Me vs Big Supermarket (DDA Claim)

[seftonview]

I have a County Court claim against one of the big four supermarkets for disability discrimination, contrary to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

Circumstances

I have a physical disability which restricts movement and meets the definition of disability under the DDA.

In June I attended the supermarket by car. On arriving all of the disabled parking spaces were occupied. Seven of the occupying vehicles failed to display blue badges or disabled tax discs. I was unable to park and leave the car, hence unable to use the service.

I wrote to the supermarket explaining the above and asking about their policies, practices and procedures for enforcing disabled parking. I asked them to explain how they comply with the law. They didnt respond.

Two weeks later I wrote back setting out the same again and threatening issuance of Court action in default of response. They didn't respond.

I have issued the Claim. The Defendant has made a without prejudice offer of settlement for a small cash sum on condition of confidentiality. However, the offer letter contains information that basically amounts to an admission of liability (it states that they had no proactive procedures in place, though now they will introduce one).

I'm not sure if I should settle. Your thoughts please?

[old_andrew2007]

Hi
The tone of your post suggests to me that your concerns are regarding their non-compliance with the law, rather than seeking compensation, I wish you well with your action.
Have you informed one of the disability rights organisations of your plans, I am sure they will be very interested.

Andy

[davethorp]

As might your local press of course

[skbuncks]

Hi Seftonview

I sympthasize with your position but what enforcement powers do they actually have? This is a private car park (I assume) so any disabled spaces rely on nothing more than the good will of non disabled motorists to not use them. A quick browse of the parking/traffic offences section of CAG will show you that any penalties imposed by non blue badge holders for parking in disabled spaces in private car parks have no legal basis.

What is your desired outcome with this? If its monetary compensation they have already offered this and if its a change in procedures to prevent abuse of their disabled spaces they have offered this also (I would be interest to now how they are going to do this).

Im not too clued up on DDA so am curious as to your particulars of claim, would you mind posting them up for all to see??

skb


skb

[seftonview]

Originally Posted by old_andrew2007

Have you informed one of the disability rights organisations of your plans, I am sure they will be very interested.

At this stage, no. In such event that it is necessary to continue litigation without amicable settlement, I intent to publicise the case as widely as possible.

Originally Posted by skbuncks

I sympthasize with your position but what enforcement powers do they actually have? This is a private car park (I assume) so any disabled spaces rely on nothing more than the good will of non disabled motorists to not use them. A quick browse of the parking/traffic offences section of CAG will show you that any penalties imposed by non blue badge holders for parking in disabled spaces in private car parks have no legal basis.

This is for them to argue, not me! I only have to prove prima facie that their actions are unreasonable, then they have the burden of proof to demonstrate that they are. In any case the several discussions don't indicate that all parking charges are unenforceable, simply that the majority of the current parking enforcers don't conclude a contract properly and may struggle with their burden of proof. Nonwithstanding this, there are many other means of policingthat could be introduced to help comply with the DDA, such as barrier segregated parking for example.

Originally Posted by skbuncks

What is your desired outcome with this? If its monetary compensation they have already offered this and if its a change in procedures to prevent abuse of their disabled spaces they have offered this also (I would be interest to now how they are going to do this).

I'm not happy to accept a nominal sum to shut me up; I am in any case far more concerned with correcting their current behaviour to be just and lawful. My view at present is that they have failed in their duty to make adjustments, which is a proactive duty rather than reactive, and saying that they are radically amending procedures is tantamount to an admission they were not compliant before IMO.

Originally Posted by skbuncks

Im not too clued up on DDA so am curious as to your particulars of claim, would you mind posting them up for all to see??

At this stage no, I don't want the Defendant to be able to identify the case.

[seftonview]

Just to let you all know, I have rejected outright the offer of settlement, for a number of reasons:-

1. They offered me a non-negotiable financial sum which was not a sufficient sum of money to compensate for injury to feelings, let alone the terms of the settlement agreement they wanted.

