Excel Parking Charge Notice Disabled Bay

Spillit1

 

12.      I had to legally wait from 11.25 until 12.10 to be safe to drive. I cannot recall the time I returned to my car to find the PCN, as it was over 17 months ago, plus hypo affects my cognitive function therefore I am relying on my CGM data, and memory as much as possible.

13.      I had a valid parking permit for the car park as I was a student at the University xx and a resident in xx, my address was xx. This was arranged with the Disability and Dyslexia Support Service (DHSS), I paid £50 for the permit as it was for semester 2 only (See Exhibit XX-07). Therefore the Claimant has not lost any income.

14.      The Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was stuck to my windscreen on xx from the claimant with a demand for £100, reduced to £60 if payment was made within 14 days. The PCN is time stamped xx. I was in my accommodation treating my hypo at the time.

 15.      I emailed the parking services at the University xx, on the same day as the PCN was issued, to explain my situation and asked them to retract the PCN, but they said I needed to appeal via Excel Parking Services.

 16.      I appealed to Excel Parking Services via their website on xx, the same day I received the PCN. I explained I suffered a medical emergency, hypoglycaemia, I have Type 1 Diabetes, and provided a screenshot of my bg readings from my CGM data on xx as evidence (See Exhibit XX-08). I do not have a copy of my appeal as it was submitted on their website. Extenuating medical circumstances are reason to cancel a PCN. They emailed me back at xx on xx thanking me for my submission and stated “A response will be sent to you within 28 days from the date of your submission” (See Exhibit XX-09).

17.      The next correspondence I had from Excel Parking Services was 157 days later (longer than the 28 days they stated), dated xx (See Exhibit XX-10). The first line of this letter is incorrect, “We refer to your appeal in respect of the above Charge Notice (CN) received on xx.” As stated in par 16 I appealed it on xx, the very same day I received the PCN, and they responded that same day. I did not appeal it on the date they stated in this letter.

 18.      The Claimant then goes on to say “Having considered the points you have raised and reviewed our records, we are unable to accept your appeal”.

 “We have fully reviewed this case and we are satisfied that the Charge Notice was correctly issued. We are unable to accept the mitigating circumstances raised in your representations, your appeal is therefore rejected.”

 “Our main reason(s) for this decision are as follows:

The signs at the car park make it clear that the land is private property.”

Please note, the bay in question is not within a car park, it is a single bay outside my accommodation.

 “The signs state that all vehicles which park in a bay designated for use by a disabled person must clearly display a valid Disabled Persons Blue Badge.”

19.      I invite the court to note that contract law (a contract I could not read) cannot ever override statute law, the Equality Act 2010 (EA2010) duty not to discriminate against known disabled people and to make 'reasonable adjustments' for those persons. The Claimant was made aware I have a disability, Type 1 Diabetes, and evidence was supplied in my appeal on the day I received the PCN xx, again in my second appeal on xx, and yet again on xx. So there is no excuse to be heard the Claimant did not know I have a disability.

 20.      ANYONE who qualifies under the EA2010 (NOT JUST DISABLED PEOPLE) can use those bays, the service provider has to make reasonable adjustments for those people.

21.      In the Claimants letter dated xx it also states “Our letter dated the xx requested you to supply evidence that the screenshot provided as evidence with your appeal related to yourself on the date in question and advised that proof was to be supplied by xx. To date you have failed to provide the requested evidence therefore we will continue to pursue this Charge”.

Please note I did not receive the letter they claim they sent dated xx.

 22.      In the letter of xx the Claimant also stated “no further appeals will be accepted at this office; any such appeal must be made to the IAS.”

 23.      On xx I appealed to the Independent Appeals Services (IAS) (See Exhibit XX-11). I reiterated the events of xx I suffered a medical emergency due to hypo, my symptoms at the time, and that I had already provided evidence of my bg readings when I appealed on xx. I stated I did not receive a letter dated xx as claimed by Excel Parking Services. I provided additional evidence in the form of a photograph of myself with my Omnipod insulin pump and Dexcom G6 CGM clearly visible on my arms, with me holding my mobile phone with my xx data of xx on display (See Exhibit XX-12), plus the screenshot of my bg history for xx (See Exhibit XX-08), to prove I have Type 1 Diabetes. I appealed within the stated timeline on the letter from Excel dated xx.

