Desperately looking for some advice

Kimmyl

Ok let me know how this is, I actually took a lot out since it was suggested not to go into too much detail however do you think I still need to remove more?

3. The defendant attended [REMOVED FOR PRIVACY REASONS] on 11/01/2022 to do some shopping.

Having used the car park at the retail park for many years, she was not aware of any restrictions and there were no obvious signs that the defendant noticed to say this car park had a time limit as the car park facing in the same retail park does not have any time limits.

This was the defendants first time driving again following the birth of her third baby on 08/11/21 in which she underwent an emergency caesarean section, it was also her first trip out alone with her newborn son.

She spent a total of £127.42 in the shops that the car park is intended for.

 

The defendant was finding difficulty in walking due to her physical condition at and she had a very young baby in tow which she needed to feed and change during the trip. The Equality Act 2010 states that the defendant must be treated with understanding and can’t be discriminated against due to these facts.

Coupon-mad

Is this a claim by SIP?

Did they file it themselves or does the Claim Form mention a solicitor?

Please show us the Particulars of Claim (cover your VRM) and show us the column of money totals on the right - WITHOUT SHOWING THE MCOL PASSWORD JUST ABOVE THAT BOX.

Kimmyl

Coupon-mad said:

Is this a claim by SIP?

Did they file it themselves or does the Claim Form mention a solicitor?

Please show us the Particulars of Claim (cover your VRM) and show us the column of money totals on the right - WITHOUT SHOWING THE MCOL PASSWORD JUST ABOV

No mention of a solicitor...

Coupon-mad

Thanks - interesting - but that's not the POC.  

Please also show us the Particulars of Claim (cover your VRM).  We need to see exactly how they plead their claims.

Kimmyl

Coupon-mad said:

Thanks - interesting - but that's not the POC.  

Please also show us the Particulars of Claim (cover your VRM).  We need to see exactly how they plead their claims.

Apologies, please see above

Coupon-mad

Great.  Fairly poorly pleaded because it doesn't actually state the term that was breached.  

Change your para 3 to the below new 3 & 4, then as para 5 onwards, add the (brand new for September) extra paragraphs and full transcript images in the right order, as seen in the thread today by @xavian1234 and THEN add the rest of the template defence (currently para 4 onwards in the template) and renumber the lot!

3. The defendant attended [REMOVED FOR PRIVACY REASONS] on 11/01/2022 to do some shopping.  Having used the car park at the retail park for many years, she was not aware of any restrictions and there were no obvious signs. The Defendant has since checked and avers that the signs are not adequate or prominent. The cut & paste allegation in the POC 'vehicle not permitted/grace period exceeded' encompasses two completely different potential breaches. It is not a 'permit' car park and none of the sparse signs list either of these as a 'relevant obligation' or contractual term that could cause a parking charge. The vague allegations are denied and it is further denied that this Claimant has suffered any 'damages' (whether in tort or in contract) that could possibly justify adding £60 on top of the already unconscionable £100.

4. This was the Defendant's first time driving again following the birth of her third baby on 08/11/21 by emergency caesarean section. It was also her first trip out alone with her newborn son and she was certainly 'permitted' having spent a total of £127.42 in the shops that the car park is intended for.  The Defendant was finding difficulty in walking due to her physical post-op condition and she had a very young baby in tow, who she needed to feed and change during the trip. The Equality Act 2010 (the EA) includes reasonable adjustment duties which go very much beyond 'applying the same rules for all' and the EA includes specific maternity protections for nursing mothers with babies under 6 months.  It is illegal for a service provider to discriminate (e.g. by applying a fixed policy) against a person with any 'protected characteristics' which are covered in the EA.

Kimmyl

Coupon-mad said:

Great.  Fairly poorly pleaded because it doesn't actually state the term that was breached.  

Change your para 3 to the below new 3 & 4, then as para 5 onwards, add the (brand new for September) extra paragraphs and full transcript images in the right order, as seen in the thread today by @xavian1234 and THEN add the rest of the template defence (currently para 4 onwards in the template) and renumber the lot!

3. The defendant attended [REMOVED FOR PRIVACY REASONS] on 11/01/2022 to do some shopping.  Having used the car park at the retail park for many years, she was not aware of any restrictions and there were no obvious signs. The Defendant has since checked and avers that the signs are not adequate or prominent. The cut & paste allegation in the POC 'vehicle not permitted/grace period exceeded' encompasses two completely different potential breaches. It is not a 'permit' car park and none of the sparse signs list either of these as a 'relevant obligation' or contractual term that could cause a parking charge. The vague allegations are denied and it is further denied that this Claimant has suffered any 'damages' (whether in tort or in contract) that could possibly justify adding £60 on top of the already unconscionable £100.

4. This was the Defendant's first time driving again following the birth of her third baby on 08/11/21 by emergency caesarean section. It was also her first trip out alone with her newborn son and she was certainly 'permitted' having spent a total of £127.42 in the shops that the car park is intended for.  The Defendant was finding difficulty in walking due to her physical post-op condition and she had a very young baby in tow, who she needed to feed and change during the trip. The Equality Act 2010 (the EA) includes reasonable adjustment duties which go very much beyond 'applying the same rules for all' and the EA includes specific maternity protections for nursing mothers with babies under 6 months.  It is illegal for a service provider to discriminate (e.g. by applying a fixed policy) against a person with any 'protected characteristics' which are covered in the EA.

Can I confirm you are referring to the letter images in this thread ParkingEye Court Claim from 2019 without previous letters - Page 4 — MoneySavingExpert Forum ??

I am planning to submit tomorrow

KeithP

Back on 5th September I asked...

KeithP said:

Please tell us the Issue Date on your Claim Form.

You didn't answer.

Kimmyl

KeithP said:

Back on 5th September I asked...

KeithP said:

Please tell us the Issue Date on your Claim Form.

You didn't answer.

Apologies - my head is frazzled with all of this. The issue date was 1/9/23, I acknowledged on the 11/09/23 - should I wait to submit my defence?

B789

You have nearly 2 weeks to submit your defence. Don't leave it until the last minute but don't rush it either.