County Court Claim Form - UKPC (DCB Legal)

adams-p

So the AOS has been sent off with RK as defendant.

Will now start to prepare defence, obviously following the bulk of the template in the newbies thread. 

Will also want to include some specifics within defence. These will be along lines of:

Inadequate signs with very small writing and tiny penalty charge lettering in red (driver colour blind, lettering not prominent).
Relevant reason to park (lots of shopping)
Widely understood that the maximum four hour no return in 90 mins rule is only there to prevent employees of nearby organisations from using the retail park as an ad-hoc employee car park.
Covid delays in getting back to car (all aspects of visit slower than usual)
Penalty is fundamentally unfair and excessive given only exceeded four hour time frame marginally - 16 minutes over accepted grace period.
Disability of RK led to some toilet delays.
Arbitrary nature of the penalties bandied around, particularly given that email communications between Centre Security Manager (CSM) and UKPC employee stated that a charge of £30 was needed to cancel this.
This email also incorrect as stated that £30 only applied because no appeal or complaint lodged with either CSM or UKPC (though it clearly had been during prior emails between driver and CSM)
Also SAR makes no mention of email between CSM and UKPC therefore SAR has not been disclosed properly.

Do these potential defence comments just get added on to the end of statement?

Would welcome comments.

KeithP

Please read the whole of the template Defence.
You may well find that some/most of the things you want to mention are already mentioned.

Then, when you are ready, show us what you propose to replace paragraphs 2 and 3 with.

Coupon-mad

No to this:

"Penalty is fundamentally unfair and excessive given only exceeded four hour time frame marginally - 16 minutes over accepted grace period."

That is a non-starter.

Search the forum for something like:

 EHRC tours Equality defendant

scrumpypaul

Annoyingly I can't access my MSE account and attempts to reset my password haven't succeeded as they're not landing in my inbox. So I'll use this account instead to show what I've written in terms of sections 2 and 3. Please let me know how they sound.

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. However the vehicle was being driven by a member of the registered keepers family.

3. The Defendant visited the Metro Centre shopping centre and Metro Retail Park that day with their family. The reason for the visit was to allow the defendants children to spend some money that they had received at Christmas in some toy shops. The defendant then spent a lot of time in Smyth's toy shop where over £100 was spent on toys by the children. The defendant and family then made the decision to leave their purchases in the car and walk the pedestrian route to the nearby Metro Centre rather than drive as it was a bright and sunny day and the defendant and family thought a walk would be pleasant.

The defendant and family spent some time in the Metro Centre malls, doing some shopping and also having a family meal before walking back to the car and subsequently driving home.

Since that time, the defendant has received upwards of ten demands for money from various sources, these being Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd, DCBLegal Solicitors, CST Law, Debt Recovery Plus and UK Parking Control Ltd.

The defendant will raise the following points.

(a) Any signage at the entrance to Metro Retail Park was not witnessed by the driver of the vehicle due to (i) the driver negotiating a right hand turn and being cognisant of other vehicles to which the driver had to give way (ii) the inherently small signage upon entry (the defendant will produce screenshots from Google Street Vpoiew demonstrating the lack of prominence of the aforementioned signage and (iii) the fact that day was clear and sunny with significant brightness considering the sun was low due to the time of year.

(b) It is very widely understood that the maximum four hour limit (with no return in 90 minutes) rule is only there to prevent employees of the many and varied nearby organisations from using the Retail Park as an ad-hoc employee car park. It is abundantly clear that it is not in the interests of local shops and similar to have an arbitrary and wholly artificial limit imposed to visitors as it would obviously impact on footfall and revenue.

(c) The defendant will say that the driver has a degree of colour blindness, mainly in the red and green spectra. Whilst the inherent lack of legality of the signs will be covered in detail later in this deposition, the defendant will produce photographs showing the signage to be wholly inadequate in terms of a person with colour blindness in that details of any claimed charge or penalty are in extremely small lettering and were not made any more prominent to the driver by merely being printed in a red colour.

(d) There were inevitable delays during all aspects of the defendants visit by the Covid-19 regulations that were still being observed at the time of this visit specifically with regard to extra hygiene measures in place in the malls, public toilets, restaurants and shops. 

(e) The defendant is disabled due to a Gluten intolerance meaning that toilet trips are more likely to be needed.

(f) The varying amounts of the purported penalties or charges are completely arbitrary and are wholly disproportionate. Whilst this also will be covered in detail later in this deposition, the defendant will produce an email conversation that was held with the Metro Centre Security Manager (CSM) and a UKPC employee that had specific control over the accounts for the company that owns the Metro Centre and Metro Retail Park as well as a range of other UK malls. During this email conversation, the UKPC employee stated that "a charge of £30 was needed to cancel this". This email also incorrectly stated that this purported £30 charge only applied because no appeal or complaint had been lodged with either CSM or UKPC. The defendant will state this is untrue because the prior emails that had been sent to CSM were clearly a de-facto appeal.

