Parked in a disabled Bay, no ticket

Eckithump

I received a claim form from court for parking in a disabled Bay in a private car park, without a badge. I've had one before and appealed. My mum has alzeimers and drives my car. This was dropped.
I got another letter after, so called the car park and they told me that since this was dropped not to worry as this was automated. Cut a long story short, I received a letter before claim years later and lots of letters that I ignored. There must have been a mistake, I thought.
I emailed and was advised me that this was a separate claim and they would no longer engage with me, as I had passed any appeal date. I was given a date of the 18/10/22. Since then this date has changed. I also deleted a lot of past emails, so don't have the original correspondence between us. 

I have replied to the Claim Form, as advised and am now working on a defence. I have kept the most recent emails between DCBL and I where I have told them that mum has Alzheimers, lives with me and has use of the car. 
This is so difficult and I believe that the date of the offence has been fabricated, but since I deleted the evidence, I just want to keep it simple. Would someone please help with looking at my defence? 

Gr1pr

Start with some facts, otherwise no point in posting any defence 

Please post a redacted picture of the claim form, AFTER redacting your name and address and the QR code, plus the VRM in the POC on the left hand side, plus redact the claim reference number and also the password on the left,  5 items, don't miss any 

Leave the rest showing, including the dates

Ps , there was no offence, but possibly a contravention of the parking contract 

Are YOU the registered keeper. ?  But not the driver. ?

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Can you please show us a picture of the Particulars of Claim - with personal detail hidden of course.

Who is the Claimant?

Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service?
If so, upon what date did you do so?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Eckithump

Gr1pr said:

Start with some facts, otherwise no point in posting any defence 

Please post a redacted picture of the claim form, AFTER redacting your name and address and the QR code, plus the VRM in the POC on the left hand side, plus redact the claim reference number and also the password on the left,  5 items, don't miss any 

Leave the rest showing, including the dates

Ps , there was no offence, but possibly a contravention of the parking contract 

Are YOU the registered keeper. ?  But not the driver. ?

I am the registered keeper. I can't remember what I was doing on that date. I could have been driving mum, or she may have been alone. 

Hoenir

How many occasions have you provided the same explanation and over what time period?  

LinLui

Eckithump said:

Gr1pr said:

Start with some facts, otherwise no point in posting any defence 

Please post a redacted picture of the claim form, AFTER redacting your name and address and the QR code, plus the VRM in the POC on the left hand side, plus redact the claim reference number and also the password on the left,  5 items, don't miss any 

Leave the rest showing, including the dates

Ps , there was no offence, but possibly a contravention of the parking contract 

Are YOU the registered keeper. ?  But not the driver. ?

I am the registered keeper. I can't remember what I was doing on that date. I could have been driving mum, or she may have been alone. 

If your mothers Alzeimers was so low level that she was legally driving a car on her own, in what way did she meet the requirements to be classed as having a disability? Alzeimers would not automatically qualify as a disability. If you are going to depend on a defence that someone with a brain disorder so serious as to warrant being classed as disabled may have been driving the car on their own, I would expect they may require you to show that she was classed as disabled. 

Umkomaas

LinLui said:

Eckithump said:

Gr1pr said:

Start with some facts, otherwise no point in posting any defence 

Please post a redacted picture of the claim form, AFTER redacting your name and address and the QR code, plus the VRM in the POC on the left hand side, plus redact the claim reference number and also the password on the left,  5 items, don't miss any 

Leave the rest showing, including the dates

Ps , there was no offence, but possibly a contravention of the parking contract 

Are YOU the registered keeper. ?  But not the driver. ?

I am the registered keeper. I can't remember what I was doing on that date. I could have been driving mum, or she may have been alone. 

If your mother's Alzeimers was so low level that she was legally driving a car on her own, in what way did she meet the requirements to be classed as having a disability? Alzeimers would not automatically qualify as a disability. If you are going to depend on a defence that someone with a brain disorder so serious as to warrant being classed as disabled may have been driving the car on their own, I would expect they may require you to show that she was classed as disabled. 

Perhaps the Equalities Act 2010 begs to differ?.

https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/blog/work-dementia-how-tell-employer-diagnosis

mybestattempt

Umkomaas said:

LinLui said:

Eckithump said:

Gr1pr said:

Start with some facts, otherwise no point in posting any defence 

Please post a redacted picture of the claim form, AFTER redacting your name and address and the QR code, plus the VRM in the POC on the left hand side, plus redact the claim reference number and also the password on the left,  5 items, don't miss any 

Leave the rest showing, including the dates

Ps , there was no offence, but possibly a contravention of the parking contract 

Are YOU the registered keeper. ?  But not the driver. ?

I am the registered keeper. I can't remember what I was doing on that date. I could have been driving mum, or she may have been alone. 

