PCN escalated to Court proceedings **EDIT - I WON**

Littlewadie

Coupon-mad said:

They cannot have typed ''would of''.  That is not English.  There is no such phrase.

Sorry altered accordingly

Coupon-mad

Everything you have described is just the usual template and changes nothing about your own case.

Littlewadie

Coupon-mad said:

Everything you have described is just template rubbish from them and changes nothing about your own case.

So you don't think I need to compose a supplementary WS and just go with what I have already stated in that WS I submitted to the court?
They have put emphasis on that fact I have provided current evidence regarding my illness and nothing from the time of the PCN, I will not be able to get to the doctors now for paperwork due to CV stopping all face to face appointments, I did submit my scan documents which are dated from April 2014, which they have glossed over. I may be able to find something from 2014 from physio or a hospital appointment but I doubt it as I burn my documents after so long, as I did not see any need for them.

beamerguy

Littlewadie said:

Yeah, they keep going over facts they say I said, when I never in any appeal, defence of WS stated that the signs were adequate and that my evidence proves that they were adequate, when in all my photos they were not even visible, as well as other things like "this code of practice gives recommendations in regards to the signage within the car park" implying it does not have to do it!
 

BWLegal are coming out with so much rubbish, it is now desperation to try and explain their scam away.

So they now say "recommendations" ???
The BPA / IPC code of practice is for ATA members, it's not a law, it's not a contract
BWLegal have run out of excuses now .... in the past they have said ....
The excuses given for adding the fake £60 ..IT'S UNLAWFUL
* contractual charge
* admin costs
* debt collector costs
* legal fees
* The CoP of each ATA says they can do it.
ALL OF WHICH IS RUBBISH

BWLegal don't seem to understand that their nonsensical rubbish is the very reason that judges are spanking them ?  The simple fact is that BWLegal cannot give any LEGAL AUTHORITY for the fake add-on

Littlewadie

So, how should I proceed with this, is it too late to do a supplementary WS, or go with a skeleton argument?
I am happy to do either, there are some points they have made with regards to refuting my WS, can someone clarify these points?
Grace periods - they only need to give 10 min for arrival and to read the signs to then make a decision to park but no mention of time to leave.

BPA Code Of Practice - It claims to comply with the C.O.P but then says it just gives recommendations, should I clarify with the BPA on this?

Delayed Litigation - had a dormant 4 year period where no contact after the first initial contact, then straight to legal proceedings, they have stated they were in accordance with section 5 of the limitations act 1980 - I understand they can pursue for up to 6 years but do they have to be actively pursing me?

Denied Breach of UTCCR's - quoted Chaplair Ltd V Kumari [2015] EWCA Civ 798 ( 27July 2015).   Also Church Commissioners v Ibrahim [1997] EGLR 13
They claim : that there is nothing in principle abusive about the £60 which the claimant seeks to recover in respect of the additional administrative costs which were incurred before each matter was handed over to the claimants solicitors. The claimant further submits that the claim is not claim for loss but a breach of the contractual license.

Obligation is on the user -  quoted example 10 of the Consumers Right Act 2015, regarding a lack of opportunity to become acquainted with the terms cannot apply.

Beavis paragraph 99 - makes clear that although the claimant is not liable to suffer a loss as a result of contravening motorists, there is a legitimate interest in charging them which extends beyond the recovery of any loss. The claimant are therefor minded that there is no such unlawful or unfair term as alleged.

There will be no discontinue - there is no substantive claim which entitles the defendant to recover such costs from the claimant. There is a contractual basis upon which the claimant is liable and thus it followed there is no such breach of contract on the part of the claimant

No Discrimination - They have denied any breach of the equalities act 2020 and have put me to strict proof of the same? It has also stated it was not aware of any medical conditions prior to or after the Contravention Date, the same is also irrelevant. ??

Denies Harassment - The claimant avers that section 1 (3) (c) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 expressly states that a course of conduct that someone alleges to be harassment will not be deemed so if the person who perused  it shows that in particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct is reasonable.
The claimant and their solicitors  have made attempts to resolve the matter and continues to be entirely reasonable and under no circumstances meets the high threshold of harassment as defined in the act and simply tried to resolve matters with the defendant. 