 24.      On xx I received a “DEMAND FOR PAYMENT” from Excel Parking Services, dated xx, stating the outstanding balance was now £170, as debt collection costs of £70 had been added (See Exhibit XX-13).

 25.      On xx I received a “FINAL DEMAND” from Excel Parking Services, dated xx (See Exhibit XX-14).

 26.      On xx I received a “LETTER BEFORE CLAIM” from Excel Parking Services, dated xx (See Exhibit XX-15).

 27.      On xx I received an “Urgent: Notification of Instruction” from Elms Legal, dated xx (See Exhibit XX-16) which was a threat letter and caused considerable distress as it spoke of legal proceedings and court actions.

 28.      On xx I telephoned Elms Legal because I was distressed and worried. I spoke with Angie and again reiterated I was not liable for the charge as I have a disability and have protected characteristics under the EA2010, I also said the blue badge scheme does not apply on private land. She told me to email debtassist@elmslegal.co.uk and provide evidence that I have Type 1 Diabetes, and my CGM readings again for xx. She stated that she would put the case on hold until xx for them to review the evidence and so I did not have to worry about it over Christmas. I sent the email at xx on xx (See Exhibit XX-17). I attached a copy of a letter from my Diabetes Consultant confirming when I was diagnosed (See Exhibit XX-18), plus a copy of  my bg readings from xx, which was a different platform where my bg was also recorded (See Exhibit XX-19). The reason I thought to use xx at this point, was because it showed my initial and surname at the top of the report, therefore confirming the data belonged to me. However, the times recorded on xx were much more accurate which is why I always used xx.xxt just ran in the background hence the reason I did not think of this sooner. I no longer use xx or xx.

29.      On xx at xx Angie from Elms Legal sent an email stating “With reference to the enquiry we sent to our client on Friday 22 December regarding the medical information you had kindly forwarded, we have now had a response. Our clients have advised that they will be looking to take this matter further” (See Exhibit XX-20). Clearly this was not put on hold until xx.

30.      On xx I received a Claim Form from the Civil National Business Centre, dated xx (See Exhibit XX-21). In the Particulars of Claim it states “The claim is for a breach of contract for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. The Defendants vehicle, xxL, was identified in the xx Student Residences on the xx in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely parked in a disabled space without clearly displaying a valid disabled persons badge. At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. The terms and conditions upon entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply, namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. The Claimant seeks the recovery of the parking chare notice, contractual costs and interest.”

 31.      I was a resident at xx from xx until xx. From xx I had my car at university and parked it in xx car park every day and overnight as I had a permit. So I had used the actual car park many times. I used to park in the car park up a steep hill behind my accommodation (See Exhibit XX-22). I used the entrance off xx, up xx, where there is a barrier system in operation, I could enter the private land because I was a resident. I could park there because I had a permit. I have never seen any visible parking signs at this entrance as claimed by the Claimant. I refer to Exhibits XX-23 – XX-24 taken from Google Maps street view which clearly shows no contractual signage at this entrance.

 32.      The parking sign by the disabled bay I parked in (See Exhibit XX-25), is only visible if you turn right on to xx to drive past xx on the left, where the disabled bay is on the right (See Exhibit XX-26). To access the car park you have to drive straight up the road from the entrance barrier so avoiding that right turn I have just described (See Exhibit XX-27).

 33.      I was unable to read the parking sign behind my car due to my symptoms of hypo (stated in para 4.) at the time I parked my car, therefore no contract was entered into.

KeithP

I would suggest that paragraph 8 of your WS be re-phrased to avoid using the words "On the date of receiving the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) I was using an app called xx on my phone...".

