UKPPO Claim Form

pryder

Thanks so much for taking the time to review at short notice - I was just about to pull the trigger and send it.

I have removed any reference to the Disability Discrimination Act and replaced it with Equality Act.

With the EHRC statutory code, it seemed like quite a long section hence why I just copied the relevant bit. However, I will grab the relevant bits from the code itself (even if a few pages)and reference them. Or is sharing the URL to the code sufficient?

KeithP

pryder said:

With the EHRC statutory code, it seemed like quite a long section hence why I just copied the relevant bit. However, I will grab the relevant bits from the code itself (even if a few pages)and reference them. Or is sharing the URL to the code sufficient?

Include it as evidence, in the same way that you have included the IPC Code of Practice.

pryder

Okay sure, thank you!

Coupon-mad

Yes definitely add the URL as well as quotes because people find that Code of Practice hard to find and may not realise its importance.

It is little-known law but 100% relevant to parking operators.  I drew it to the attention of the DLUHC, who added it to the laws that apply to the new parking Code.  Before I pointed it out, that EHRC legal rulebook hadn't even been looked at, AFAIK.

Remember - and be confident - that the EHRC Code is in itself 'law' because it is a statutory Code with breach if it being a specific offence.  On top of potential breaches of the EA itself.

pryder

Coupon-mad said:

Yes definitely add the URL as well as quotes because people find that Code of Practice hard to find and may not realise its importance.

It is little-known law but 100% relevant to parking operators.  I drew it to the attention of the DLUHC, who added it to the laws that apply to the new parking Code.  Before I pointed it out, that EHRC legal rulebook hadn't even been looked at, AFAIK.

Remember - and be confident - that the EHRC Code is in itself 'law' because it is a statutory Code with breach if it being a specific offence.  On top of potential breaches of the EA itself.

Thank you, have made the changes after re-reading the EHRC code and finally submitted, and have received the acknowledgement from both the claimants Solicitor and the court. 

Just really want to say thank you for the help at short notice - my WS has come such a long way thanks to all of your help. Do you have a Patreon page?

pryder

Hi all,

In preparation for the hearing I have been reading up and making sure I am well versed in my own arguments. I have been making my crib sheet.

I also have been trying to take apart the scammer's WS (attached). Here are some points from their WS that I was picking holes at. Let me know if these are valid and if there are any other points that I've missed worth bringing up.

Para 15 – the claimant states that I exceeded the permitted time by 12 minutes – clearly can’t do simple mathematics.

Para 16 – only have time of entry not time actually car parked.

Para 21/22 – an appeal was made, and acknowledged by the Claimant. This is proven by the response from the claimant, letter given in the SAR by the claimant themselves.

Para 25/26 – recovery costs – where these are not outlined, they are not recoverable. Most of these cases operate on a no win/no fee basis and hence no costs were incurred, including the automated reminders sent out by the Claimant’s solicitors. Does para 27 hold up in court about the validity of their costs i.e. to counter para 28?

Para 29 – they quote maximum of £70 of recovery costs but in the IPC code that is relevant for the time of the event, the amount is £60. Not sure whether to bring this up even as its within this limit, but may be construed as me giving validity to their recovery costs.

Para 30-33 – so what? clearly the fact that the template defence just needed some facts added, doesn't mean I didn't spend hours worrying, fretting and Googling before you found MSE and also carried out other searches including reading the Beavis case, the Southampton Crosby case, etc. And you will have spent loads of time reading the papers as they arrived, and thinking about your witness statement, as well as the time spent when you first got the claim in the post. This takes hours of time to handle for a litigant-in-person and in a recent case (OPS v Jack Neil, in the Sunday Times recently) a Judge assessed the time spent at 60 hours, for a LiP. If it were true that anything found on-line (be it a template or facts from other court case via transcripts) is inadmissible then NOTHING could ever be used again as all the words have been used before!

There are no grounds whatsoever to strike out a defence that is no more a 'template' than the Claimant's own statements and where the defence clearly has merit and has been listed for a hearing by Judges who were satisfied with it.

Para 35 – no time allowance was made to read the terms and conditions, after parking the car. IPC code of practice states: ‘Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.’

Para 36 – see comments about para 21/22 above

Para 37 – refer to my WS about indirect discrimination taking place which is a breach of Equality Act 2010. In addition, the BPA which enforced the disability parking accreditation state in their code that: ‘Ensure disabled people are not penalised for the extra time taken when using parking facilities’

Para 40 – how to counter? I didn’t park in a designated bay, I had to wait for a bay to become free, and hence could not exit the car to read the T&Cs. In addition, there are only 2 signs catering to disabled motorists, and none which were visible from place of parking.

Para 42 onwards – do I list points why I am not liable?

Should I also try to address the skeleton arguments? Or should I just focus on my own WS. Any help appreciated. 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vvcf3y128edwku8/claimant%27s%20ws%20redacted%20.pdf?dl=0

Fruitcake

In Para 15, I suspect they are referring to you exceeded a grace period of five minutes, but that is trumped by the EA 2010.

pryder

Fruitcake said:

I haven't read back, but was the claimant aware of a disability after issuing the NTK? If so, then they have breached the Equality Act 2010 by not making reasonable adjustments such as allowing extra time for motorists with a disability. This is known as indirect discrimination.

In Para 15, I suspect they are referring to you exceeded a grace period of five minutes, but that is trumped by the EA 2010.

Have you mentioned that waiting for a space is not parking? This case is relevant but note that "not a genuine pre-estimate of loss" is no longer a valid point.

Parking Prankster: Waiting for a space is not Parking. ParkingEye lose in court. Beware of snakes at Fistral Beach (parking-prankster.blogspot.com)

Thanks for the response @Fruitcake. Yes I notified them in my appeal about the disabled passenger, hence they were aware early on. I've also mentioned and quoted indirect discrimination in my WS.

Re the last point, yes I did explicitly state in my defence/WS that time parked was not equal to time of entry and have also quoted ParkingEye vs Ms.X.

Fruitcake

Fake add-on costs, paras 25 -29,

I don't think these fake charges had been invented in 2018 and wouldn't have been on the signs or the NTK as far as I am aware. You need to check the IPC CoPs to see when this changed. The claimant can't add on costs now that did not exist and were not brought to the defendant's notice at the material time.

The 2017 version would have been in force in 2018.

International Parking Community (theipc.info)

Fruitcake

Paras 30 - 33, indeed, so what? The claimant has actually accused you of the information not being within your knowledge, which is most disingenuous of them. You have researched and learned and understood every point in the defence template. 
As long as you can demonstrate to a judge you do understand what each point means, you shouldn't have a problem.
At least one judge has replied to the claimant's accusations, "So what?" I believe a defendant in at least one case was actually legally qualified.