2. They required that I agree to total confidentiality relating to circumstances and settlement.

3. They wanted me to agree not to bring another Claim again, the clause being worded in such a way that it would encompass further, seperate discrimination.

I will be posting up full details of all correspondence, including particulars of claim, in the next few days.

[Janet-M]

Originally Posted by seftonview

Just to let you all know, I have rejected outright the offer of settlement, for a number of reasons:- Good

1. They offered me a non-negotiable financial sum which was not a sufficient sum of money to compensate for injury to feelings, let alone the terms of the settlement agreement they wanted.

2. They required that I agree to total confidentiality relating to circumstances and settlement. If they want confidentiality then they should pay you for it .
I am not saying you should accept, as as you say publicising it and hopefully getting others to act within the law is worth more then any amount you can be paid.I personally would never agree to confidentiality .

3. They wanted me to agree not to bring another Claim again, the clause being worded in such a way that it would encompass further, seperate discrimination. They have no right to ask you to give up your legal rights in the future

I will be posting up full details of all correspondence, including particulars of claim, in the next few days.

I look forward to reading it

[Conniff]

Bit of an oxymoron here isn't there

I am in any case far more concerned with correcting their current behaviour

I'm not happy to accept a nominal sum to shut me up

My apology, I'm fast going your way so will want to park close to the entrance as well, I wish you well.

[seftonview]

It might have been Conniff, had all three of the quotes been mine.

[Conniff]

Your certainly a reasonable person - others would have jumped down my throat for saying that.

[seftonview]

Originally Posted by Conniff

Your certainly a reasonable person - others would have jumped down my throat for saying that.

Nah, its quite easy to read things the wrong way the first time you go over it. Just pay me the same honour if I ever misread one of your posts!

[legalpickle]

I have just noticed this thread of interest.

Originally Posted by 389shell

I know one of the big supermarkets that begins with T**** had a story in my local paper because it booked a disabled couple. They were parked correctly, with a permit, but they took over 2 hours to shop and so got booked. When they complained T**** upheld the fine and told them they would have to shop quicker!

In response to this post first, legally there is 3 hours minimum in dedicated disabled bays, 30 mins in on-the-road parking in certain areas. Some disabled bays have an unlimited time limit. I would have issued a claim against Tesco Stores Limited - and have done for other things previously - for Disability Discrimination for the refund of the fine plus interest and court fees.

Now onto the main thread;

Originally Posted by seftonview

I have a County Court claim against one of the big four supermarkets for disability discrimination, contrary to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

Circumstances

I have a physical disability which restricts movement and meets the definition of disability under the DDA.

In June I attended the supermarket by car. On arriving all of the disabled parking spaces were occupied. Seven of the occupying vehicles failed to display blue badges or disabled tax discs. I was unable to park and leave the car, hence unable to use the service.

I wrote to the supermarket explaining the above and asking about their policies, practices and procedures for enforcing disabled parking. I asked them to explain how they comply with the law. They didnt respond.

Two weeks later I wrote back setting out the same again and threatening issuance of Court action in default of response. They didn't respond.

I have issued the Claim. The Defendant has made a without prejudice offer of settlement for a small cash sum on condition of confidentiality. However, the offer letter contains information that basically amounts to an admission of liability (it states that they had no proactive procedures in place, though now they will introduce one).

I'm not sure if I should settle. Your thoughts please?

DDA is a complicated issue. Being disabled with high rate mobility for more than a year and having lived with some form of disability or another for most of my memorable life, I can certainly feel for you. It has also unfortunately given me experience in such claims that I would have rather not incurred.

DDA claims quite often - like most claims but more so - depend on the judge trying the matter. Asda was listed in a recent article [can't remember where] as one of the best stores for enforcing parking in a disabled spot without a blue badge. Our local Tesco [Prestwich] is a nightmare with the spots. Cars without blue badges are visibly parked in the disabled spaces at many hours of the day and night [24 hour branch].