The mere hint of using a mobile phone whilst driving must be avoided at all costs.

But please don't go into a lengthy explanation of what you meant. 
Just looking at what you have written so far in your WS, I think there is far far too much detail about your medical condition/situation.

Spillit1

34.      The Claim Form states “Amount claimed £70, Court fee £ 35.00, Legal representative’s costs £50, Total amount £255.00. Excel Parking Services have continued to harass me having issued their claim with the court. I have received several threatening letters asking for various amounts and making threats to claim their solicitors costs. They must know as they are serial litigators that they cannot claim legal costs unless I have behaved ‘wholly unreasonably’ with no reasonable explanation for a vexatious conduct, yet it is Excel Parking Services that have behaved unreasonably and vexaciously throughout.

 35.      On xx I received an “Urgent: Notification of Issue of Proceedings” from Elms Legal, dated xx (See Exhibit XX-28).

 36.      On xx I received a letter from Excel Parking Services, dated xx, confirming “Elms Legal are no longer acting on our behalf”.

“We are willing to accept a reduced settlement care of £195 payable within 14 days from the date of this letter” (See Exhibit XX-29).

 Equality Act 2010 breach by the Claimant

 37.      I am covered by the EA2010 as Type 1 Diabetes is a disability. The blue badge scheme is not relevant to private land. By refusing to allow disabled persons without a blue badge is a breach of the EA2010 as the Claimant has not made "Reasonable Adjustments". The Claimant is aware of my protected characteristics as they were informed on my first, second and third appeals to them.

 38.      Excel Parking Services claim that if a private car park has signs demanding that if drivers do not display a blue badge when using the disabled parking bays they risk getting a parking ticket, it somehow overrides primary statute law. However, the Equality Act 2010 makes it clear that just because someone does not hold (or does not display) a blue badge does not mean they are not disabled; the Equality Act does not require the driver to display any sort of badge or permit. Anyone who fits the lawful definition of disability is entitled to make use of the ‘reasonable adjustments’. What they are in effect doing is adding arbitrary rules to the lawful right of someone to use a ‘reasonable adjustment’, and this is a breach of the Equality Act.

 39.      In Case Number 3QT60496 Excel v Greenwood, a case about a forgotten blue badge, the Judge found that Excel should have made reasonable adjustments once they knew about the disability.

 40.      The judge decided that the Operator had a legal duty to make a 'reasonable adjustment' for a genuine disabled person even when (as in that case) no Blue Badge was displayed. The judge also

commented that the defendant (a disabled man issued with a Parking Charge) would have been likely to have had a case for compensatory damages.

 41.      A disability does not suddenly disappear in the absence of a blue badge. At the point of knowing I was disabled and entitled to use that bay, the PCN should have been cancelled. This is where harassment comes in, and I ask the court to consult the law and note that harassment of a known disabled person is a specific breach of the EA 2010 (not just the Protection from Harassment Act) at section 26 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/26 :

 42.      The IPC code of practice also states

 “6.2 Blue Badge Holders should be aware that there are no statutory concessions for Blue Badge holders on private land. The badge is intended for on-street parking only. Off-street Car Parks, such as those provided in local authority, hospital or supermarket Car Parks are governed by separate rules and are not covered by the scheme.” Excel Parking Services are aware of this, despite that they continue to insist a badge should have been displayed and harass me for monies that I do not owe.

 43.  My medical episode made it illegal for me to leave, since I was legally prevented from leaving, I was unable to comply with the parking Terms and Conditions, thus, this caused a frustration of contract.

 44.  I was dealing with a medical emergency which constitutes a vicissitude of some small duration, which is not parking as determined by Judge Harris in Jopson v Homeguard Services (2016) Case No. B9F0A9E (See Exhibit XX-30). This was an appeal case and is therefore persuasive in the lower court.

 45.  Equality Act 2010

 142 Unenforceable terms

(1) A term of a contract is unenforceable against a person in so far as it constitutes, promotes or provides for treatment of that or another person that is of a description prohibited by this Act.

