DCBL Euro car parks small claim DISCONTINUED

Coupon-mad

Here's the POC with your VRM redacted:

If you have early dementia - and things like shopping take you longer, due to that condition and/or any other long term condition - you are disabled and protected under the Equality Act 2010.

This means you were legally entitled to more time to shop.  They have discriminated against you.

feduptoo

Thank you Coupon mad That is exactly what has happened. I am disabled physically also and remember that day. It was just after lockdown and the first time I went out after being in quarantine as vulnerable. I couldn't find a parking space on the road as I usually would do to do the. stuff at the top of town. I have been going to that store for many years and didn't notice anything new. I parked there and had to walk up the road to the places I needed. Bank, post office etc. I needed to stop and rest in the cafe before heading back to the car. The only thing I noticed was that the car park was empty. I got the parking notice after the appeal time had passed and wrote to euro car parks telling them I will not pay and explained what happened on that day. They said it was too late and had already gone to debt collectors. I contacted the store and they said they couldn't help because it was not their land and was controlled by ECP.  Many people in the community have been hit with these charges when they have not seen the signs. Thank you so much for pointing out the discrimination I hadn't thought to use that! 
ECP took over the car park November 2021. Signs went up November, cameras installed January 2022 and I was there for the first time since lockdown on 20 March 2022. 

feduptoo

AOS submitted and feeling quite smug that I did it, now to work on the defence. Thank you everyone for all the hard work you put into helping us all. 

Coupon-mad

feduptoo said:

AOS submitted and feeling quite smug that I did it, now to work on the defence. 

Here's some suggested wording for paragraph 3 onwards.

You can use this verbatim, then re-number what would have been para 4 onwards in the Template Defence:


3. The Defendant has physical and cognitive disabilities (BRIEFLY SPECIFY YOUR MEDICAL CONDITIONS). These are long term and debilitating conditions which, in the circumstances of the first time the Defendant had ventured out in months after being in quarantine as medically vulnerable, meant that a longer stay was needed to shop.

4.  The Defendant has 'protected characteristics' that meet the definition of disability within the Equality Act 2010 section 6(1) (EA 2010 from hereon). Service providers - which includes car park operators - are required to make reasonable adjustments for people with such protected characteristics (EA 2010 S.29 (7a)).   This is both an anticipatory duty (taking proactive steps to avoid 'indirect' discrimination caused by a fixed policy which is likely to impact on disabled persons 'at large') and a reactionary duty to relax such fixed rules where issues are flagged by individual disabled service users. The Defendant did respond to dispute the unfair charge and from that point on, the Claimant knew that the Defendant had protected status under the EA 2010 and should have cancelled the 'PCN'. Instead they replied that the Defendant was 'too late' to raise this.

5.     A common symptom of the Defendant's physical and cognitive medical conditions is extreme fatigue, which can occur typically when walking/shopping and necessitates resting for periods of time. After shopping, the Defendant needed to stop and rest in the cafe before heading back to the car. 

6.     Even if the Defendant had seen the new signage and the court is minded to believe that the new and unexpected terms were clear, they cannot be assessed as lawful or fair, in view of the Claimant's breach of statutory duty under the EA 2010. A fixed time limit cannot be applied to a driver who is legally entitled to more time than an able-bodied visitor.  Car park operators have known this for years but ANPR operators routinely ignore it, despite articles confirming the legal position even before the EA 2010 was enacted:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8488737.stm

7.     Given the statutory duties that apply under the EA 2010 (and Chapter 5.37, 5.38 and 5.39 of the ECHR Statutory Code of Practice regarding Services, Public Functions and Associations, which is in itself a creature of statute and not mere guidance - hereafter referred to as 'the EA CoP'), the Claimant has failed in their legal duty 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 an arbitrary ‘2 hours free parking’ limit may be sufficient for able-bodied drivers, it is not sufficient for the Defendant's needs. "We didn't know about the Defendant's condition on the day" is not a justification nor lawful excuse that can be heard for the 'indirect' and then 'direct' discrimination that arose here.

8.    Whilst the landmark case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] was about an overstay at a retail park, there the similarities end. The Supreme Court Judges were careful to establish at para 107: ''The term does not exclude any right which the consumer may be said to enjoy under the general law or by statute'' (the consumer in that case was Mr Beavis, an able-bodied driver who was not able to rely upon the EA 2010).

9.     In all relevant facts, the Beavis case is distinguished. The parking charge for 'overstay' term in the extant case does exclude a right which this consumer may be said to enjoy under the general law or by statute. The Claimant cannot justify an arbitrary time limit that causes detriment to disabled people. The Claimant and their principal had a legal duty to adhere to the EA 2010 and 'must' make anticipatory adjustments of fixed policies for the protected population (EA CoP chapter 7.20-22).

10.  No reasonable adjustment was made by the Claimant despite being required by EA CoP (chapter 5.37). No risk assessment has been made to take the needs of people with protected characteristics into account. The Claimant will be unable to demonstrate strict proof that they have allowed more time than able bodied/unprotected people would need. The law applies as much to inflexible arbitrary time limits as it does to physical adjustments at any consumer-facing location (per example in EA CoP chapter 5 about time-limited 'tours').

11.  The Claimant's conduct is even worse because they dismissed out of hand the Defendant's efforts to explain the position at pre-action stage.  It is never "too late" for a motorist to say to a parking operator or landowner client that they are disabled and needed their legal right to more time.

12.  (paragraph 4 onwards of the Template Defence follows, re-numbered).

feduptoo

WOW thank you soooo much! 

feduptoo

Thank you CM, I have c/p'd your perfect defence to the court and slotted it into the template. Had to be very careful with re numbering but got there in the end and it only took me 2 hours! (Everything takes me much longer than most) I didn't add anything because there was no need, you just got it! 

feduptoo

Help! My emails with defence are bouncing back, I made a typo the first time but 2 more have failed to send. I copied myself in on one and it came to me so confused why it isn't going to court. claimresponses.cbnc@justice.gov.uk. confused! 

feduptoo

Email bounce back 

Castle

Check your spelling of "CNBC"

feduptoo

Castle said:

Check your spelling of "CNBC"

🤣😂🤦‍♀️ thank you I checked several times too 😳🤪