Defence for overstaying at McDonalds car park.

Carmel73

Hi everyone, I have read the Newbie threads, I have acknowledged the claim, and I am now writing my defense.  Could someone have a look and see if this is too little?  Thanks in advance! 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

 

3. The Defendant visited the McDonald restaurant in Markham Moor with her three children during a trip to visit Issac Newtons house in Lincolnshire.  The Defendant had never visited this McDonalds previously and was not aware of the time limits on parking and did not see any signage regarding time limitations.  One of the Defendant's children has additional needs and this child requires a great deal of attention in public spaces, if signage was in place, the Defendant claims that this was not clear enough to be seen in circumstances where attention may be challenging.   

 

Coupon-mad

Looks good - except add a paragraph about your legal right, as a carer of a child with a condition and needs that meet the definition of disability in the Equality Act 2010, to have a mechanism to claim a 'reasonable adjustment' of time and exempt the vehicle from unlawful allegations of 'overstay'.

Search the forum for 'newest' discussions including keywords such as:

Equality physical time adjustment

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Carmel73

Coupon-mad said:

Looks good - except add a paragraph about your legal right, as a carer of a child with a condition and needs that meet the definition of disability in the Equality Act 2010, to have a mechanism to claim a 'reasonable adjustment' of time and exempt the vehicle from unlawful allegations of 'overstay'.

Search the forum for 'newest' discussions including keywords such as:

Equality physical time adjustment

Thanks Coupon-mad, ill do that!

Carmel73

KeithP said:

Hello and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Issue date is the 7th April, I filed the Acknowledgment on the 19th April, by my calculations that gives me unit May 10th to file the defense. 

KeithP

Carmel73 said:

KeithP said:

Hello and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Issue date is the 7th April, I filed the Acknowledgment on the 19th April, by my calculations that gives me unit May 10th to file the defense. 

You are right with your Defence filing deadline, but there might be something useful here...

With a Claim Issue Date of 7th April, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 10th May 2022 to file your Defence.

That's nearly two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see that you are not leaving it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Carmel73

KeithP said:

Carmel73 said:

KeithP said:

Hello and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Issue date is the 7th April, I filed the Acknowledgment on the 19th April, by my calculations that gives me unit May 10th to file the defense. 

You are right with your Defence filing deadline, but there might be something useful here...

With a Claim Issue Date of 7th April, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 10th May 2022 to file your Defence.

That's nearly two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see that you are not leaving it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Thanks for this Keith, I will make sure I email rather than use the online facility. 

Carmel73

Coupon-mad said:

Looks good - except add a paragraph about your legal right, as a carer of a child with a condition and needs that meet the definition of disability in the Equality Act 2010, to have a mechanism to claim a 'reasonable adjustment' of time and exempt the vehicle from unlawful allegations of 'overstay'.

Search the forum for 'newest' discussions including keywords such as:

Equality physical time adjustment

Ok, how about this?

3. The Defendant visited the McDonald's restaurant in Markham Moor with her three children during a trip to visit Issac Newton's house in Lincolnshire. The Defendant had never visited this Mcdonald's previously and was not aware of the time limits on the parking and did not see any signage regarding time limitations.   One of the Defendant's children has special needs and this child requires a great deal of attention in public spaces, if signage was in place, the Defendant claims that this was not clear enough to be seen in circumstances where attention may be challenging.  

The Defendant would also like to draw attention to protections under the Equality Act 2010 point 2.20(3).  The defendant considers that the time limitation imposed does not account for the additional time taken to carry out normal day-to-day activity of the child with ‘protected characteristics’.  The Defendant feels that the Claimant should make a ‘reasonable adjustment’ of time and that the vehicle should be exempt from unlawful allegations of ‘overstay’.  

Carmel73

Coupon-mad said:

Looks good - except add a paragraph about your legal right, as a carer of a child with a condition and needs that meet the definition of disability in the Equality Act 2010, to have a mechanism to claim a 'reasonable adjustment' of time and exempt the vehicle from unlawful allegations of 'overstay'.

