Excel Parking Charge Notice Disabled Bay

Spillit1

Hello, I am new here, have followed the Newbies thread and got this far.
My son received a PCN from Excel Parking on 27/3/23 after he parked in a disabled bay outside his uni accommodation as he suffered a medical emergency, hypoglycemia. He had a permit for the car park in question but doesn't have a blue badge. He had run out of hypo treatments in his car so stopped outside his accommodation to access his flat as quickly as possible. He appealed the ticket on the same day, stated he has Type 1 Diabetes, which is classed as a disability under the EA2010, and gave them evidence of his blood glucose readings as he wears a continuous glucose monitor. They dismissed this. He appealed again on 15/8/23, again dismissed. Elms Legal then sent a letter received on 21/12/23. My son phoned them as was scared. They told him to supply evidence he has T1 and more evidence of his bg readings which he did on 22/12/23. They said they would put the case on hold until 12/1/24. They sent a letter received 13/2/24 to say 'Your Claim has now been issued through the CNBC'. On 22/3/24 he received a letter from Excel Parking confirming 'Elms Legal are no longer acting on our behalf'.
My son has completed everything he needs to on time. Excel however we're late with their DQ.
A General Form of Judgement of Order dated 16/4/24, states 'The Claimant, you have been sent Notice of Proposed Allocation to Track which specified the date by which you were required to return the Directions Questionnaire. You have failed to file the Directions Questionnaire with the CNBC' by the date specified in the Notice.
IT IS ORDERED THAT
The Claimant must file the Directions Questionnaire with the CNBC on or before 7 days from service of this Order with the CNBC via post, document exchange, or email. If the Claimant does not comply with this order their claim will automatically be struck out without further order of the court'.
On my son's MCOL it states:
"Claim issued against you 5/2/24.
Acknowledgement of Service was submitted on 13/2/24.
AOS received on 14/2/24.
Defence received 8/3/24.
DQ sent 8/3/24.
Filed a DQ on 26/3/24.
Case stay lifted 16/4/24.
General Sanctions order was made 16/4/24.
Case stay lifted 21/5/24.
DQ filed by Claimant on 21/5/24.
Claim transferred to local court 21/5/24."

I have only just realised that Excel filed their DQ more than the 7 days they were ordered to! I don't understand why their claim hasn't been struck out already?

On 17/8/24 my son received a 'Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track (Hearing). It states:
"District Judge xxxx has considered the statements of case and directions questionnaire filed and allocated the claim to the small claims track.
UPON the court considering the papers including the Directions Questionnaire filed by both parties. AND upon the court drawing the attention of the parties to the following warning:
The parties are reminded that Rule 1.1 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides that part of the court's overriding objective is to enforce compliance with rules, practice directions and orders.
Warning: Non compliance with this order will be regarded as a very serious matter. You must comply with the terms imposed upon you by this order otherwise your claim or the defence of it is liable to be struck out or some other sanction imposed like the party in default having to pay costs. If you consider that the other party has failed to comply with an order, please advise the Court.
If you cannot comply you are expected to make formal application to the court before any deadline imposed upon you expires.
It is ordered that:
1. The claim is allocated to the small claims track.
2. The claim shall be listed on the xxxx October 2024 (at local court)
WHEN YOU SHOULD ATTEND
NOTE - THIS CASE HAS BEEN LISTED AS A SECOND FIXTURE AND WILL ONLY BE HEARD ON THAT DATE IF THE EARLIER CASES HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THE LIST
YOU MUST THEREFORE contact the Civil Listing Officer by email between 2pm and 3pm on the last working day before the hearing date, to establish whether you will be required to attend on the date given, or on an alternative date.
3. Time estimate 1 hour. If either party at any time believes that the case will take either longer or less time then they must inform the court. Failure to do so many result in the case having to be adjourned.
4. This claim has been listed as part of a block list. There is a possibility that it may not be heard at the time quoted. Cases listed later in the day may not be reached. If this occurs, the matter will be re-listed on the first available date.
5. The court must be informed immediately if the claim is settled.
6. The parties shall each send to the court and to each other by no later than 4pm on 13 September 2024 written statements [preferably typed] of all persons who are to give evidence at the trial. This includes the paries themselves.
7. By 4pm on 13 September 2024 the Claimant must send to the court and to the defendant copies of all the documents he intends to rely upon at the final hearing. These must be in a bundle with each page clearly numbered. The claimant MUST bring the originals of those documents to the final hearing.
8. By 4pm on 13 September 2024 the defendant must send to the court and to the claimant copies of all the documents he intends to rely upon at the final hearing. These must be in a bundle with each page clearly numbered. The defendant MUST bring the originals of those documents to the final hearing.
9. Unless the claimant does by 4pm on the 27 September 2024 pay to the court the trial fee of £27 or file a properly completed application (i.e one which provides all the required information in the manner requested) for help with fees, then the claim will be struck out with effect from 27 September 2024 without further order and, unless the court orders otherwise, you will also be liable for the costs which the defendant has incurred .
(The trial fee is 2.1 in the current Civil Fees Order)."

