

37. From recent conversations I have had with other residents, including residents that continue to park outside the front door of the property daily, confirmed that they are not being pursued by the Claimant for parking charges, leading me to believe that the Claimant has targeted me again for my disability as there is no disabled parking on site for disabled drivers like me to use when the need arises.

38. I regularly see maintenance vehicles also parking in the same place I stopped my vehicle (outside of the front door of the building), without receiving parking tickets.

39. Despite informing the Claimant in 2016 that I was a disabled driver, they have pursued me again for another parking ticket, directly discriminating me being disabled.

OTHER POINTS TO NOTE – CLAIMANT PERSUING OTHER DISABLED DRIVERS
40. My disabled parents are currently defending a claim against the same Claimant for parking charges dated xxxxxxxx 2017. Evidence of this can be seen in Appendix X.

41. One of my parents is disabled and came to collect me from my property.

42. As there is no disabled parking available on site, my disabled parent stopped their vehicle outside the front door of the property so they could safely park and exit their vehicle, and make it easier to board the vehicle upon our return.

43. The driver displayed their disabled Blue Badge in the windscreen. Evidence of the blue badge on display can be seen in the Claimants own photographs that they submitted to Court as evidence (appendix X).

44. The Claimant had only observed my parent’s vehicle stopped there for less than 15 minutes (also evident in photograph timestamps of Appendix X).

45. Despite a disabled badge being on display, the Claimant processed the parking ticket.

46. The Claimant obtained registered keeper details from the DVLA and sent a parking charge notice dated 2 March 2017.

47. My parents then received a letter from Ultimate Customer Solutions dated 3 April 2017, chasing for payment.

48. I advised my elderly parents not to contact the Claimant or appeal the parking ticket via the IAS, as the appeal process requires personal contact details to be provided, which the Claimant may use to unlawfully harass them for payment, like they did to me (see points: 14-20).

49. My parents received a letter from CSB Law dated 29 August 2017 threatening legal action unless the parking ticket was paid.

50. The Claimant issued a claim at Court on 19 September 2017.

51. An initial hearing was held on 4 June 2018 with District Judge xxxxxx.

52. During this hearing, the Claimant confirmed in Court that “maintenance vehicles are exempt from parking tickets”, indicating that the Claimant makes “adjustment” for certain vehicles/drivers, but not disabled drivers.

53. The Judge was concerned that the Claimant was making ‘reasonable adjustments’ for maintenance vehicles, but not disabled drivers, which is direct discrimination against disabled drivers and an unlawful breach of the Equality Act 2010.

54. The case was adjourned to allow for the Defendant to file a Defence as they were not aware that a Defence had to be submitted prior to the initial hearing.

55. A Defence was submitted to Court on 11 June 2018 stating that, despite the Claimant being informed in 2016 that they need to make ‘reasonable adjustment’ for disabled drivers, they had unlawfully discriminated against a disabled driver.


STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I believe the facts in this statement are true.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 00:40
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,372
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



Typo:

QUOTE
persuing

should be

QUOTE
pursuing



I would also just add to this #7:

QUOTE
7. In addition to this, evidence is enclosed proving that the Claimant has unlawfully discriminated against other disabled drivers, including my disabled parents (also disabled Blue Badge holder), by failing to make reasonable adjustment in their case.

7.1. At this location it would be entirely 'reasonable' for the parking firm to have made an adjustment in 2016 or earlier, by simply adding the VRNs of the disabled residents to a 'white list' of exempt vehicles, as is the norm in many other patrolled car parks, and indeed as this claimant already does for service vehicles, as shown in their photos without parking charge notices.

7.2. The Claimant has no lawful excuse nor justification and cannot be heard to say under excuse of data protection or any other reason, that they could not have used and stored the information in the October 2016 appeal about me and my vehicle, for the perfectly legitimate purpose of permanently exempting them from receiving unfair parking charges at their own home, given the known facts of my protected characteristics. My disability was not going to disappear, regardless of my Blue Badge date or any other excuse a parking firm typically hides behind when penalising disabled people.

7.3. The Claimant parking operator has a statutory duty as a service provider to comply with the Equality Act 2010 and the EHRC Code of Practice for Service Providers (adduced as evidence #1)*




I didn't see any other evidence referred to by number, and this is how you need to show it throughout the WS. e.g. the blue badge, the previous appeal from October 2016 and also, letter/reply proof that the parking firm received it so they knew about the disability, any other evidence numbered throughout, etc.




* https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publ...y-code-practice

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tld2004
post Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 09:49
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 59
Joined: 14 Oct 2016
From: london
Member No.: 87,760



Wow, you are good SRM. Thanks.

Had a quick look through some old receipts this morning and found two Post Office Royal Mail 'signed for' receipts from 2016, complete with the building number and postcodes of London Parking Solutions and Ultimate Customer Solutions, and tracking barcodes - the letters we sent them in 2016 telling them driver was disabled and reminding them of their obligation to make RA under the EA!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 10:34
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,699
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Yep, you Must adduce evidence by initials / 001 upwards.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tld2004
post Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 15:16
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 59
Joined: 14 Oct 2016
From: london
Member No.: 87,760



Hi All

NEWS FLASH...
:

After we spent quite a bit of time writing Witness Statement for the disabled daughter's court case due in 3 weeks, she received an email from London Parking's "solicitor", CSB Law, earlier today with Notice of discontinuance Form (N279).

Gutted. We had them on so many grounds - proof of postage from letters dated 2016 informing them of her disability, photographic evidence of other drivers not being ticketed, harassment, and the case against her disabled parents where their disabled badge was on display but vehicle still ticketed. They had broken EA three times and we wanted to fight them on this once and for all, and seek costs.

I think that theres two things that have potentially happened: They read the parents defence that was submitted a week ago, realised they would also lose on the daughters and pulled the plug before needing to attend the hearing, or they've seen the string of posts here and realised they would be taken to the cleaners.

FYI, as far as we know, the parent's case is still on as we completed and submitted directions questionnaire to the Court earlier in the week. What are the chances of them dropping the case against her parents now, or is it not as easy for them to drop a case when a new Hearing date is due to be set?


Either way - Any advice for what to do now on the daughters case as it's been discontinued? Letter before Action or Cease and Desist to London Parking, the landowners and the managing agents via recorded delivery, saying we have evidence of them breaking EA, reminding them of their obligations, and providing all vehicle regs of disabled vehicles where reasonable adjustment is required.

Their behaviour is shocking and they need to be stopped.

Thanks to everyone here that's helped to date.

This post has been edited by tld2004: Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 15:20
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 15:41
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,904
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Others may correct me but as they have let the case rattle on through court and have now cancelled without any additional evidence being given then perhaps apply to the court for costs because of their unreasonable behaviour in continuing and causing stress when they knew they could not win. The threat of court was being used purely as a means to obtain money that they weren't entitled to and an abuse of the court process. Normally not allowed in small claims but this is not a hard and fast rule.

This post has been edited by ostell: Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 15:42
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 13th December 2018 - 21:30
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.