DCB Legal - Letter of Claim - Disabled Driver

Fruitcake

Combine paras 3 and 4.

In para 5 make it clear that the driver saw the parking attendant observing the alleged event. The way it is written at the moment does not make it clear that the parking operative saw what happened, merely that they were somewhere on site.

*EvilMissKitty*

Fruitcake said:

Combine paras 3 and 4.

Done!

In para 5 make it clear that the driver saw the parking attendant observing the alleged event. The way it is written at the moment does not make it clear that the parking operative saw what happened, merely that they were somewhere on site.

5. A Parking Attendant observed the Defendant on-site at the material time and is therefore required to attend the hearing so that they can be questioned about their actions.  


Thanks again :-) 

Le_Kirk

2.     It is acknowledged that the registered keeper and the vehicle's driver was the keeper.
6.     It is acknowledged that the registered keeper of the vehicle is the defendant. The defendant was not the vehicle's driver at the time of the incident.

This is very confusing; are you defending as keeper and are you saying you were the driver or you were not the driver?

Fruitcake

Le_Kirk said:

2.     It is acknowledged that the registered keeper and the vehicle's driver was the keeper.
6.     It is acknowledged that the registered keeper of the vehicle is the defendant. The defendant was not the vehicle's driver at the time of the incident.

This is very confusing; are you defending as keeper and are you saying you were the driver or you were not the driver?

It's two separate claims for two separate incidents/car parks consolidated into one case.

Para 2 relates to Claim 1 whereas para 6 relates to Claim 2 as detailed in the headings in bold immediately above each claim number in the OP's draft defence.

The keeper was the driver in claim one but was not the driver in claim two. 
Personally I don't know how else the OP could explain this.

Fruitcake

*EvilMissKitty* said:

Fruitcake said:

Combine paras 3 and 4.

Done!

In para 5 make it clear that the driver saw the parking attendant observing the alleged event. The way it is written at the moment does not make it clear that the parking operative saw what happened, merely that they were somewhere on site.

5. A Parking Attendant observed the Defendant on-site at the material time and is therefore required to attend the hearing so that they can be questioned about their actions.  


Thanks again :-) 

For claim 1, you are a witness so you need to state it was you who saw the attendant observing you, which is exactly how I worded it in my previous post.

B789

*EvilMissKitty* said:

Claim 1: Leeds Carpark - The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.     It is acknowledged that the Defendant was the registered keeper and the vehicle's driver of the vehicle was the keeper.

5.     The Defendant observed A a Parking Attendant in the employ of the Claimant was observeding by the Defendant at the material time and is therefore required to attend the hearing so that they can be questioned about their actions.  The claimant is therefore required to produce the attendant's original notes and/or log taken at the material time in accordance with the Court Practice Rules Part 33 – Miscellaneous rules about evidence.

Claim 2: St James Retail Park, Knaresborough - The facts as known to the Defendant:

6.     It is acknowledged that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle is the defendant. The defendant was not the vehicle's driver at the time of the incident.

10.  As soon as the claimant ??and the parking attendant?? were made aware of the defendant's disability, continuing to proceed with the issue of a parking charge and subsequent court claim constitutes direct discrimination and is a breach of the above Act.

In #10 above, there is no other mention of a "parking attendant" in Claim #2. Was there a "Parking attendant" at the car park at the time? You mention one in Claim #1 but not in Claim #2.

*EvilMissKitty*

UPDATE: I was just about to report that things had gone quiet when I received a "Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track" letter. 

My defence was received at the end of March 2023, with the claimant having 30 days to respond. Now, three months later, the case stay has been lifted, and a DQ (Directions Questionnaire) has been sent to me. I have 14 days to reply and to serve copies to all other parties.

I presume this means they are not dropping the case and intend to push as far as possible.  I won't just ignore it, but suggestions at this point would be appreciated. 

Thanks again.

KeithP

*EvilMissKitty* said:

...suggestions at this point would be appreciated. 

It's back to reading that checklist you were following when you filed a Defence.
Item 7 is pertinent and 8 onwards are well worth a refresher.

And to pre-empt your next question...
This thread - New Questions on the N180 Form - should help.

*EvilMissKitty*

Well, months later, we have a pending appointment with mediation. This should be fun,

KeithP

*EvilMissKitty* said:

Well, months later, we have a pending appointment with mediation. This should be fun,

How did that happen?

Back in June you completed a Directions Questionnaire.
All the guidance linked from the NEWBIES thread suggests that one should refuse the offer of mediation.