Kicking the hornets nest

Coupon-mad

I think it's great that they paid the hearing fee - saves you having to do it, if they had discontinued without paying it.  Game on!

Saverule

Honestly my defence was sh!te... I'm hoping to rely on my witness statement. 

I didn't even think to google them or their tactics, I came across the MSE threads when researching case law to bash them with. 

Regrettably I was too focused on bashing, and not thinking about the consequences. 

Anyway defence as follows: 

Defence

I write in response to the County Court claim filed against me in
relation to the alleged contravention of the parking regulations,
I intend to defend this claim on the following grounds:

Non-extension of Blue Badge Scheme to Private Land:
Firstly, I would like to highlight that the blue badge scheme, as
governed by the relevant legislation, does not extend to private
land. The scheme primarily applies to public land and aims to
facilitate the reasonable adjustments and access rights for
disabled individuals on public highways. The Equality and Human
Rights Commission (EHRC) and The Equalities Act 2010 guidelines
recognize the duty of public providers to implement reasonable
adjustments to ensure access for disabled road users. However, the
obligations imposed on private land providers may differ.

Duty to Make Reasonable Adjustments:
Despite the blue badge scheme not being applicable to private
land, the Equality Act 2010 places a duty on service providers to
make reasonable adjustments for disabled individuals to access
facilities and services. As the parking company in question
provides facilities for public use, it is subject to this duty and
should take positive steps to ensure that disabled people can
access their services.

Unique Circumstances:
At the time of the alleged contravention, my 4-year-old daughter
and I were occupants of the vehicle. Both my daughter and I are
disabled, and we are in receipt of disability benefits. My
daughter is currently undergoing an assessment for a Blue Badge
Scheme due to her Autism Spectrum Disorder, which affects her
ability to identify potential risks and dangers. Given these
circumstances, I firmly believe it was reasonable and necessary
for us to access the disabled bay in question, primarily for the
welfare and safety of my daughter.

Impact on Mental Health:
I would like to draw attention to the significant impact that the
collection letters and emails from the parking company and their
debt collectors have had on my mental health. The repeated
communication and their incorrect indication that I was unable to
appeal the PCN caused considerable anxiety and inconvenience.
These actions have negatively affected my well-being and resulted
in a need for me to seek damages as part of a counterclaim.

In light of the aforementioned grounds, I kindly request that you
consider the validity of the claim against me

 

Coupon-mad

What about the counterclaim? If that was all of it, I am surprised your cc wasn't struck out immediately as there is nothing pleaded.

Saverule

Coupon-mad said:

What about the counterclaim? If that was all of it, I am surprised your cc wasn't struck out immediately as there is nothing pleaded.

Again crap:

Counterclaim

I wish to make counterclaim against the claimant.

If your claim is for a specific sum of money, how much are you claiming? £300.00

I enclose the counterclaim fee of £35.00

 

My claim is for

Inconvenience and distress

 

What are your reasons for making the counterclaim?

The process of debt collection and involvement in court proceedings have had a significant impact on my mental health and overall well-being. Dealing with collection letters, court documents, and the financial pressure associated with debt can cause high levels of stress, anxiety, and emotional distress. The uncertainty surrounding the outcome of the legal process, the fear of potential consequences, and the financial burden has lead to sleep disturbances, decreased self-esteem, and a constant state of worry.

I have given the company several instances to reconsider their decision.

Saverule

Coupon-mad said:

Grunwald (Mr Greenwood) didn't counterclaim did he? I don't recall a counterclaim but it is years ago. 

He won a defended case v Excel because his MS caused forgetfulness and he forgot to display his blue badge but he provided it quickly at appeal stage, so Excel knew and should have cancelled the PCN.

The only successful counterclaim I recall on pepipoo was by. Henry Hippo.  Google Henry Hippo counterclaim and read his pepipoo thread with his successful UKPC counterclaim.

On here, a more recent winning counterclaim (about no blue badge) was by @ellaro9 and there was also one won by @Nosy and a recent one by @devondiver

All worth reading!  The counterclaim v Excel by @ellaro9 is most like yours and I think his long thread showed his witness statement. He got 4 figures.

Sorry we doubted you - it sounded like you were not prepared and were not ready to do a thorough WS bundle.

But you are very much 'on it' - good!

Did you appeal the PCN at the time, such that they knew early doors, that you had protected characteristics and needed the bay provision?

You will need to show us your counterclaim wording if you want help to word the WS to support your legal arguments.

PS thank you for pointers, I really appreciate it. There was Handy legislative sections. Just been going through my collated evidence and brainstorming WS now. I’ll upload once I’ve completed it, most likely on Sunday. 

