HX Parking - CCBC Claim Form defence now needed

meditate

Coupon-mad said:

Ok, I suggest you explain that in the defence.

Great, thanks.

I'll also delete (viii) as you suggest.

Coupon-mad said:

I'd get rid of (viii) because this isn't a generic defence.

Thanks

meditate

I think this is my final draft of the Defence, before sending it to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk

The rest of the defence is the DRAFT Defence as laid out here on the forum.

I'm assuming I do not send the evidence (photos, pdf of Council documents) with this written statement. Correct?

__

3. On 21st April 2022, the Defendant took his infirm, disabled elderly mother to the iconic, listed building of the Spanish City (having reserved a table in the restaurant), for her 78th birthday.

(i) The Defendant saw the big board by the pay machine, which states the cost of parking is £1 per hour, and noticed the car park is “managed and maintained by the landowner” (which he believes to be the Council, who leases the premises to Spanish City (NE) Ltd.), and felt secure that he understood the terms for parking. The assumed reasonableness on behalf of the landowner is evidenced by statements on public-record from the Claimant to the Council’s officials during their Planning Application, such as (bold emphasis added):

“Whilst Highways may have concerns about cause for confusion the tariff is very simple at £1 per hour for each hour spent in the car park, £2 for 2 hours, £3 for 3 hours etc. This minimises the need for the user to look for T&Cs”.

(ii) The Defendant’s mother (passenger) cannot walk more than a few yards without her zimmer-frame with wheels. She has various ailments, including rheumatoid arthritis in her hips, feet, and back, causing her extreme pain (especially when sitting in a restaurant chair for any length of time).

(iii)  After long delays in service, the Defendant paid for the meal just before the end of the 2 hours paid parking and went to the car.

(iv)  It took longer than expected for the Defendant’s mother (supported by her daughter) to hobble out of the premises, to help her (and the zimmer-frame) into the car, and for the car to exit the car park. However, he was no longer parked in a parking space (even though the car park was half empty), therefore not stopping others from parking in that space. The Defendant believed, at this point, he was no longer parking, but “picking up” – for which the Claimant told the Council in writing, there is a 30 minute grace period. This extention to the grace period was in response to an objection to the planning permission from Taxi drivers in the area. The objection recognised:

   "many passengers have a disability in one form or another."

On the 12th January 2022, the Claimant wrote:

   "After discussions with the site owners and in understanding the range of the Dome’s customers, HX has offered a 30-minute grace period to operate at the car park."

(v)  As a genuine customer/user of the establishment, the Defendant felt confident he was not in breach of any alleged contract. Evidence to affirm this belief is in the last paragraph of the same response (noted in (iv) above), which states:

   "Emphasis is on the grace period being used purely for drop off/pick up purposes for customers of the Dome and is not intended for use by vehicles to receive free parking. HX Car Park Management and the site owner will monitor car park use to measure the success of the parking scheme in ensuring sufficient car parking is available for the users of the building." (bold emphasis added.)

The 'Dome' referred to is the Spanish City building.

(vi)  Furthermore, the car of the Defendant was outside the parking boundary while waiting for his disabled passenger.

(vii)  The passenger is protected under the Equality Act 2010, and whilst the industry minimum ten minute grace period to leave a car park is sufficient for able bodied drivers hopping straight into their car, it is insufficient for disabled patrons and the inflexibility of a non-manned car park has resulted in indirect discrimination. A criminal offence for which there is no excuse that the trader 'didn't know' about a driver or passenger's protected characteristics. This is a failure of the anticipatory duty to consider the needs of the disabled population 'at large' and set in place extended time to set down or pick up disabled persons.

___

Thanks for all your help!

Coupon-mad

Looks good to me.  Attach nothing at this stage.

meditate

UPDATE

Hello again,

Looks like Gladstones have relied upon my inadiquate knowledge of the court process to weasle a "Your defence was rejected" and then a "Defence was struck out" due to not sending a Directions Questionaire (DQ).

