County Court Business Centre Claim Form

Mintyfeeling

UKPC replied to my SAR within about half an hour. Well worth your time doing.

Coupon-mad

alledgedrex said:

Thanks so much for your replies, I’ve just filed my AOS.

With the defence… I’m seeing it’s pretty standard and there’s not too much I need to put in about my individual case. Is that right?

I’m now kicking myself I didn’t save all the letters from the beginning as I can’t even remember the timings. I’m sure I was about 10 minutes over and I had two young children and my elderly grandma with me. I do have a bank statement from the day which shows I spent money in the McDonalds I was parked in.

With the SAR lead times (at least a month). I’m feeling it’s not worth doing that as I’ll not have the information in time to file my defence. Does that sound about right?

Also, when I’ve written my defence, can I post it here for feedback?

Thanks in advance for any further help,

Lee

Did you get your defence in yet?

Only I've created a new paragraph 4 onwards to replace the template defence.  Use this brand new version instead after point #3:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79031299/#Comment_79031299

HTH

alledgedrex

Coupon-mad said:

Did you get your defence in yet?

Only I've created a new paragraph 4 onwards to replace the template defence.  Use this brand new version instead after point #3:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79031299/#Comment_79031299

HTH

I haven't yet, I've done exactly what you said I shouldn't and left it to the last minute (my deadline is 14th).

I've this morning submitted my SAR and got a response back already. Therefore, I'm now in possession of some very grainy photographs and the first two letters they sent to me. First one stating it's £50 if I pay within 14 days and the next one stating it's now £100 because I failed to pay in 14 days.

I've read and copied the new defence into a word document (thanks). I've also constructed a paragraph 3.

It reads thus:

3. At the time of the alleged offence, the driver was visiting McDonald’s with his parents, elderly grandmother and young children. The driver having previously worked at multiple McDonald’s restaurants where this was the case, believed that the allowed parking time was two hours. There was no clear signage stating otherwise. The driver’s elderly grandmother is slow when walking (blue badge holder but travelling in another car) and the driver’s children who he only sees at weekends were enjoying playing on the McDonald’s outdoor play area. These factors contributed to the visit being almost two hours (29 minutes over the later learned allowed maximum time) but still within the two hours the driver believed he had.

Is this any good at all? I'm trying to be as honest as possible. The way it's worded, I'm now admitting I was the driver. Is that ok? Paragraph 2 suggests I'm only admitting I'm the keeper. But it's hard to write a defence without implying you were indeed the driver (if you were) which in my case I was.

Le_Kirk

Imagine what you will say at a hearing if the judge asks "were you the driver on the day of the alleged event?"  Always best to be honest, defend as driver (if you were) and then you can give an honest, first person account when submitting your witness statement later in the process.  Some of that defence reads more like a witness statement anyway and is best kept to short punchy, legal/technical arguments, in this case about lack of signage and having a disabled person in your car.  No need to go into details at this stage.

alledgedrex

Le_Kirk said:

Imagine what you will say at a hearing if the judge asks "were you the driver on the day of the alleged event?"  Always best to be honest, defend as driver (if you were) and then you can give an honest, first person account when submitting your witness statement later in the process.  Some of that defence reads more like a witness statement anyway and is best kept to short punchy, legal/technical arguments, in this case about lack of signage and having a disabled person in your car.  No need to go into details at this stage.

I've now amended 1 & 2 to read:

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

3. At the time of the alleged offence, the defendant was visiting McDonald’s with his parents, children and elderly grandmother who is a blue badge holder. The blue badge was not displayed in the defendant’s car. The elderly grandmother was travelling in the parents’ car where the blue badge was displayed.

I only have to file this with the court right? Do I have to send a copy to the claimants legal team. I'm sure I've read I do but Bargepole doesn't mention that. Thanks in advance, Lee.

KeithP

alledgedrex said:

Le_Kirk said:

Imagine what you will say at a hearing if the judge asks "were you the driver on the day of the alleged event?"  Always best to be honest, defend as driver (if you were) and then you can give an honest, first person account when submitting your witness statement later in the process.  Some of that defence reads more like a witness statement anyway and is best kept to short punchy, legal/technical arguments, in this case about lack of signage and having a disabled person in your car.  No need to go into details at this stage.

I only have to file this with the court right? Do I have to send a copy to the claimants legal team. I'm sure I've read I do...

That's right only by email to the CCBC.

The guidance in the opening post on the template defence thread doesn't mention sending a copy of your Defence to the Claimant.

(In fact it doesn't mention a lot of things that you don't have to do.     )

Le_Kirk

Yes, as @KeithP states but do not forget to add the rest of the template before you send it.

alledgedrex

Le_Kirk said:

Yes, as @KeithP states but do not forget to add the rest of the template before you send it.

Yep, I have the full template in a document, I just extracted 2/3 to get some feedback.

Thanks

Coupon-mad

I'd remove the line that says the Blue Badge 'wasn't displayed in the car' (irrelevant because two cars were used for the get-together).  In fact just say that:

One of the party was a Blue Badge holder whose mobility impairments and frailty of age meant she needed more time than an able-bodied customer.  There is also a children's soft play area that the children enjoyed, so it is no wonder the visit took almost two hours including various refreshments and toilet breaks, at all times on site as paying patrons of the restaurant.  The needs of the Blue Badge holder alone mean that a reasonable adjustment of time was needed, and had the family known of the onerous terms they would have left.  No such terms were brought to the driver's attention and no mechanism was available for disabled people to claim their legal right to more time.  Under the Equality Act 2010 ('the EA') this was indirect discrimination and breaches the duty for anticipatory reasonable adjustments of time for the disabled population at large. There is an example about more time (the 'tours' example) in the statutory EHRC EA Code of Practice, a mandatory duty also cited in the Government's new Code of Practice linked later in this defence.

alledgedrex

Coupon-mad said:

I'd remove the line that says the Blue Badge 'wasn't displayed in the car' (irrelevant because two cars were used for the get-together).  In fact just say that:

One of the party was a Blue Badge holder whose mobility impairments and frailty of age meant she needed more time than an able-bodied customer.  There is also a children's soft play area that the children enjoyed, so it is no wonder the visit took almost two hours including various refreshments and toilet breaks, at all times on site as paying patrons of the restaurant.  The needs of the Blue Badge holder alone mean that a reasonable adjustment of time was needed, and had the family known of the onerous terms they would have left.  No such terms were brought to the driver's attention and no mechanism was available for disabled people to claim their legal right to more time.  Under the Equality Act 2010 ('the EA') this was indirect discrimination and breaches the duty for anticipatory reasonable adjustments of time for the disabled population at large. There is an example about more time (the 'tours' example) in the statutory EHRC EA Code of Practice, a mandatory duty also cited in the Government's new Code of Practice linked later in this defence.

Brilliant, thanks very much.