If your mother's Alzeimers was so low level that she was legally driving a car on her own, in what way did she meet the requirements to be classed as having a disability? Alzeimers would not automatically qualify as a disability. If you are going to depend on a defence that someone with a brain disorder so serious as to warrant being classed as disabled may have been driving the car on their own, I would expect they may require you to show that she was classed as disabled. 

Perhaps the Equalities Act 2010 begs to differ?.

https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/

I'm not sure that article is helpful for this stuation.

This explains the law:

https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/get-support/staying-independent/driving-dementia-law

Umkomaas

mybestattempt said:

Umkomaas said:

LinLui said:

Eckithump said:

Gr1pr said:

Start with some facts, otherwise no point in posting any defence 

Please post a redacted picture of the claim form, AFTER redacting your name and address and the QR code, plus the VRM in the POC on the left hand side, plus redact the claim reference number and also the password on the left,  5 items, don't miss any 

Leave the rest showing, including the dates

Ps , there was no offence, but possibly a contravention of the parking contract 

Are YOU the registered keeper. ?  But not the driver. ?

I am the registered keeper. I can't remember what I was doing on that date. I could have been driving mum, or she may have been alone. 

If your mother's Alzeimers was so low level that she was legally driving a car on her own, in what way did she meet the requirements to be classed as having a disability? Alzeimers would not automatically qualify as a disability. If you are going to depend on a defence that someone with a brain disorder so serious as to warrant being classed as disabled may have been driving the car on their own, I would expect they may require you to show that she was classed as disabled. 

Perhaps the Equalities Act 2010 begs to differ?.

https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/

I'm not sure that article is helpful for this stuation.

This explains the law:

https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/get-support/staying-independent/driving-dementia-law

But this isn't a 'driving' issue, but one of private parking in a disabled bay.  The EA 2010 provides for 'reasonable adjustments' for those within scope of assistance from the Act. 

But, regardless of who was driving, this is now a court claim against the registered keeper (the OP), not his mother.  She is not directly affected by, or included in the claim (other than maybe in the shape of a 'witness' in due course).

However, should it be the case of the OP just slinging his car into a disabled bay for his own convenience (i.e. mother not present), there'll be very little sympathy from me, or the regulars of this forum.

LinLui

Umkomaas said:

LinLui said:

Eckithump said:

Gr1pr said:

Start with some facts, otherwise no point in posting any defence 

Please post a redacted picture of the claim form, AFTER redacting your name and address and the QR code, plus the VRM in the POC on the left hand side, plus redact the claim reference number and also the password on the left,  5 items, don't miss any 

Leave the rest showing, including the dates

Ps , there was no offence, but possibly a contravention of the parking contract 

Are YOU the registered keeper. ?  But not the driver. ?

I am the registered keeper. I can't remember what I was doing on that date. I could have been driving mum, or she may have been alone. 

If your mother's Alzeimers was so low level that she was legally driving a car on her own, in what way did she meet the requirements to be classed as having a disability? Alzeimers would not automatically qualify as a disability. If you are going to depend on a defence that someone with a brain disorder so serious as to warrant being classed as disabled may have been driving the car on their own, I would expect they may require you to show that she was classed as disabled. 

Perhaps the Equalities Act 2010 begs to differ?.

https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/blog/work-dementia-how-tell-employer-diagnosis

Perhaps you should read the law and not someone's version of it? In the Act a disabaility is defined as " having a physical or mental impairment that has a ‘substantial’ and ‘long-term’ negative effect on your ability to do normal daily activities." It is not about diagnosis in most cases (including Alzheimers), it is about impact. Alzheimers, like many conditions, exists on a spectrum. At the point at which it, as a brain disorder, impacts to the level the law stipulates, then someone would be past the threshold to be able to safely drive. The OP has stated that at the time their mother was a driver and drove on her own - so unless she was stealing the car and driving without permission, the impact was at a point in the spectrum where the impact fell below "substantial". 

Many conditions exist along spectrums like this - that is why the alw is wrtitten in the way that it is. Not everybody with arthritis, for example, is disabled, but arthritis may be a disability. 

Therefore if the OP, or their mother, was simply using the bay for convenience rather than necessity, then they also get little simpathy from me - I am often prevented from being able to park (and therefore to go about my own business) because spaces are taken up by people who have decided they are entitled to park in disabled spaces despite having no blue badge. It would be absolutely legitimate for the company to question the defence being offered given there appears to be no evidence of disability in law. And I am absolutely fine with companies enforcing disabled spaces because all too often they do not. That, in my view, is a very different scenario than penalising somebody for being two minutes late. 

mybestattempt

@Umkomaas

I'm well aware of the issue and about reasonable adjustments required under EA 2010.

Another poster questioned whether the mother should be driving and in response you referred to that legislation and gave a link to an article about employment.

I was simply pointing out that in my view a different article was more helpful on the subject of whether or not the mother should be driving.