I am regretful and apologetic in saying that prior to receiving a blue badge and having deteriorating mobility issues, I also went with friends parking in the disabled spots, though I doubt I would have done it if I had a driving licence and was driving myself.

Unfortunately, besides for the enforcement side of the matter - which is quite possible that the judge will say that you cannot enforce it on behalf of all disabled people, that is the job of the Equality & Human Rights Commission, Liberty or another organization with a noted public role - your claim requires proving that you incurred a loss.

The first head of loss would have been that you could not shop at the time at the most convenient store to you and had to go elsewhere. You would need to show a larger fuel bill and the more expensive price of items elsewhere. Also if you couldn't get certain items that you really needed [not just wanted, like I felt like having a mango at that time !!!], then that would go under the next head of loss.

The second head of loss is injury to feelings. It is always hard to put an amount on this. If you get a judge with a bad personality or in a bad mood, he could say something like 'put up with it' - and I've had that and heard of that - but you could also get a sympathetic judge who even if you don't win will explain everything to you nicely and still criticize the defendant even if you lose. If the injury to feelings is substantial and the case was a substantial case, then you would have an expert psychological report, but my guess is that this case is much smaller than that. I would therefore have some friends prepare witness statements [make sure they are signed by a Statement of Truth or the other side will have them struck out] from friends - not too many or it will seem overly excessive - detailing how you felt, that you felt seriously insulted, depressed and angry afterwards... if you want me to look at them, then I'll be happy to if you post them here [you can remove all identifying details from them, like claim number, claimant, defendant, witness, addresses....].

The judge will need to decide the amount that should be awarded for this, but could just decide on an apology.

Finally onto an agreed settlement. The supermarket chain is unlikely to agree to settle if the agreement is not kept private. Whilst you are completely right to refuse relinquishing your rights in the future, and they are wrong for even writing that down, in such claims it is accepted that if it does not proceed to hearing you would agree to such a demand, which is not grossly unreasonable.

If they make you a new offer which does not include the clause relinquishing your rights [however it is worded] but does include the confidentiality clause, you refuse, it proceeds to a hearing and you lose or don't succeed in receiving compensation or an amount of compensation near to or more than their offer, they may be entitled to costs on your "acting unreasonably" [see CPR 27.14]. If they try this on with the relinquishing your rights or similar clause, they are likely to fail when you tell the judge that that clause is grossly unreasonable and you are unwilling and cannot be compelled to relinquish your basic human rights, which is the reason you refused the offer. In such a case they would have to show the letter of offer and I would not be surprised if with such a letter the judge changes his verdict for the better and makes them give that offer without the clauses. But, be prepared for losing and paying their costs.

I wish you all the luck in the world [unfortunately not much at this time, nonetheless] and hope you will understand that I am playing devil's advocate here, I support you in this claim, but hope you are aware of all the risks before going too far to turn back.

Good luck,
legal

[raydetinu]

On what basis would you be taking them to court, no damages or expense incurred! The supermarket has done nothing illegal!

[legalpickle]

Originally Posted by raydetinu

On what basis would you be taking them to court, no damages or expense incurred! The supermarket has done nothing illegal!

Ray. Read the whole thread and the DDA 1995. You can claim compensation if they breach the DDA and it affects you. You can also claim costs arising out of that, for example if the OP had to travel to a supermarket further away because of this [fuel is expensive!] or if the OP had to spend more on a more expensive item, for example had to get something from Sainsburys instead of Tesco and it was double the price in Sainsburys. All these are losses that have been successfully claimed under the DDA.

[old_andrew2007]

Hi Raydetinu,

I've read posts, to be fair Legalpickle and I have not seen I 2 I in the recent past, however I'm with him, I think the OP is correct in bringing the case, and the supermarket is in breach of the DDA.

Andy