BPA Code Of Practice - section 16.5, the defendants interpretation of the above is misconceived???

Reasonable adjustments for disabled users - The claimant made reasonable adjustment to the car park by providing a designated area of parking for disabled users of the car park..... They did not, they were there long before it became a restricted car park, they also state that the terms and conditions are for all users of the car park.

Sorry its so long, but it has bugged me all night what they have wrote, this is just a small snippet of the dribble I have just read again and again and again.
All help is much appreciated, thanks

Coupon-mad

Littlewadie said:

So, how should I proceed with this, is it too late to do a supplementary WS, or go with a skeleton argument?
I am happy to do either, 

I don't feel you need to add anything.  Just take a crib sheet of notes.

there are some points they have made with regards to refuting my WS, can someone clarify these points?

Grace periods - they only need to give 10 min for arrival and to read the signs to then make a decision to park but no mention of time to leave.

...and of course, also no mention or agreement that a disabled person with 'protected characteristics' as defined in the EA 2015 is BY LAW allowed 'reasonable adjustments' and that it is unlawful to hold you to the same time limit as able bodied people.  And there is no lawful excuse that the PPC ''didn't know'' about your needs, because the duty to avoid INdirect discrimination against the (anonymous) disabled population 'at large' is anticipatory and must take account of the likely disadvantage that an arbitrary time limit causes a person who is less mobile.

BPA Code Of Practice - It claims to comply with the C.O.P but then says it just gives recommendations, should I clarify with the BPA on this?

Nope.  Stop taking it so seriously!

Delayed Litigation - had a dormant 4 year period where no contact after the first initial contact, then straight to legal proceedings, they have stated they were in accordance with section 5 of the limitations act 1980 - I understand they can pursue for up to 6 years but do they have to be actively pursing me?

No, this is a minor point and stop worrying about it.  All they are saying is that the case was brought within the 6 years.  Yes it was, but you are saying that the delay was entirely the Claimant's, and they cannot gain from 5 years' interest for sitting on their hands for 4 years of it!

Denied Breach of UTCCR's - quoted Chaplair Ltd V Kumari [2015] EWCA Civ 798 ( 27July 2015).   Also Church Commissioners v Ibrahim [1997] EGLR 13
They claim : that there is nothing in principle abusive about the £60 which the claimant seeks to recover in respect of the additional administrative costs which were incurred before each matter was handed over to the claimants solicitor

LOL, the barrister at Southampton threw a copy of Chaplair v Kumari at me across the table - I just grinned and said I was familiar with it, as you may have read in the full Britannia v Crosby  Southampton transcript.  He then pretty much forgot to use it, and the above cases are ALL irrelevant.  Complete red herrings IMHO.  

YES a claimant can reasonably claim genuine and proportionate expenditure...but parking firms have a HUGE problem here.  Even if the operational costs add up to £60 (and they don't) the Beavis case says THREE TIMES in paras 98, 193 and 198, that those costs must be in the parking charge itself. 

And ParkingEye v Somerfield at 419 states clearly that adding £60 is '
unrecoverable'.

''The claimant further submits that the claim is not claim for loss but a breach of the contractual license.''

All just hot air.  We all know they are not claiming for 'loss' and you didn't say they were.   
So what really.

No Discrimination - They have denied any breach of the equalities act 2020 and have put me to strict proof of the same? 

Reasonable adjustments for disabled users - The claimant made reasonable adjustment to the car park by providing a designated area of parking for disabled users of the car park..... They did not, they were there long before it became a restricted car park, they also state that the terms and conditions are for all users of the car park.

It has also stated it was not aware of any medical conditions prior to or after the Contravention Date, the same is also irrelevant. ??

It is NOT called the Equalities Act 2020.  
Please be familiar with the Act you are relying on - THE EQUALITY ACT 2010.
Why the question marks?  I don't understand. 

I already explained in your Witness Statement, what INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION means.  You already have these tools in your WS, you know this! 

You know that they do not have to know about a disability first.  You know that already.  Be confident.

Denies Harassment - The claimant avers that section 1 (3) (c) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 expressly states that a course of conduct that someone alleges to be harassment will not be deemed so if the person who perused  it shows that in particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct is reasonable.