I’ve broken it down into sections.

1. Blue badge - Private Land, Obligation of land owners, scheme doesn’t apply.
- DfT blue badge handbook, page 17 states XYZ.
- BPA code of practice page 10 section 16.1 through 16.3 states XYZ
- Equality Act 2010: Disability definition/protected characteristics. Right to reasonable adjustments. 142 & 144 Unenforceable terms, 29 provision of services 1 through 5. 

*Copies of emails which inform DCB Legal of disabled person status, prior to their submission of claim. 

** Personal experience view: Felt it was reasonable to park there, why? Benefit letters, current blue badge and assessors report. 

2. Signage 
- BPA Guidelines page 12 section 19 through 19.10 states XYZ, Incl. Disabled adjustment: Shouldn’t have to get out of the car.
- Bevis sign case law 
- Highlight lack of signage

***Google map route, parking space picture, illegible signage pictures, picture of people out of their car reading, lack of entrance signage. 

****Refer to claimant’s enforcement officer’s picture, which we will all be unable to read, even when zoomed in or printed. 

?!get passenger to video route that shows vantage point from vehicle?!

That’s as far as I’ve gotten tonight. I need to look at trespassing (for not adhering to T&C’s) and reasonable costs further down the line. 

Coupon-mad

They have never alleged trespass, so don't read up on that.  It is alleged breach of contract.

Castle

Have UKPC/DCB Legal filed a response to your counterclaim?

Saverule

CLAIMANT’S REPLY TO DEFENCE

5. The Claimant responds as following: -

i. Accepted, the Claimant provided disabled bays on Site to meet the requirements of the Equality Act 2010 to provide reasonable adjustments to those who are disabled;

CLAIM NO. 

    1 of 5.

ii. It is neither accepted nor denied that the Defendant and her daughter are disabled, in any event, the terms and conditions on the Land stated that a valid disabled blue badge must be displayed at all times, if the Defendant was unable to comply with such Terms alternative parking should have been found;

iii. It is neither accepted nor denied, that the matter has affected the Defendant’s mental health, in any event, the Claimant has only taken the steps that are necessary to recover the debt, if the Defendant’s mental health has been affected this is because of their decision to not pay the Charge.

6. For the reasons set out above, the Defendant remains liable.

COUNTERCLAIM

7. The Defendant seeks to Counterclaim the following: -

i. Inconvenience and stress on the basis that their mental health has been impacted from the process of debt collection and Court proceedings.

CLAIMANT’S DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM

8. The Claimant requests that the Counterclaim be struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2) as the Statement of Case does not:-

a. Comply with Practice Direction 16;

b. Disclose any reasonable grounds for bringing a claim; or

c. Offer any explanation as to how the amount sought has been calculated.

9. Whilst the Claimant maintains the claim should be struck out automatically due to non-compliance with the CPR, in the event that the Court is not minded to do so, the points raised in the Counterclaim are responded to as follows:-

i. An element of the Counterclaim appears to be an injury claim for stress. This is denied. It is stated in the Money Claims Online user guide that this service is not to be used to make a claim for compensation. Additionally, the Defendant has failed to follow the Pre-Action Protocol for Personal Injury Claims;

ii. Notwithstanding the above, the Defendant is put to proof that:

i. Stress has been suffered;

ii. The stress suffered was a direct result of the Claimant;

iii. The actions of the Claimant were such that would ordinarily cause the level of stress ‘proven’ at point (i); and

iv. The stress has caused a loss.

iii. If the Defendant has been caused “stress” then it is only because of their decision not to pay the Charge. There is no reason why the Defendant should benefit from that.

  2 of 5.

iv. The Defendant’s reasons for making the Counterclaim mirrors the content of the Defence. Paragraph 5i of this Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim are repeated in response to the Defendant’s reasons for making the Counterclaim.

v. The Defendant has failed to mitigate in the circumstances. Had he responded to the initial documentation, Court proceedings may have been avoided.

vi. The Defendant has not provided any explanation as to how the amount Claimed has been calculated nor has any supporting evidence of loss been provided.

10. For the avoidance of doubt, the Defendant’s Counterclaim is baseless, and the Defendant’s costs In their entirety. 

Saverule

The Defendant has failed to mitigate in the circumstances. Had he responded to the initial documentation, Court proceedings may have been avoided.

- This has been Copied and pasted. Firstly, I emailed them twice giving them the option to drop it and secondly, I’m not a man, thus not a „he.“

Coupon-mad

The things they put you to 'strict proof' of need to be covered in your WS bundle if your CC is to have any chance.