PArking CCJ over 10 in a car park

deshulina

Thank you Coupon-mad,

I understand and I will edit this before I send it over as it will have to be a proper WS.

I am however really struggling with the wording of that section I read most of the topics on it and still find my self in a bigger muddle. Should there be a specific section of law to back this up or shall it be just my wording based no what you have advice me.


As :


[FONT=&quot]
I believe given the facts stated prior this parking charge notice is in direct breach of EHRC Equality Act Code of Practice for Service Providers under Chapter 5: Indirect Discrimination and Chapter 6 Discrimination arising from disability of the code. (Copies of which provided in Annex X ) and have not met the reasonable adjustments duty stated by the Equality Act 2010 and how they failed to fulfill their anticipatory statutory duty to make and adjust policies in advance.[/FONT]



I fully appreciate how wonderful you are and how many people need you and the support you give to all the other people on here and I feel awful claiming so much of your time however I honestly have tried and I just feel like it's got good enough.

ampersand

Tiny typo, cm -a note for you, deshulina.

'You do need to state in the WS that it will be no awful justification for the Claimant to reply that they 'could not have known' because blah blah (same as I already told you in previous posts!). '
#
'awful' should be 'lawful'?
deshulina, your heartfelt thanks for cm's - and others' - help, along with your sincerity, are transparent.

Both of you embody the best of mse, which Martin intended. mse seems to lose its way more frequently nowadays. Ethernet inevitables, probably.

But cm, you keep on giving the highest grade of attentive, specific, authoritative, updated help possible.

Thankyou from another who benefitted, however many years ago:-)

deshulina

Thank you ampersand,

I am about the send the papers off today with all the attachments and documents. I struggled with the paragraph below would you mind having a look before I print the WS please.


[FONT=&quot]The claimant has failed to comply with the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]EHRC Equality Act Code of Practice for Service Providers[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Chapter[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 7:[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Disabled persons: reasonable adjustments[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. Making no lawful justification for the Claimant to reply that they 'could not have known' there might have been adjustments as they failed to comply with the code of service providers prior.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]EHRC Equality Act Code of Practice for Service Providers[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Chapter[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 7:[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Disabled persons: reasonable adjustments[/FONT]

7.22
Because this is a duty to disabled people at large, it applies regardless of
whether the service provider knows that a particular person is disabled or
whether it currently has disabled customers, members etc.

7.23
When disabled customers request services, the service provider must already
have taken all reasonable steps to ensure that they can be served.
[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

Making no lawful justification for the Claimant to reply that they 'could not have known' there might have been adjustments as they failed to comply with the code of service providers prior.

The court's attention is drawn to the fact that there can be no lawful excuse or justification for a failure to make reasonable adjustments, just by the Claimant saying they 'did not know or could not have known' about my mobility problems, when the discrimination is indirect, which is my contention.

Indirect discrimination adversely affects the disabled population ''at large'', and there is no need for a service provider to be made aware of each individual visitor's needs. The statutory Code of Practice for Service Providers (Equality Act 2010 - the 'EA') makes it clear that the obligation - indeed a legal duty - rests with the Service Provider (in this case, the Claimant) to consider IN ADVANCE the needs of disabled users and make reasonable physical (e.g. disabled bays, and lower signage/machines) and non-physical (e.g. time limits before penalising drivers) adjustments, to ensure universal and fair accessibility. This Claimant did not, and they are put to strict proof of their anticipatory EA assessments, specific to this location and this landowner client.

The Claimant knew there would be people like me visiting, yet they have failed in their statutory duty and now in this claim, they are harassing me by demanding money due to their own failure. It is illegal under the applicable law, to charge me by imposing a blanket grace period which was not suitable:

EHRC Equality Act Code of Practice for Service Providers Chapter 7: Disabled persons: reasonable adjustments:

7.22
Because this is a duty to disabled people at large, it applies regardless of
whether the service provider knows that a particular person is disabled or
whether it currently has disabled customers, members etc.

7.23
When disabled customers request services, the service provider must already
have taken all reasonable steps to ensure that they can be served.

deshulina

Hi everyone,

I hope to see you all well !

I have brilliant news, the CCJ has been finaly remover !

However recieved a very interesting letter from parking eye link to wich I have attached bellow. They send me a seperate one asking me to take thematters to small claims court rahter than a sit the case on the 13th of June in the county court.

I personaly think its very sly of them to ask me for money at this stage and I want to counter claim after the hearing on the 13th of June as they have cost me so much so far and at the same time I dont want to risk and pay more to them.

I would hihly appriciate your advice one more !

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vjnx07k253vri4u/28460721_1797744293632960_2011671862_o.jpg?dl=0

nosferatu1001

That!!!8217;s not what the letter asks, at all

It!!!8217;s saying - pay £60 and we will settle it. No hearing.

You cannot now counter claim, just make a fresh claim. That cannot be for time spent defending this case.

deshulina

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

That!!!8217;s not what the letter asks, at all

It!!!8217;s saying - pay £60 and we will settle it. No hearing.

You cannot now counter claim, just make a fresh claim. That cannot be for time spent defending this case.

My bad I didn't expain it properly.

I have a date for the hearing from the county court on the 13th of June and if I was about to win the case I wanted to counter claim agains them.

This letter give me an option to pay and sit no hearing at all.

What I wonder is what's best to do ?

KeithP

Counter claim for what?

If you are thinking about your costs, then that is not a counterclaim issue.
Anyway, costs are limited in the Small Claims Court environment.

It's your decision whether to pay the £60 or go to court.