144(1) A term of a contract is unenforceable by a person in whose favour it would operate in so far as it purports to exclude or limit a provision of or made under this Act.

(5) A service-provider (A) must not, in providing the service, victimise a person (B)—

(a)as to the terms on which A provides the service to B;

 29 Provision of services

(1) A person (a “service-provider”) concerned with the provision of a service to the public or a section of the public (for payment or not) must not discriminate against a person requiring the service by not providing the person with the service.

(2) A service-provider (A) must not, in providing the service, discriminate against a person (B)—
(a) as to the terms on which A provides the service to B;
(b) by terminating the provision of the service to B;
(c) by subjecting B to any other detriment.

(3) A service-provider must not, in relation to the provision of the service, harass—
(a) a person requiring the service, or
(b) a person to whom the service-provider provides the service.

(4) A service-provider must not victimise a person requiring the service by not providing the person with the service.

(5) A service-provider (A) must not, in providing the service, victimise a person (B)—
(a) as to the terms on which A provides the service to B;
(b) by terminating the provision of the service to B;
(c) by subjecting B to any other detriment.

 46.  The statutory duty to make reasonable adjustments in a car park are not met merely by painting some disabled bays; barriers to access are not just physical and discrimination includes harassment of disabled people.

47.      As a company, Excel Parking Services has specifically breached their legal duties under the 'EHRC Equality Act Code of Practice for Service Providers' which has been law since 2011 and being mandatory, the breaches of duties under that Code form part and parcel of the statute law that I am relying upon.

48.      Accordingly, it should not preclude the Court from concluding that the Claimant’s behaviour was altogether unreasonable. They started this action and pursued it without a sight of discontinuance or even a hint of remorse or apology, and this must fall into the category of unreasonable conduct.

 49.      The Equality Act 2010 sets out when someone is considered to be disabled and protected from discrimination. The definition is set out in section 1 and section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.

 It says you’re disabled if:

·    you have a physical or mental impairment

·   that impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on your ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities

 These are covered in Schedule 1, Part 1 of the Equality Act 2010

 Part 1 Determination of disability

 Impairment

 1 Regulations may make provision for a condition of a prescribed description to be, or not to be, impairment.

 Long-term effects

 2(1)The effect of an impairment is long-term if—

 i.            it has lasted for at least 12 months,

 ii.            it is likely to last for at least 12 months, or

 iii.            it is likely to last for the rest of the life of the person affected.

 (2)If an impairment ceases to have a substantial adverse effect on a person's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, it is to be treated as continuing to have that effect if that effect is likely to recur.

 (3)For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2), the likelihood of an effect recurring is to be disregarded in such circumstances as may be prescribed.

 (4)Regulations may prescribe circumstances in which, despite sub-paragraph (1), an effect is to be treated as being, or as not being, long-term.

Spillit1

50.      SECTION 6 Disability

 (1)A person (P) has a disability if—

 (a)P has a physical or mental impairment, and

 (b)the impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on P's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

 (2)A reference to a disabled person is a reference to a person who has a disability.

 (3)In relation to the protected characteristic of disability—

 (a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person who has a particular disability;

 (b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons who have the same disability.

 (4)This Act (except Part 12 and section 190) applies in relation to a person who has had a disability as it applies in relation to a person who has the disability; accordingly (except in that Part and that section)—

 (a)a reference (however expressed) to a person who has a disability includes a reference to a person who has had the disability, and

 (b)a reference (however expressed) to a person who does not have a disability includes a reference to a person who has not had the disability.

 (5)A Minister of the Crown may issue guidance about matters to be taken into account in deciding any question for the purposes of subsection (1).

 (6)Schedule 1 (disability: supplementary provision) has effect.

 Schedule 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010

 51.      SECTION 20 Duty to make adjustments

 (1)Where this Act imposes a duty to make reasonable adjustments on a person, this section, sections 21 and 22 and the applicable Schedule apply; and for those purposes, a person on whom the duty is imposed is referred to as A.

