DCB Legal N1SDT for parking over the line in a disabled space

Coupon-mad

"reasonable adjustments/accommodations"

No: the legal phrase is just:

'reasonable adjustments'

Necron79

Amended thanks

Le_Kirk

Necron79 said:

Due to the length of time that has passed since the alleged event, the Defendant has little recollection of the days event in question on an unremarkable day over 4 years ago other than that they were not the driver of the vehicle at the time. The defendant believes their wife, who has cognitive (memory) and physical disabilities may have been the driver at the time, but cannot state beyond the balance of probabilities that it is true. It is accepted that the vehicle was parked in a disabled/accessible parking bay. The POC simply states "out of bay" which is incorrect, and put the claimant to strict proof that the contrary is true. The driver displayed a disabled person's blue badge as a courtesy, even though the BB scheme does not apply on private land. The driver has protected characteristics and as defined by the Equality Act 2010, and therefore entitled to reasonable adjustments that may include, but not be limited to, needing more time, or more room to enter and exit the vehicle. Service providers are required to anticipate the needs of motorists and make reasonable adjustments to accommodate their needs. Failing to do so is indirect discrimination, a breach of the above Act, and a criminal offence. Failing to make reasonable adjustments/accommodations when service provider was aware of a person's disability is direct discrimination, a further breach of the Act, and a further criminal offence. The driver at the material time required more time to use the onsite facilities, and more room to park the vehicle than was available. By failing to anticipate these needs, and by continuing to pursue the motorist when they were aware of the driver's needs is both discrimination and a criminal offence. 

Some adjustments suggested above; not sure that you need to throw the driver under the bus as the PPC might then come for that person!  Suffice to say that an occupant of the vehicle is in possession of a blue badge and it was displayed as a courtesy etc.

Fruitcake

Le_Kirk said:

Necron79 said:

Due to the length of time that has passed since the alleged event, the Defendant has little recollection of the days event in question on an unremarkable day over 4 years ago other than that they were not the driver of the vehicle at the time. The defendant believes their wife, who has cognitive (memory) and physical disabilities may have been the driver at the time, but cannot state beyond the balance of probabilities that it is true. It is accepted that the vehicle was parked in a disabled/accessible parking bay. The POC simply states "out of bay" which is incorrect, and put the claimant to strict proof that the contrary is true. The driver displayed a disabled person's blue badge as a courtesy, even though the BB scheme does not apply on private land. The driver has protected characteristics and as defined by the Equality Act 2010, and therefore entitled to reasonable adjustments that may include, but not be limited to, needing more time, or more room to enter and exit the vehicle. Service providers are required to anticipate the needs of motorists and make reasonable adjustments to accommodate their needs. Failing to do so is indirect discrimination, a breach of the above Act, and a criminal offence. Failing to make reasonable adjustments/accommodations when service provider was aware of a person's disability is direct discrimination, a further breach of the Act, and a further criminal offence. The driver at the material time required more time to use the onsite facilities, and more room to park the vehicle than was available. By failing to anticipate these needs, and by continuing to pursue the motorist when they were aware of the driver's needs is both discrimination and a criminal offence. 

Some adjustments suggested above; not sure that you need to throw the driver under the bus as the PPC might then come for that person!  Suffice to say that an occupant of the vehicle is in possession of a blue badge and it was displayed as a courtesy etc.

I'm in two minds on this. I suggested some of the above wording, and suggested the caveat about not being certain who was driving.
Perhaps it might be better stating that the driver might have been "... believes a family member with cognitive (memory) and physical disabilities ..."

Necron79

I've already mentioned that I cannot be 100% sure who was the driver but I've re-worded some sentences to focus less on the driver being disabled.

3. Due to the length of time that has passed since the alleged event, the Defendant has little recollection of the event in question on an unremarkable day over 4 years ago other than that they were not the driver of the vehicle at the time. The defendant believes their wife, who has cognitive (memory) and physical disabilities may have been the driver at the time, but cannot state beyond the balance of probabilities that it is true. It is accepted that the vehicle was parked in a disabled/accessible parking bay. The POC simply states "out of bay" which is incorrect, and put the claimant to strict proof that the contrary is true. A disabled person's blue badge was displayed as a courtesy, even though the BB scheme does not apply on private land. The holder of the blue badge has protected characteristics and as defined by the Equality Act 2010, and therefore entitled to reasonable adjustments that may include, but not be limited to, needing more time, or more room to enter and exit the vehicle. Service providers are required to anticipate the needs of motorists and make reasonable adjustments to accommodate their needs. Failing to do so is indirect discrimination, a breach of the above Act, and a criminal offence. Failing to make reasonable adjustments when service provider was aware of a person's disability is direct discrimination, a further breach of the Act, and a further criminal offence. The driver at the material time required more time to use the onsite facilities, and more room to park the vehicle than was available. By failing to anticipate these needs, and by continuing to pursue the motorist when they were aware of the motorist's needs is both discrimination and a criminal offence.

Coupon-mad

Looks good to me.

  

Le_Kirk

Necron79 said:

The holder of the blue badge has protected characteristics and as defined by the Equality Act 2010 and is therefore entitled to reasonable adjustments that may include, but not be limited to, needing more time, or more room to enter and exit the vehicle. 

Surplus word removed and word added to make more flowing.

Necron79

I have submitted the defence statement.