County Court Claim Form - UKPC (DCB Legal)

Le_Kirk

The standard template defence has 27 paragraphs,  you have added five haven't you?

scrumpypaul

Le_Kirk said:

The standard template defence has 27 paragraphs,  you have added five haven't you?

Yes. Para's 2 to 6 are my own work. Para 1 and Para's 7 to 30 haven't been touched.

As below:

The facts as known to the Defendant: 

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

3. The Defendant visited the Metro Centre shopping centre and Metro Retail Park that day with their 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 bought. 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. 
 

4. 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 right hand turn 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.  

5. 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 and 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. 

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

Coupon-mad

Looks fine - 30 paragraphs makes sense.

Le_Kirk

OK, it has been modified and renumbered and it now makes sense.

scrumpypaul

I've received N180 today to complete and send off. Obviously all is in my wife's name. Should I add myself as a corroboratory witness bearing in mind I was the driver that day or has that particular ship sailed?

Coupon-mad

You can be a witness but wouldn't you be better as the lay representative (search the forum please..) so she won't have to speak if it gets to a hearing?

scrumpypaul

I'll do that. Thank you. One further issue I'm having is that attempting to put the standard information helpfully provided by Qrbrrbl about "suitability for determination without a hearing" into box D1 basically overpopulates the box meaning half of what I've pasted simply isn't visible. Is there a way around this?

Coupon-mad

Yes, cut the wording. It's not set in stone and you can write it yourself in your words.

scrumpypaul

Thank you all for your help in going through this process. I was just about to spend the next couple of days sorting witness statements to submit by 4th September for a day out at court in Durham on 12th September, when lo and behold, a nice juicy N279 came through the ether.

So another to chalk up against DCB Legal and UKPC.

Umkomaas

Well done, on your way to the DCB Legal discontinuation thread of shame. 👍