Apologies for quoting the letters, as this is my first post it said I can't upload photos yet!

On the parking ticket it shows my son's car from the headlights down, so you can't see the dash anyway if he did have a BB. Then underneath they've taken a photo of the sign for that bay. All that is legible from that photo is "Parking Notice, Disabled Parking Only, Parking Charge £100". I can just about make out in small blurred writing "Vehicles must display a valid blue badge or University D permit at all times".

My son emailed the university and asked for their help with getting the PCN cleared but they said they couldn't, he had to appeal to Excel.
When he first got his uni parking permit they knew he had a disability, which is why he got a permit so he could park in all the uni car parks close to lectures. However because he doesn't have a blue badge they wouldn't give him a disability permit which is outrageous considering BB doesn't even apply in private car parks!

I would really like to be able to upload my son's defence in order to please get some help with the Witness Statement. I have searched for disabled WS on here to no avail unfortunately. I have no idea how strong his defence is, I just hope it is ok. No doubt bits have been missed that should have been included but can't do anything about that now.

Can my son advise the court that the claimant has failed to comply with the General Sanctions Order? Should it have been struck out because of this, or am I missing something?
They had 7 days from 16/4/24 to file their DQ, yet they filed it 35 days after.

Thank you in advance for any help or advice, really appreciate it.

Coupon-mad

No he can't.  Nobody cares about DQs.

His WS and evidence deadline is in paragraph 8 of that Order, as expected.  Fully covered in the NEWBIES thread second post, with examples of good WS and an a-f list of exhibits.

Yes, copy & paste his defence here in a reply so we can see what he put.

Spillit1

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: 

Between

Excel Parking Services Limited

(Claimant)

- and -

(Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge 

and the claim was an unexpected shock. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that any conduct by the driver was a breach of any prominent term and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 

'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars.

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question and was the driver. The Defendant did not abuse the parking space provision because the Defendant has a disability. The Defendant had a valid parking permit for the car park as he was a resident. The purpose for parking there was because the Defendant suffered a medical emergency due to his disability.

3. The Defendant parked in a disabled parking bay at the xxxxxx Student Residences on 

27/03/23, after suffering from a hypoglycaemic episode (blood glucose below 4 mmol) whilst driving, so the Defendant parked in the closest bay to his accommodation (opposite the entrance to his apartment) in order to get to his apartment as quickly as possible to treat the hypoglycaemic episode with fast-acting glucose. The Defendant had run out of fast-acting treatment in his car. Hypoglycaemia whilst driving is a dangerous situation, it is the law to stop. The Defendant found a safe place to stop and park.

4. The Defendant appealed the Parking Charge on 3 occasions (27/03/23, 15/08/23, 22/12/23) within 

the allocated appeals timeline which were all rejected by the Claimant. The Claimant was made aware the Defendant has a disability, Type 1 Diabetes, that this was a medical emergency, and evidence was supplied. There is no excuse to be heard that the Claimant "didn't know" about the disabled Defendant in the car.

Equality Act 2010 breach by the Claimant

5. Any attempt at punishment under contract is meritless and overridden by the Equality Act 2010, and its legal duty upon service providers to make 'reasonable adjustments' for persons with protected 

characteristics.

6. Whilst the Blue Badge scheme does not apply on private land, the Equality Act 2010 does. The service provider (landowner and PPC) must by law make reasonable adjustments for people with protected

characteristics. The Defendant has a condition that comes under the definition of protected 

characteristics. The Claimant (and landowner) failed to anticipate the Defendants needs and thus 

committed indirect discrimination as specified by the Act. The Claimant was made aware of the 

Defendants condition, yet continued to pursue the charge which amounts to direct discrimination. Both are criminal offences.

7. Under the 2010 Equality Act, Type 1 Diabetes is defined as a disability, in that it may have a 

‘substantial, long-term, negative impact on a person’s ability to carry out normal, day-to-day activities’. The Defendant has Type 1 diabetes, therefore this condition qualifies regardless of whether he possesses a blue badge. The Equality Act does not require the driver to display any sort of badge or permit – as long as the driver or a passenger fits the lawful definition of disability, they are entitled to make use of the ‘reasonable adjustments’ provided by a private car park. What the Claimant is doing by insisting a blue badge be displayed is adding arbitrary rules to the lawful right of someone to use a ‘reasonable adjustment’ which could be considered to be a breach of the Equality Act.

