Court Claim Form received - advice please.

KeithP

Cosmic4z, check your spelling of the word DEFENCE in the title heading of the dropbox document. :eek:

If you do copy it into the thread, read this thread first:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5706338


Whilst most of your Defence is written correctly in the third person, your point number 3 is not.

cosmic4z

KeithP wrote: »

Cosmic4z, check your spelling of the word DEFENCE in the title heading of the dropbox document. :eek:

If you do copy it into the thread, read this thread first:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5706338

Thanks Keith.

I've corrected that mistake in my word processor (using Pages on Mac). I won't update the PDF in dropbox just yet though. Also, unless there's reason to copy and paste here (e.g. it makes life easier for people reviewing it), I'll just use the dropbox version (kinda makes sense to keep the thread cleaner).

Thanks again.

cosmic4z

Hi, could someone please take a last look at my defence let me know if it's okay to submit? Have to send it off in a couple of days.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/66xya40sjii8hmc/defence%20points.pdf?dl=0

Thank you for your help.

cosmic4z

Hi, I'm just about to mail my defence off. I wanted to check it was okay before sending first. Could someone please take a quick look through, and see if there's anything I need to change.

You can find it here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/66xya40sjii8hmc/defence%20points.pdf?dl=0

Do I need to send in post and email?

Thanks.

KeithP

No need to mail, just email it as a signed pdf to: ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

Coupon-mad

Defence not Defense!! And not 'statement'.

Just:

DEFENCE

At point #1, because you are (quite rightly) using the Equality Act 2010, you are going to have to admit that the Defendant was an occupant of the car, but the Claimant is not entitled to demand that the driver is admitted. To protect that party from rogue parking firms (an industry exposed as 'deliberately deceptive', often choosing elderly or infirm people to pursue, and a 'disgrace to this Country' by MPs in a vociferous Parliamentary debate this month) the driver will not be named by the Defendant, a right positively enshrined in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

And here, add that an arbitrary time limit applying to able bodied drivers/passengers cannot lawfully be used as an excuse to charge/penalise disabled motorists/passengers, because this breaches the Equality Act 2010. You need to be qualifying that a penalty charge for an 'overstay' is NOT a lawful claim against a person with 'protected characteristics':

8. The claimant has not provided any evidence of the car being parked for over 2 hours. They have only produced ANPR timestamps for entry to, and exit from, the car park; which indicate an overstay (of 44 minutes).

You could mention the EHRC mandatory, Statutory Equality Act Code of Practice for Service Providers (Google it, read it!) and quote the example from the Code about 'tours' and arbitrary time limits being unlawful = INDIRECT discrimination against the disabled population at large.

And you could cite the case of the Norwich victory decision led by DMUK which reinforces the requirement for positive discrimination allowing the disabled population at large, access to services with a 'reasonable adjustment' of extended time for parking being a requirement of law, open to disabled people without them having to appeal a 'fine' first:

http://www.wake-smith.co.uk/news/council-car-park-case-settled-a-victory-for-blue-badge-holders/

...and Blue Badges are not relevant to the provisions of the Equality Act which is about need, not about permits, or badges, or red flags being waved in front of people!

Add that:

Indirect discrimination is different from 'direct' discrimination and it is not a lawful or justified excuse for a parking operator to respond that they 'did not know/could not have known' about the Defendant's medical condition. Since the requirement for service providers to actively avoid indirect discrimination places a legal obligation upon them to adjust arbitrary policies (including parking time limits) in advance, in anticipation of a percentage of disabled service users, the fact that the Claimant did not know about an individual person's needs due to their protected characteristics, is no lawful excuse for breach of the EA.

A protected person cannot be charged for a reasonable adjustment, that would be illegal.

cosmic4z

Thank you Coupon-Mad.

I'd already corrected 'Defence', just hadn't reflected the changes in the uploaded PDF copy on dropbox. I'll remove the 'Statement' bit though.

Aside from that, was there anything else that needed changing that you could see?

EDIT: Just seen your updated post. Thank you for checking my defence, I'll make the modifications you suggest before sending it off.

Thanks once again.

cosmic4z

Okay, have received the DQ from the other side; in box D3 (Witnesses) they have entered 'TBC'.

Can they put that? Seems a bit vague and not really answering the question posed.

Should we do the same, or just enter 1 in to box D3?

Coupon-mad

You just put '1' (i.e. you are the only witness on your side). But only in your OWN DQ you get from the court (or download online). Do not fill in any blank copy provided by the other side.

Yes they can put that. Ignore it.

cosmic4z

Thanks Coupon-Mad.

Have completed the form. Should I send original back to the CCBC, and a copy to other side? Should I include any kind of cover note?

Thanks.