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

Gnomi777

I've taken out quite a bit, to hopefully leave this more specific and with the aspects that are factual. I'll add back in the extra information if/when the witness statement is required.

Your opinions are valued. Many thanks 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 driver 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.

No evidence has been presented by the Claimant to show the whereabouts of the Defendant’s vehicle, in relation to the area controlled by the parking regulations. Any photos previously documented do not show any visible context of where the vehicle was at the time the photo was taken.

At the time of visiting, the Defendant also had a small baby, who required frequent breastfeeding and changing. This would have caused unavoidable delays, 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.

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.

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. 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

D_P_Dance

I loveit when people turn the tables on these scammers.  

KeithP

Every paragraph needs a number.
Suggest the paragraphs you have shown us be numbered from 2 to 11 and of course subsequent paragraphs be renumbered accordingly.

Do not include those links. A Defence is plain text. You can/will evidence those statements at Witness Statement and evidence time - some months away.

Gnomi777

Ok dokey. I've done as recommended and have renumbered the whole document and removed the links. I've also slightly adjusted the final point (lucky no. 13) in the freeform part of the defence, as it didn't scan well and made it sound like the rest of the (incredibly well written) defence wasn't to be considered.

1.     The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

2.     The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

4.     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 driver of a vehicle would be able to easily and clearly see the terms and conditions, whilst also operating a vehicle.

5.     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.

6.     No evidence has been presented by the Claimant to show the whereabouts of the Defendant’s vehicle in relation to the area controlled by the parking regulations. Any photos previously documented do not show any visible context of where the vehicle was at the time the photo was taken.

7.     At the time of visiting, the Defendant also had a small baby, who required frequent breastfeeding and changing. This would have caused unavoidable delays, even if the Defendant had been aware of the parking time limit.

8.     The Equality Act 2010 states that it is discrimination to treat a woman unfavourably because she is breastfeeding a child of any age. This applies to anyone providing services, benefits, facilities and premises to the public, public bodies, further and higher education bodies and association.

9.     In addition, a woman on maternity leave who has caring responsibilities is also a classed as a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010.

10.  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.

11.  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.

12.  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. 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.

13.  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, combined with the further points in this Defence, are the basis of why the Defendant feels the parking charge should be dropped.

Gnomi777

Just wondered whether anyone would be able to advise if this is now suitable. I'd like to send it off today, in advance of the deadline date of 11/10/2021, in case I forget...! Any advice or suggestions welcome.

Coupon-mad

Looks fine as long as the rest of the template below that is included and renumbered.  Sign and date it and email it to the CCBC and a copy to Civil Enforcement's email legal3@ or whatever (look at other CEL claim threads to find it).

Gnomi777

Gah! The money claim site isn't letting me in!!

Gnomi777

Okay, I'm in! You have to use Explorer...!
However, you only get 122 lines in which to submit your defence. This is not enough to fit in everything that is in the draft defence...

Gnomi777

I have sent the defence to ccbcaq@justice.gov.uk as requested in the email you get when you send an email to the Money Claims service for help with the site. I've then referenced in the box where the defence is meant to be pasted to refer to the defence, sent on 11/10/2021 to ccbcaq@justice.gov.uk. I hope this is sufficient for them.
I've also sent it to Civil Enforcement via office@ce-service.co.uk, Legal3@ce-service.co.uk and dataprotectionofficer@ce-service.co.uk, as was suggested by another Forum user in a similar thread posted recently.

Le_Kirk

Gnomi777 said:

Okay, I'm in! You have to use Explorer...!
However, you only get 122 lines in which to submit your defence. This is not enough to fit in everything that is in the draft defence...

Gnomi777 said:

I have sent the defence to ccbcaq@justice.gov.uk as requested in the email you get when you send an email to the Money Claims service for help with the site. I've then referenced in the box where the defence is meant to be pasted to refer to the defence, sent on 11/10/2021 to ccbcaq@justice.gov.uk. I hope this is sufficient for them.
I've also sent it to Civil Enforcement via office@ce-service.co.uk, Legal3@ce-service.co.uk and dataprotectionofficer@ce-service.co.uk, as was suggested by another Forum user in a similar thread posted recently.

I hope you didn't post anything in the defence box on MCOL as that would be taken as your defence (even if you just put in a full stop) and you will have to try to recover this by contacting CCBC.  Correct to send it to the claimant, as there have been instances recently where CCBC have not been sending it to claimant and there have been default CCJs issued.  no point sending it it to the DPO.