The claimant and their solicitors  have made attempts to resolve the matter and continues to be entirely reasonable and under no circumstances meets the high threshold of harassment as defined in the act and simply tried to resolve matters with the defendant. 

Obligation is on the user -  quoted example 10 of the Consumers Right Act 2015, regarding a lack of opportunity to become acquainted with the terms cannot apply.
Beavis paragraph 99 - makes clear that although the claimant is not liable to suffer a loss as a result of contravening motorists, there is a legitimate interest in charging them which extends beyond the recovery of any loss. The claimant are therefor minded that there is no such unlawful or unfair term as alleged.There will be no discontinue - there is no substantive claim which entitles the defendant to recover such costs from the claimant. There is a contractual basis upon which the claimant is liable and thus it followed there is no such breach of contract on the part of the claimant

BPA Code Of Practice - section 16.5, the defendants interpretation of the above is misconceived???

Nothing to worry about. 

Sorry its so long, but it has bugged me all night what they have wrote, this is just a small snippet of the dribble I have just read again and again and again.

Don't let this bug you.   Your WS & evidence are good already. 
They have NOT rebutted any of it. 

Just get it clear in your head, to explain to the Judge, about INdirect discrimination and point to the Equality Act about it.

Do not let anyone say that putting in some physical adjustments like Blue Badge Bays is enough to comply with their duties.  You KNOW it isn't, I showed you the 'tours' example about an adjustment of an inflexible time limit and I showed you that they do not have to know about a disability earlier. 

That is not a lawful excuse they can use, for INdirect discrimination.  Sigh.

D_P_Dance

Protection from Harassment Act 1997 expressly states that a course of conduct that someone alleges to be harassment will not be deemed so if the person who perused  it shows that in particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct is reasonable.

PPCs'  conduct is rarely reasonable, read this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonability

Littlewadie

It is NOT called the Equalities Act 2020.  
Please be familiar with the Act you are relying on - THE EQUALITY ACT 2010.
Why the question marks?  I don't understand. 

I already explained in your Witness Statement, what INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION means.  You already have these tools in your WS, you know this! 

You know that they do not have to know about a disability first.  You know that already.  Be confident.

I know what you are saying and I would like to say I am confident in your work, just not confident in myself to not mess it up, when you read it on paper knowing your going to court to defend yourself, I feel scared sh**less, obviously I am not up to scratch on the laws and what can and can not be said or used and don't want to let myself down by being a complete idiot in the room. I felt what they had wrote was completely useless and wrong but wanted to boost my confidence back up with a little reassurance that I am right and they are wrong.

Don't let this drivel bug you.   
It is template rubbish - means nothing at all - and your WS & evidence are good already. 
They have NOT rebutted any of it. 

Just get it clear in your head, to explain to the Judge, about INdirect discrimination and point to the Equality Act about it.

Do not let anyone say that putting in some physical adjustments like Blue Badge Bays is enough to comply with their duties.  You KNOW it isn't, I showed you the 'tours' example about an adjustment of an inflexible time limit and I showed you that they do not have to know about a disability earlier. 

That is not a lawful excuse they can use, for INdirect discrimination.  Sigh.

I have myself all arranged and a folder ready, I will go through my points about their WS and the errors they have written down, so I can refer to them throughout.
Hopefully it will go ahead, I phoned them today and they said all is fine for next week so far.
My poor kids are now off school and one of them can not do their exams either. Have to find childcare for them.
Fingers crossed, I have been told he is a strict Judge but fair.

Littlewadie

D_P_Dance said:

Protection from Harassment Act 1997 expressly states that a course of conduct that someone alleges to be harassment will not be deemed so if the person who perused  it shows that in particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct is reasonable.

PPCs'  conduct is rarely reasonable, read this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonability

Thanks for that. Will keep that handy next week.

Littlewadie

Ok guys, have been in court today and the advocate was in isolation (not a bw rep) they asked for telephone conference but was denied, they have offered me for it to be read on paper or have it adjourned for a later date, he offered me 5 min to think about it and confer with my husband. I have asked for more time to decide and he has given me 14 days. He said either way they have been informed all trials are to be suspended from today, so would not of gone ahead anyway. So what do you think I am better off doing, having it done by paper or go back when everything’s calmed down and go face to face with the buggers. 🤷‍♀️