(g) The defendant submitted a Subject Access Request asking for all material held to be sent. The SAR consisted of merely two grainy low-resolution thumbnail images and a digital copy of the first letter sent by UKPC. There is no mention of any other correspondence despite the fact that the defendant possesses the email chain between CSM and UKPC. The defendant will assert that UKPC have not disclosed all material and are therefore in breach of the Subject Access Request protocols.

Coupon-mad

Para 2 should include the fact you were a passenger, otherwise para 3 looks like you were the driver and aren't being truthful in 2.

Para 3 should be one concise paragraph about unclear signs and the fact the family needed more time, and why.  Remove all the rest and don't call a defence a 'deposition'.

There's nothing in that draft that tells me you've done this search:

Search the forum for something like:
EHRC tours Equality defendant

Certainly do not have this, which is not a defence and effectively tells the Judge "we all know it has a 4 hour limit but we thought it didn't apply to us":

(b) It is very widely understood that the maximum four hour limit (with no return in 90 minutes) rule is only there to prevent employees of the many and varied nearby organisations from using the Retail Park as an ad-hoc employee car park. It is abundantly clear that it is not in the interests of local shops and similar to have an arbitrary and wholly artificial limit imposed to visitors as it would obviously impact on footfall and revenue.

scrumpypaul

Coupon-mad said:

Para 2 should include the fact you were a passenger, otherwise para 3 looks like you were the driver and aren't being truthful in 2.

Para 3 should be one concise paragraph about unclear signs and the fact the family needed more time, and why.  Remove all the rest and don't call a defence a 'deposition'.

There's nothing in that draft that tells me you've done this search:

Search the forum for something like:
EHRC tours Equality defendant

Certainly do not have this, which is not a defence and effectively tells the Judge "we all know it has a 4 hour limit but we thought it didn't apply to us":

(b) It is very widely understood that the maximum four hour limit (with no return in 90 minutes) rule is only there to prevent employees of the many and varied nearby organisations from using the Retail Park as an ad-hoc employee car park. It is abundantly clear that it is not in the interests of local shops and similar to have an arbitrary and wholly artificial limit imposed to visitors as it would obviously impact on footfall and revenue.

Fair enough - and thanks for the advice.

How does this then look with regards to paras 2 and 3?

2. It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. However, on the day in question, the registered keeper was a passenger in the vehicle, which was being driven by a member of the registered keepers family.

3. The Defendant visited the Metro Centre shopping centre and Metro Retail Park that day with her family so her children could buy some toys with their Christmas money. They went to Smyth's toy store where toys worth over £100 were purchased. These toys were left in the car and the defendant and family decided, as it was a pleasantly bright and sunny day, to walk rather than drive to the nearby Metro Centre. 

The defendant and family spent some time shopping and having a meal before walking back to the car and then driving home.

The defendant believes the single tiny sign that is at the entrance to this car park is very small and not at all prominent (screenshots from Google Street View will be produced) especially as it is placed at a point where vehicles have to negotiate a corner as well as considering the location of merging and oncoming traffic. Plus as previously said, it was a very bright winter day. The signs within the car park (photographs will be produced) are well above normal head height, have very small writing and they are not very clear. The wording relating to the "£100 Parking Charge" is extremely small and certainly not clear at all. 

The defendant has a disability in that she suffers from gluten intolerance as well as other ailments and conditions. This meant the defendant needed to more frequently use the toilet facilities within the Metro Centre. The children also needed to use the toilet. As well as this, Covid restrictions were still ongoing with regard to social distancing as well as with extra hygiene measures in place in shops, public toilets and restaurants as well as in the malls themselves. All of these factors led to the defendant and her family needing more time before they were able to return to their vehicle.

Considering their responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010 and Chapter 5.37, 5.38 and 5.39 of the ECHR Statutory Code of Practice regarding Services, Public Functions and Associations, the claimant has failed in their legal requirement not to indirectly discriminate against, or make reasonable adjustments for, disabled people.

Coupon-mad

...by communicating how persons with protected characteristics can claim more parking time by exempting their vehicle.  Whilst the arbitrary 4 hour limit may be sufficient for able-bodies shoppers, it is not enough for those with disabilities (hidden or otherwise).  

P.S. EVERY paragraph needs a number!

scrumpypaul

Coupon-mad said:

...by communicating how persons with protected characteristics can claim more parking time by exempting their vehicle.  Whilst the arbitrary 4 hour limit may be sufficient for able-bodies shoppers, it is not enough for those with disabilities (hidden or otherwise).  

P.S. EVERY paragraph needs a number!

Thanks CM - I have adjusted the end of Para 3 accordingly and I'm now ready to print, sign, scan and send.

Coupon-mad

But that's not now para 3 if you've added numbers. Just ordinary renumbering of the whole thing looks best.

scrumpypaul

Coupon-mad said:

But that's not now para 3 if you've added numbers. Just ordinary renumbering of the whole thing looks best.

Yeah I did that thanks. Added up to 30 paragraphs in total.