Search the forum for 'newest' discussions including keywords such as:

Equality physical time adjustment

Scratch that last one, how about this - 

3. The Defendant visited the McDonald’s restaurant in Markham Moor with her three children during a trip to visit Issac Newtons house in Lincolnshire.  The Defendant had never visited this McDonalds previously and was not aware of the time limits on parking and did not see any signage regarding time limitations.   One of the Defendants children has additional needs and this child requires a great deal of attention in public spaces, if signage was in place, the Defendant claims that this was not clear enough to be seen in circumstances where attention may be challenging.  

The Defendant would also like to draw attention to protections under the Equality Act s20(3).  The defendant considers that the time limitation imposed does not account for the additional time taken to carry out normal day-to-day activity of the child with ‘protected characteristics’.  The Defendant feels that the Claimant should make a ‘reasonable adjustment’ of time and that the vehicle, which belongs to the child’s legal carer, should be exempt from unlawful allegations of ‘overstay’.  

Coupon-mad

Not 'the Defendant feels'.  The law requires!

4.  The Defendant would also like to draw attention to protections under the Equality Act 2010 point 2.20(3) and other provisions.  The Defendant considers that the time limitation imposed is an unfair term in that it does not account for the additional time taken to carry out normal day-to-day activities with a child with ‘protected characteristics’. 

5.  The applicable law and the statutory EHRC Equality Act Code of Practice regarding a Service Provider's obligation to take steps in advance to avoid indirect discrimination, means that this Claimant should have made available a prominently communicated mechanism to enable disabled customers/carers to claim a ‘reasonable adjustment’ of extra parking time on site.  Car park provisions that must be provided by Service Providers at locations where the public are invited, do not stop at physical adjustments such as a wider bay.

6.  Whilst the fixed policy of a free parking time may be sufficient for able-bodied patrons of the restaurant, this is not sufficient for the Defendant's son's needs.  The vehicle should be exempt from unlawful allegations of ‘overstay’ and the Claimant has failed in its statutory duty to make 'reasonable adjustments' to remove such barriers and find a workable system to adjust fixed policies that may cause detriment, harassment and unfair cost to those with protected characteristics.  There is no lawful justification or excuse for causing indirect discrimination to the disabled public 'at large', by a trader saying 'we didn't know'. It is an anticipatory duty enshrined in law and could have been easily and inexpensively addressed by clear signage offering disabled visitors more time, for example by registering the VRM on a 'white list' inside the restaurant.

Carmel73

Coupon-mad said:

Not 'the Defendant feels'.  The law requires!

4.  The Defendant would also like to draw attention to protections under the Equality Act 2010 point 2.20(3) and other provisions.  The Defendant considers that the time limitation imposed is an unfair term in that it does not account for the additional time taken to carry out normal day-to-day activities with a child with ‘protected characteristics’. 

5.  The applicable law and the statutory EHRC Equality Act Code of Practice regarding a Service Provider's obligation to take steps in advance to avoid indirect discrimination, means that this Claimant should have made available a prominently communicated mechanism to enable disabled customers/carers to claim a ‘reasonable adjustment’ of extra parking time on site.  Car park provisions that must be provided by Service Providers at locations where the public are invited, do not stop at physical adjustments such as a wider bay.

6.  Whilst the fixed policy of a free parking time may be sufficient for able-bodied patrons of the restaurant, this is not sufficient for the Defendant's son's needs.  The vehicle should be exempt from unlawful allegations of ‘overstay’ and the Claimant has failed in its statutory duty to make 'reasonable adjustments' to remove such barriers and find a workable system to adjust fixed policies that may cause detriment, harassment and unfair cost to those with protected characteristics.  There is no lawful justification or excuse for causing indirect discrimination to the disabled public 'at large', by a trader saying 'we didn't know'. It is an anticipatory duty enshrined in law and could have been easily and inexpensively addressed by clear signage offering disabled visitors more time, for example by registering the VRM on a 'white list' inside the restaurant.

Wow, Thank you so much Coupon-Mad, this is great!