8. The Defendant’s medical episode made it illegal for him to leave. Since the Defendant was legally 

prevented from leaving, he was unable to comply with the parking Terms and Conditions. Thus, this 

caused a frustration of contract.

9. The Defendant was dealing with a medical emergency which constitutes a vicissitude of some smallduration, which is not parking, as determined by Judge Harris in Jopson v Homeguard Services (2016), Case No. B9GF0A9E. This was an appeal case and is therefore persuasive in the lower court.

10. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. To pre-empt the usual template responses from this serial litigator: the court process is outside of the Defendant's life experience and they cannot be criticised for adapting some pre-written wording from a reliable advice resource. The Claimant is urged not to patronise the Defendant with (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence.

11. With regard to template statements, the Defendant observes after researching other parking claims, 

that the Particulars of Claim ('POC') set out a cut-and-paste incoherent statement of case. Prior to this -and in breach of the pre-action protocol for 'Debt' Claims - no copy of the contract (sign) accompanied any Letter of Claim. The POC is sparse on facts about the allegation which makes it difficult to respond in depth at this time; however the claim is unfair, objectionable, generic and inflated.

12. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated 

parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

(ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent 

signs and lines.

13. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a 

penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully 

distinguished.

Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government

14. The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot exceed £100 (the industry cap). It is denied 

that any 'Debt Fees' or damages were actually paid or incurred.

15. This claim is unfair and inflated and it is denied that any sum is due in debt or damages. This 

Claimant routinely pursues an unconscionable fixed sum added per PCN, despite knowing that the will 

of Parliament is to ban it.

16. This is a classic example where adding exaggerated fees funds bulk litigation of weak and/or archive parking cases. No checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts, merit or a cause of action (given away by the woefully inadequate POC).

17. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('the DLUHC') published a statutory 

Parking Code of Practice in February2022: The Ministerial Foreword is damning: "Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists."

18. Despite legal challenges delaying the Code (temporarily withdrawn) it is now 'live' after a draft 

Impact Assessment (IA) was published on 30th July 2023. The Government's analysis is found 

here: 

19. Paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 state that the parking industry has shown the DLUHC that the true minor 

cost of pre-action stage totals a mere £8.42 per case (not per PCN).

20. This claim has been enhanced by a disproportionate sum, believed to enrich the litigating legal team. 

It appears to be double recovery, duplicating the intended 'legal fees' cap set by small claims track rules.

21. The draft IA shows that the intimidating letter-chains endured by Defendants cost 'eight times less' than the fixed +£70 per PCN. This causes immense consumer harm in the form of some half a million 

wrongly-enhanced CCJs each year, that Judges are powerless to prevent. MoJ statistics reveal several 

hundred thousand parking claims per annum, with c90% causing default CCJs totalling hundreds of 

millions of pounds. The false fee was enabled by the self-serving Codes of Practice of the rival 

parking Trade Bodies who aligned in 2021 to allow +£70, each led by a Board comprising the parking 

and debt firms who stood to gain from it.

22. It is denied that the added damages/fee sought was incurred or is recoverable. Attention is drawn to 

paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis. Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 

4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment. Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (decision ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that 'admin costs' 

inflating a PCN to £135 exaggerated the cost of template letters and 'would appear to be penal'.

23. This Claimant has not incurred costs. A PCN model already includes what the Supreme Court called an 'automated letter-chain' and it generates a healthy profit. In Beavis, there were 4 pre-action 

letters/reminders and £85 was held to more than cover the minor costs of the operation (NB: debt 

collectors charge nothing in failed collection cases).

24. Whilst the new Code is not retrospective, all non-monetary clauses went unchallenged. It will 

replace the self-serving BPA & IPC Codes, which are not regulation and carry limited weight. It is 

surely a clear steer for the Courts that the DLUHC said in 2023 that it is addressing 'market failure'.