 (2)The duty comprises the following three requirements.

 (3)The first requirement is a requirement, where a provision, criterion or practice of A's puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison withpersons who are not disabled, to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage.

 (4)The second requirement is a requirement, where a physical feature puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled, to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage.

 (5)The third requirement is a requirement, where a disabled person would, but for the provision of an auxiliary aid, be put at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled, to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to provide the auxiliary aid.

 (6)Where the first or third requirement relates to the provision of information, the steps which it is reasonable for A to have to take include steps for ensuring that in the circumstances concerned the information is provided in an accessible format.

 (7)A person (A) who is subject to a duty to make reasonable adjustments is not (subject to express provision to the contrary) entitled to require a disabled person, in relation to whom A is required to comply with the duty, to pay to any extent A's costs of complying with the duty.

 (8)A reference in section 21 or 22 or an applicable Schedule to the first, second or third requirement is to be construed in accordance with this section.

 (9)In relation to the second requirement, a reference in this section or an applicable Schedule to avoiding a substantial disadvantage includes a reference to—

 (a)removing the physical feature in question,

 (b)altering it, or

 (c)providing a reasonable means of avoiding it.

 (10)A reference in this section, section 21 or 22 or an applicable Schedule (apart from paragraphs 2 to 4 of Schedule 4) to a physical feature is a reference to—

 (a)a feature arising from the design or construction of a building,

 (b)a feature of an approach to, exit from or access to a building,

 (c)a fixture or fitting, or furniture, furnishings, materials, equipment or other chattels, in or on premises, or

 (d)any other physical element or quality.

 (11)A reference in this section, section 21 or 22 or an applicable Schedule to an auxiliary aid includes a reference to an auxiliary service.

 (12)A reference in this section or an applicable Schedule to chattels is to be read, in relation to Scotland, as a reference to moveable property.

(13)The applicable Schedule is, in relation to the Part of this Act specified in the first column of the Table, the Schedule specified in the second column.

52. SECTION 21 Failure to comply with duty

 (1)A failure to comply with the first, second or third requirement is a failure to comply with a duty to make reasonable adjustments.

 (2)A discriminates against a disabled person if A fails to comply with that duty in relation to that person.

 (3)A provision of an applicable Schedule which imposes a duty to comply with the first, second or third requirement applies only for the purpose of establishing whether A has contravened this Act by virtue of subsection (2); a failure to comply is, accordingly, not actionable by virtue of another provision of this Act or otherwise.

Spillit1

Exaggerated claim

56.      My stance regarding this punitive add-on is now underpinned by the Government, who have now stated that attempts to gild the lily by adding 'debt recovery costs' were 'extorting money'. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('DLUHC') published in February 2022, a statutory Code of Practice, found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice.

57.      The Code's Ministerial Foreword is unequivocal about abusive existing cases such as the present claim: "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."

58.      Whilst it is known that the rogue parking industry have just filed Judicial Reviews and have delayed the new Code of Practice (as per paragraph 56), the Government is pressing ahead and has conceded to undertake a final Public Consultation and Impact Assessment, as the latter was missing from their rationale. Going by the damning words of the Minister, and the fact that two consultations and an industry and consumer represented Steering Group have already informed the DLUHC's decision over the past two years, I believe there is no reason to think the Government's view will significantly change about adding unconscionable costs that were not incurred and which merely exist as a mechanism to enhance already-doubled parking charges, to fuel the roboclaim race to court and to side-step the £50 legal fees cap set in the Small Clams Track.

59.      Adding debt recovery/costs/damages/fees (however described) onto a parking charge is now banned. In a section called 'Escalation of costs' the incoming statutory Code of Practice says: "The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued."

74.      Fairness and clarity of terms and notices are paramount in the statutory Code and this is supported by the BPA & IPC Trade Bodies. In November 2020's Parking Review, solicitor Will Hurley, CEO of the IPC, 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. The introduction of a new ‘Code of Practice for Parking’ provides a wonderful opportunity to provide clarity and fairness for motorists and landowners alike."