I received a letter from Gladstones in October, stating:

"We act for the Claiment and have notified the Court of the Claiment's intention to proceed with the Claim.
Please find enclosed a copy of the Claiment's completed Directions Questionaire, which has also been filed to the Court."

On the back of that letter, and both sides of the following sheet is an empty DQ. If there was a completed DQ, I might have thought to fill in the empty one. But a quick perusal of the DQ I was sent by the solicitors doesn't look like it is for a Defendent.

I thought I might get an email or letter from the Court with my DQ to fill in. Apparently that doesn't happen. Not even a note about next steps...

I've been waiting for a letter or email from the Court, and today thought to look in the MoneyClaim site to see if I'd missed anything. This is what I had missed (see image).

Good ol' English justice!

I cannot blame anyone for my incompetence. I probably read the forum posts too many times - so that vital bit of information about the DQ fell out of my head in the overload.

No idea how to proceed (or if there is any way to proceed) from here...

Any suggestions?

Umkomaas

Any suggestions?

Check your credit rating. You may have a CCJ awarded against you that will likely give you financial grief for the next 6 years. I think you might be in a worse financial situation than you are currently imagining. 

Sorry to give you possible bad news. 

Coupon-mad

Hang on, there is no Judgment for Claimant?

Gladstones haven't done anything.. .!  YET.

A DQ was posted to you, then a reminder (sanctions order) in 2022 as shown on your MCOL history.  Both came from the court.

I'd be ringing the CCBC first thing Monday morning to ask where they sent those letters because you never got them, and whether you now need to make an application and witness statement to the effect that no DQ or sanctions Order were received.

Or ask them if you resend your defence and DQ now with a covering email will they put it before a Judge to reinstate it for you WITHOUT a fee & application ...especially if the CCBC somehow sent those letters elsewhere?  Or during postal strikes?

I suspect they'll want £108 and form N244.

meditate

Thank you Coupon-mad!

UPDATE

 •    Thankfully, there is no Judgment for Claimant on my MCOL status.

I phoned CCBC, and got through after a 30 minutes wait. You're right: CCBC have no intention of taking any responsibility for none of the letters/forms reaching me since the initial Claim Form - leading to my Defence being rejected and struck out.

Apparently, due to not replying on time, with the form I never received, I now need to pay a fee to have my Defence re-instated. They did telll me about a form to fill in for help with fees.
After the call, I got an email with several attachments and links to the help with fees, etc.

Just emailed the forms N244, N180 and my original Defence to CCBC fees.

Thanks for all your help so far.

Coupon-mad

Did you get an acknowledgement email back?

meditate

Coupon-mad said:

Did you get an acknowledgement email back?

Yes, an automated acknowledgement, with confusing elements (their emphesis, not mine):

Thank you for emailing the County Court Business Centre. We will aim to respond to your email within 10 working days (please do not send duplicate messages).

Complaints will be responded to within 10 working days of receipt. (please do not send duplicate complaints).

If your case has been referred to a District Judge, please be aware that it can take between 4-8 weeks for an order to be made. Please only contact us for an update if this amount of time has elapsed from the date we received your paperwork.

Please note that the court cannot accept applications via email if any relevant fee has not already been paid. Court fees can be paid by credit / debit card by contacting our Helpdesk between 9.00 and 3.15, Monday – Friday. Once you have paid your fee, you may re-submit your application via email to this address if you wish to do so. 
Amended claim forms (N1SDT) cannot be accepted via email. Please send with your N244 application by post.

Please note that court staff are not legally trained and we will not be able to respond to your query if you have not quoted the claim number.

KBPABP

Gladstones may be reluctant to take you to court because this car park had terms and conditions signage that was in breach of Advertisement Planning consent. I have been in dispute with them for more than 1 year and finally, in March 2023, North Tyneside Council took action and they have had to replace the signs to comply with the planning approval. 

I have an email from the Council to confirm this and also if you submit a Freedom of Information request to the council asking if planning was obtained for A1 Terms and Conditions signage, they will confirm that it wasn't. The unlawful signage was in place from March 2022 to March 2023. It is actually an offence under the Town and Planning Act 1990 to install signage without consent.