25. At last, the DLUHC's analysis overrides plainly wrong findings by Circuit Judges steered by 

Counsel in weak appeal cases that the parking industry steamrollered through. In Vehicle Control 

Services v Percy, HHJ Saffman took a diametrically opposed position to that taken by DJ Hickinbottom, 

DJ Jackson (as Her Honour Judge Jackson then was), and other District Judges on the North Eastern Circuit, including DJ Skalskyj-Reynolds and DJ Wright (Skipton) all of whom have consistently 

dismissed extortionate added 'fees/damages'. District Judges deal with private parking claims on a daily basis, whereas cases of this nature come before Circuit Judges infrequently. The Judgments of HHJ Parkes in Britannia v Semark-Jullien, and HHJ Simpkiss in One Parking Solution v Wilshaw were flawed. These supposedly persuasive judgments included a universal failure to consider the court's duty under s71 of the CRA 2015 and factual errors. In Wilshaw: a badly outdated reliance on 'ticket cases' which allowed poor signage to escape fair scrutiny and a wrong presumption that landowner authority 'is not required' (DVLA rules make it mandatory). In Percy, HHJ Saffman made an incorrect assumption about pre-action costs and even sought out the wrong Code of Practice of his own volition after the hearing, and used it to inform his judgment.

26. In addition, pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the 

POFA') the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable from a registered keeper. 

The Claimant is put to strict proof of POFA compliance if seeking 'keeper liability'.

27. The Defendant avers that there was no agreement to pay a parking charge or added 'damages' which were not even incurred, let alone quantified in bold, prominent text. This Claimant's lack of large, readable signs are nothing like the yellow & black warnings seen in Beavis, nor do they meet the signage requirements in the DLUHC Code which reflects the already statutory requirement for 'prominence' (Consumer Rights Act 2015 - the 'CRA').

CRA breaches

28. Section 71 CRA creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the test of fairness whether a party raises it or not. Further, claiming costs on an indemnity basis is unfair, per the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance (CMA37, para 5.14.3):

29. The CRA introduced new requirements for 'prominence' of both terms and 'consumer notices'. In a parking context, this includes a test of fairness and clarity of 'signs & lines' and all communications 

(written or otherwise). Signs must be prominent (lit in hours of darkness/dusk) and all terms must be 

unambiguous and contractual obligations clear.

30. The Defendant avers that the CRA has been breached due to unfair/unclear terms and notices, 

pursuant to s62 and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Schedule 2 and the duties of fair/open dealing and good faith (NB: this does not necessarily mean there has to be a finding of bad faith).

Spillit1

ParkingEye v Beavis is distinguished

31. Unlike in Beavis, the penalty rule remains engaged. The CRA covers disproportionate sums, which are not exempt from being assessed for fairness because a 'fee' is not the core price term and neither was it prominently proclaimed on the signs.

32. The Supreme Court held that deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of a 'legitimate interest' 

in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing directly from alleged 

breach. The intention cannot be to punish a driver, nor to present them with hidden terms or 

cumbersome obligations ('concealed pitfalls or traps'). This Claimant has failed those tests, with small signs, hidden terms and minuscule small print that is incapable of binding a driver. Court of Appeal 

authorities about a lack of ‘adequate notice’ of a parking charge include:

(i) Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (Lord Denning's ‘red hand rule’) and

(ii) Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ2,both leading authorities that a clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded; and

(iii) Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 5 Apr 2000, where Ms Vine won because it was 

held that she had not seen the terms by which she would later be bound, due to "the absence of 

any notice on the wall opposite the parking space''.

33. Fairness and clarity of terms and notices are paramount in the DLUHC Code and these clauses are supported by the BPA & IPC. In the official publication 'Parking Review' the IPC's CEO observed: "Any regulation or instruction either has clarity or it doesn’t. If it’s clear to one person but not another, there is no clarity. The same is true for fairness. Something that is fair, by definition, has to be all-inclusive of all parties involved – it’s either fair or it isn’t."

Lack of standing or landowner authority, and lack of ADR

34. DVLA data is only supplied if there is an agreement flowing from the landholder 

(ref: KADOE rules). It is not accepted that this Claimant (an agent of a principal) has authority to form contracts at this site in their name. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their standing to litigate.

35. The Claimant failed to offer a genuinely independent Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The DLUHC Code shows that genuine disputes such as this should see PCNs cancelled, had a fair ADR 

existed. The rival Trade Bodies' time-limited and opaque 'appeals' services fail to properly consider facts or rules of law and reject most disputes: e.g. the IAS upheld appeals in a woeful 4% of decided cases (ref: Annual Report). This consumer blame culture and reliance upon their own 'appeals service' (described by MPs as a kangaroo court and about to be replaced by the Government) should satisfy 

Judges that a fair appeal was never on offer.

Conclusion

36. There is now evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims that are causing consumer harm. The July 2023 DLUHC IA analysis 

shows that the usual letter-chain costs eight times less than the sum claimed for it. The claim is entirely without merit and the POC embarrassing. The Defendant believes that it is in the public interest that poorly pleaded claims like this should be struck out.

37. In the matter of costs, the Defendant seeks:

(a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

(b) a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, and further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.

