DCBL legal CCJ saga (case won)

Jsalomonuk

D_P_Dance said:

I agree with you first paragraph, but have not see many DD counter claims on here.  I suspect that, if there were a whiff of a DDCC the PPC would settle out of court.

So is It a good idea to put that in my WS under the reasonable defence 13.3 bit so that at least the PPC will see that's what they will be up against if they continue after the set aside ?

nosferatu1001

A counter claim is not a defence to the first claim.

blackdog2220

Have you contacted the BPA and asked them why a company formed in 2020 have brought a claim for a case that happened long before they were formed , why DCBL state on paperwork to the court , that the LTD company applied to the DVLA 

of all the capitol control cases active at the moment , yours is the one that is blatently a lie 
the bpa need to act , so do the DVLA and the SRA , as DCBL have lied to the court 

Jsalomonuk

nosferatu1001 said:

A counter claim is not a defence to the first claim.

Correct but I don't understand how this is a counter claim,  perhaps you could guide me where I'm going wrong then 

my defence is that if a contract is unenforceable because it is written in a way that is a breech of the equality act , and this contract is written in such a way then it is not enforceable against me, how is that not a defence ?

A counter claim would be for damages for a breech of the equality act for disability discrimination, that's not my aim here. I am only saying the initial contract is not valid in the law because it does not comply with the law as set out by the equality act 2010  I've quoted what relevant bits of the act have been used in court in other cases against PPC and have been accepted by the court in those circumstances

Jsalomonuk

blackdog2220 said:

Have you contacted the BPA and asked them why a company formed in 2020 have brought a claim for a case that happened long before they were formed , why DCBL state on paperwork to the court , that the LTD company applied to the DVLA 

of all the capitol control cases active at the moment , yours is the one that is blatently a lie 
the bpa need to act , so do the DVLA and the SRA , as DCBL have lied to the court 

So not yet no, the issue I have is that I'm trying to tackle this but my brain is quite hard to lock down. The kind of symptoms I have are 

• Disorganization and problems prioritizing
• Poor time management skills
• Problems focusing on a task
• Trouble multitasking
• Excessive activity or restlessness
• Poor planning
• Low frustration tolerance
• Frequent mood swings
• Problems following through and completing tasks

At the moment I have been given multiple different things to try and learn and understand and I'm not in a position to follow up on any of it it yet.
I'm currently looking at what legal help I may be entitled too as on my own i will struggle, once I've had the ccj set aside I can look again at making complaints etc 

nosferatu1001

A breach of the Equality Act may be a defence to the underlying claim, of course. I didnt say it wasnt. 

Jsalomonuk

nosferatu1001 said:

A breach of the Equality Act may be a defence to the underlying claim, of course. I didnt say it wasnt. 

Apologies I may have just misunderstood what you meant then.

Johnersh

Unless I've missed something the o/p has a decent basis for set aside.  The subsequent defence appears to be that s/he should not have had to display a disability badge. 

Isn't that a struggle? I don't see that requiring a disabled person to display a disabled badge to park in a wider access bay etc is any more than a legitimate means of preserving the availability of those spaces for those that require them. The reasonable adjustment is to provide those spaces. 

If a private scheme mirrors that system (and all countries in the UK and EU have the same scheme) you're unlikely to convince anyone that it's unfair. 

Coupon-mad

But the EA is silent about Blue Badges and if the trader (parking firm) knew afterwards, say from an appeal or complaint, that the person was disabled and refused to make a retrospective 'reasonable adjustment', then that could be a breach of the EA.  There only has to be evidence of the need and the protected characteristics, and the trader has to take 'every step' to remove the barrier or detriment suffered by that person.

It's an argument that has run and run.  And in all that time, PPCs have also failed to allow disabled people more time (e.g. extending free parking limits).  That's certainly illegal.

nosferatu1001

Johnersh said:

Unless I've missed something the o/p has a decent basis for set aside.  The subsequent defence appears to be that s/he should not have had to display a disability badge. 

Isn't that a struggle? I don't see that requiring a disabled person to display a disabled badge to park in a wider access bay etc is any more than a legitimate means of preserving the availability of those spaces for those that require them. The reasonable adjustment is to provide those spaces. 

If a private scheme mirrors that system (and all countries in the UK and EU have the same scheme) you're unlikely to convince anyone that it's unfair. 

A Blue Badge covers a narrower range of eligible disabilities than those the EA requires companies to make adjustments for. By restricting those bays to just those with a BB, you are discriminating against those users.