Claim form from Civil Enforcement received - Newbury Retail Park - equality discrimination

Gnomi777

@KeithP
I can't see a defence pack password in the paperwork. Where would I find this?

Gnomi777

Gnomi777 said:

@KeithP
I can't see a defence pack password in the paperwork. Where would I find this?

Don't worry! I found it...!

Gnomi777

AoS done! Secretly looking forward to putting together the defence...
These bullies need to be stopped.

KeithP

Gnomi777 said:

KeithP said:

Gnomi777 said:

The 5 days since 'issue date' of the claim form is up today (13/09/21) - issued on 08/09/21, but only received today.
I will do the AoS tomorrow (14/09/21).

With a Claim Issue Date of 13th September, you have until Monday 27th September to file an Acknowledgment of Service but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an AoS, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an AoS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 11th October 2021 to file your Defence.

That's four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service instructions.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence.

Hi KeithP,
The Issue Date on the form received is 8th Sept, so I've counted 5 days from then (as advised in other posts to wait 5 days, for some reason). I'll do it the AoS now though, following the link you recommended.
Thank you for that and the information about filing the defence. I struggled a bit to locate it before so your detailed guidance as to where to find both is appreciated.

Oh, sorry about that.

The good news is that I only wrote the Issue Date wrongly in my post and I have now corrected that.
The target dates I mentioned were calculated correctly using the real Issue Date so they are correct and remain as I posted yesterday.

Gnomi777

Dear all. I've adjusted the template to confirm I was the driver and have formulated my defence (section 3). Please let me know what you think. I've included two footnotes to the GOV information relating to the Equality Act re: breastfeeding and maternity. Not sure if they'll pull through on this pasted version. Do I need to number each paragraph of section three as 3.1, 3.2, etc.?
Thank you in advance.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied.

3.  The Defendant visited Newbury Retail Park on 14/12/2020. At the time of visiting, there were no obvious or easily visible signs to explain the parking limitations. There were no signs at eye level, nor in areas where the operator of a vehicle would be able to easily and clearly see the terms and conditions, whilst also operating a vehicle. On entering the car parking area there were no signs to advise the Defendent that their ‘clock’ had started ticking (in terms of the three hour parking time limit), nor a sign to advise the Defendent when they were leaving the area within which this restriction applied.

The term 'parking' implies that a three hour parking time limit should start from the moment the vehicle is parked, not from when the ANPR cameras capture the vehicle entering the car park. This is an unfair and underhand way of enforcing a regulation, and does not give the service user clear parameters. With frequent queuing into and out of the car park (both within and on the other side of the ANPR camera 'zone'), further time could have easily been used up without the Defendent being aware that their 'clock' had started ticking, or that they were still being counted as being 'parked' even though they had left their car parking space and were waiting on the roadway within the car park to exit. It could cause extreme frustration (even anger) if a person was trying to leave and became stuck in traffic or held up for any reason, knowing they would incur a parking charge.

Compared to other retail parks of a similar size, the Defendant expected either no time limit, or an obvious way to pay per hour. A time limit of 3 hours for the size of the retail park, which contains many large shops, is completely unexpected and unreasonable.

With at least 16 operating retail premises on the park, this time limit allowed the Defendant just 11.25 minutes in each shop. This calculation does not include the time taken to park, unload the car of people and paraphernalia and walk between the shops. It also does not include the time taken to return to the car, pack shopping and leave, nor the time spent queuing with other vehicles to get out of the car park area. It is an unreasonable and deliberately unfeasible time limit, designed to catch out and penalise users of the retail park.

At the time of visiting, the Defendant was also affected by the longer Christmas queues and the COVID restrictions, which meant either waiting to enter a shop, or frequent waiting when in a shop for people to pass at a distance, all of which increased further the time taken to visit each shop.

At the time of visiting, the Defendant also had a small baby, who required frequent breastfeeding and changing. This involved a visit to Starbucks, which would have been over 30 minutes alone. The baby then required another change and feed before the Defendant was able to leave. The baby was changed in Lidl and fed in the car, which would have taken a further 20-30 minutes. This would have been an unavoidable delay, even if the Defendant had been aware of the parking time limit.

The Equality Act 2010 states that it is discrimination to treat a woman unfavourably because she is breastfeeding a child of any age[1]. This applies to anyone providing services, benefits, facilities and premises to the public, public bodies, further and higher education bodies and association. In addition, a woman on maternity leave who has caring responsibilities is also a classed as a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010[2].

It is indirect discrimination to apply rules or arrangements that apply to everyone, but that put someone with a protected characteristic at an unfair disadvantage.

Penalising those who use those shops so heavily, when other similar sized retail parks or shopping centres charge by the hour, is both unfair and unjustified. The car park was busy but not full. No loss has been reported on behalf of the company who own the land by the Claimant from the Defendant’s alleged overstay by 15 minutes. Had an hourly charge been in place, the Defendant would have simply incurred an additional hour to pay for (approximately 80p to £2.00).

The Defendant has written to each of the companies operating at the retail park. The Defendant has also written to the MP for Newbury, Laura Farris, and her own MP, John Howell, to express concerns regarding the method employed by the Claimant in regulating parking at the retail park and the impact on both customers and businesses. It is understood that Laura Farris is in discussion with the Claimant, to challenge their methods and find an alternative solution for controlling parking at Newbury Retail Park.

It is for the above reasons (combined with the lack of clear and obvious signage warning of the three hour parking limit, as well as the ambiguous parameters for when the parking timer starts/ends) that the Defendant feels the parking charge should be dropped.

---

[1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/85008/business-quickstart.pdf

[2] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/19

Le_Kirk

Number every paragraph with simple numbering.  Look through the defence and see what should be saved for the witness statement and evidence stage.

Gnomi777

Le_Kirk said:

Number every paragraph with simple numbering.  Look through the defence and see what should be saved for the witness statement and evidence stage.

Thank you. Do you mean simple numbering as in the example I gave?
I might need a bit more help with what to keep in the defence and what to save for the witness statement and evidence.

Le_Kirk

Gnomi777 said:

Le_Kirk said:

Number every paragraph with simple numbering.  Look through the defence and see what should be saved for the witness statement and evidence stage.

Thank you. Do you mean simple numbering as in the example I gave?
I might need a bit more help with what to keep in the defence and what to save for the witness statement and evidence.

Simple numbering as 1, 2, 3, 4 etc NOT 1, 2, 2.1, 2.2, 3 etc.  Defence is a series of short punchy legal/technical arguments written in the third person whilst the witness statement builds upon the defence points with the narrative (your story written in the first person) of what happened on the day and subsequently PLUS evidence.

Coupon-mad

The Equality Act 2010 states that it is discrimination to treat a woman unfavourably because she is breastfeeding a child of any age.

Does it?  Last time I looked at that section of the Act, it allows maternity protection for up to six months after the birth.

Save the majority of your story for the Witness Statement.  That is too long for a defence.

Gnomi777

Coupon-mad said:

The Equality Act 2010 states that it is discrimination to treat a woman unfavourably because she is breastfeeding a child of any age.

Does it?  Last time I looked at that section of the Act, it allows maternity protection for up to six months after the birth.

Save the majority of your story for the Witness Statement.  That is too long for a defence.

My recollection is that it said 'both before and after 26 weeks post birth', which sounds to me like at any time. In the footnote I've attached, which looks like advice for businesses, it clarifies 'a child of any age'. The WHO recommendation is to breastfeed for at least 2 years, which might be why there is no cut off age.

I'll cut and condense the defence shortly. Thank you for your advice.