38. Attention is drawn to the (often-seen) distinct possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of 

Discontinuance. Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the Defendant's costs after 

discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not 'normally' apply to claims allocated to the small claims track 

(r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))."

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signature:

Date: 06/03/24

Spillit1

Thank you so much for replying and taking the time to help me. Above is my son's defence (which I did for him). I had to take out the links in paras 17, 18 and 28, because I'm a newbie.

Spillit1

Obviously I can't change it now as am at the witness statement stage, but is this defence ok please? Is he likely to win? He is petrified about going to court, am I allowed in the room with him? I know I won't be allowed to say anything, but just being there will hopefully help his nerves, plus if he hypos/hypers I'm there.

Coupon-mad

Spillit1 said:

Obviously I can't change it now as am at the witness statement stage, but is this defence ok please? Is he likely to win?

He is petrified about going to court, am I allowed in the room with him? I know I won't be allowed to say anything, but just being there will hopefully help his nerves, plus if he hypos/hypers I'm there.

Very good news that he put in that full defence.  We see wins 99% of the time and his case is no different!

Of course you can speak for him as a lay representative as long as he attends too.

Spillit1

Oh that's great news thank you so much!

I'm hoping Excel drop it before going to court, but from reading on here that's not likely unfortunately.

Do I need to let the court know I will be attending or can I just turn up? It says on their last letter to give statements of all persons who are to give evidence, but as I'm not giving evidence just his lay representative I guess that means I can just turn up with him without letting them know? Apologies for the questions but not had to do this before.

I'm a bit gutted we didn't do a counter claim for discrimination and harassment, but will include costs in WS at least.

Gr1pr

Spillit1 said:

Do I need to let the court know I will be attending or can I just turn up? It says on their last letter to give statements of all persons who are to give evidence, but as I'm not giving evidence just his lay representative I guess that means I can just turn up with him without letting them know?

Apologies for the questions but not had to do this before.

I'm a bit gutted we didn't do a counter claim for discrimination and harassment, but will include costs in WS at least.

The defendant would put down the number of witnesses, you can assist them, its mainly so the local court will know if they can use a small or large or ginormus room, so put 2 if unsure, no Biggie , they just don't want large numbers in tiny rooms, there will probably only be around half a dozen people in total 

That last sentence won't wash, would have been wasted money. Chasing up alleged debts is normal and allowed business practice. But legally Harassment etc is a very high bar to get over in civil court, almost impossible in these cases, despite your personal views on the 2 topics. Stress about allegedly owing money is self inflicted and would require medical evidence to back it up, otherwise it would fail too

Costs are extremely limited in these cases 

Spillit1

Gr1pr said:

Spillit1 said:

Do I need to let the court know I will be attending or can I just turn up? It says on their last letter to give statements of all persons who are to give evidence, but as I'm not giving evidence just his lay representative I guess that means I can just turn up with him without letting them know?

Apologies for the questions but not had to do this before.

I'm a bit gutted we didn't do a counter claim for discrimination and harassment, but will include costs in WS at least.

The defendant would put down the number of witnesses, you can assist them, its mainly so the local court will know if they can use a small or large or ginormus room, so put 2 if unsure, no Biggie , they just don't want large numbers in tiny rooms, there will probably only be around half a dozen people in total 

That last sentence won't wash, would have been wasted money. Chasing up alleged debts is normal and allowed business practice. But legally Harassment etc is a very high bar to get over in civil court, almost impossible in these cases, despite your personal views on the 2 topics. Stress about allegedly owing money is self inflicted and would require medical evidence to back it up, otherwise it would fail too

Costs are extremely limited in these cases 

Thank you for your advice, very helpful.

On the N180 form, section E3 my son put 1 witness, as we didn't know that I would be classed as a witness. Does this matter? Do I write the number of witnesses on his witness statement? 

I understand. I thought I'd read a case on here where a disabled person was awarded for harassment and distress in the region of £900 due to parking firm sending multiple letters to pay even though they knew she was disabled. Same as my son. Maybe it wasn't on here I can't remember where I read it last year, but definitely somewhere. I do appreciate what you say though that it's difficult to prove in civil court, so I'm pleased I didn't waste money.

Gr1pr

No it shouldn't matter, but do take a copy of the lay representative document with you on the day, both of you will sign in at court 

No need to embellish his WS either, the court can manage with two of you, but maybe not 22 or 222

If that defendant proved harassment and distress, in court, then yes they would be awarded a tidy sum, but each case is different, depends what the harassment consisted of and we would need to see the story or transcript to know why they won 

Link the case if you can find it, because its 1 in 1000