 Lack of standing or landowner authority, and lack of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

75.      DVLA data is only supplied to pursue parking charges if there is an agreement flowing from the landholder (ref: KADOE rules). It is not accepted that the Claimant has adhered to a defined enforcement boundary, grace period or exemptions (whatever the landowner's definitions were) nor that this Claimant has authority from the landowner to issue charges in this specific area. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of this, and that they have standing to make contracts with drivers and litigate in their own name, rather than merely acting as agents.

 76.      I further aver the Claimant failed to offer a genuinely independent Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The Appeals Annex in the new Code shows that genuine disputes such as this - even if the facts were narrowed later - would have seen the charge cancelled, had a fair ADR existed. Whether or not a person engaged with it, the Claimant's consumer blame culture and reliance upon the industry's own 'appeals service' should not sway the court into a belief that a fair ADR was ever on offer. The rival Trade Bodies' time-limited and opaque 'appeals' services fail to properly consider facts or rules of law and would have rejected almost any dispute.

 Conclusion

82.      As a litigant-in-person I have had to learn relevant law from the ground up and spent a considerable time researching the law online, processing and preparing my defence plus this witness statement. I ask for my fixed witness costs. I am advised that costs on the Small Claims track are governed by rule 27.14 of the CPR and (unless a finding of 'wholly unreasonable conduct' is made against the Claimant) the Court may not order a party to pay another party’s costs, except fixed costs such as witness expenses which a party has reasonably incurred in travelling to and from the hearing (including fares and/or parking fees) plus the court may award a set amount allowable for loss of earnings or loss of leave.

 83.  The fixed sum for loss of earnings/loss of leave apply to any hearing format and are fixed costs at PD 27, 7.3(1)'' The amounts which a party may be ordered to pay under rule 27.14(3)(c) (loss of earnings)... are: (1) for the loss of earnings or loss of leave of each party or witness due to attending a hearing ... a sum not exceeding £95 per day for each person.''

 Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement 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.

 

Defendant’s signature:

 

Date:

KeithP

Buried in amongst all of that stuff is my post Today at 7:57PM.

Coupon-mad

You do not need to exhibit the Claim Form nor any letters from Elms Legal.

And remove the brackets around the Claimant's name at the top.

Spillit1

KeithP said:

I would suggest that paragraph 8 of your WS be re-phrased to avoid using the words "On the date of receiving the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) I was using an app called xx on my phone...".

The mere hint of using a mobile phone whilst driving must be avoided at all costs.

But please don't go into a lengthy explanation of what you meant. 
Just looking at what you have written so far in your WS, I think there is far far too much detail about your medical condition/situation.

Thank you. Of course he doesn't use is phone while driving. Is this better?

8.      I wear an Omnipod Insulin pump, as well as a Dexcom G6 Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM). My blood glucose (bg) readings are recorded on an app from my Dexcom G6 every 5 minutes. The record history of this app, which I accessed after receiving the PCN, showed I was hypo (4mmol or below) from 08.50 until 09.25 on xx. (See Exhibit XX-04).

As I have never written a ws I have no idea what to put or not to put, which is why I am asking for (and very appreciative of) any advice/help here. I thought stating the facts with evidence of the condition would be helpful, especially as not many people understand T1 sadly. But if you don't think it is needed, which parts do you suggest I remove please?

Spillit1

Coupon-mad said:

You do not need to exhibit the Claim Form nor any letters from Elms Legal.

And remove the brackets around the Claimant's name at the top.

Thank you, most helpful. 

Spillit1

I  have reworded para 8, removed  brackets, deleted paras 10 and 11, deleted exhibits 4, 5, 6, 16, 21 and 28.

Any other suggestions greatly appreciated thank you.

Please can you point me in the right direction of any cases I can refer to regarding frustration of contract? Many thanks.