The question you need to ask yourself is this: With the 10 minutes reading time afforded to everyone, am I at a substantial disadvantage compared with a person who does not have my disability? If the answer is no, there was no failure in the reasonable adjustment duty as it simply doesn't arise. If the answer is yes, then if you can identify an adjustment that could have been made (e.g. giving you a further 10 minutes on top) which would have reduced or eradicated the comparative substantial disadvantage, then the duty applied, and if that (or another equally effective adjustment) was not provided, there has been a failure in the duty which is likely to be actionable. The fact that you didn't request or suggest any adjustments is immaterial (assuming of course that the employer knew, or should reasonably have known, about your disability). SV

My suggestion would be that you should make a claim for unlawful discrimination contrary to the Equality Act 2010. The landowner/clamping firm are a service provider within the meaning of the Act, because they are 'concerned with' the provision of a service. 'Service' includes goods and facilities. The Code of Practice gives as an example of a service: 'access to and use of any place which the public are permitted to enter'. The public were clearly permitted to enter the place - there were no physical restrictions preventing the access. It would appear that the landowner has failed to make reasonable adjustments, in that (1) he did not provide disabled parking spaces (2) when he became aware of your disability and mobility problems he continued with his attempts to charge you a fee It would also appear that the landowner has committed discrimination arising from disability; in that he treated you unfavourably (a. wheelclamping, and b. charging a release fee) because of something arising in consequence of your disability - your mobility problems and need to park closeby. If you claim under the Equality Act, you will be able to recover both the monies paid, and damages for injury to feelings. If you are amenable to the idea, post back and I can give yuo further information and pointers. I have pursued this exact same claim myself (though under the DDA) successfully. SV

Great news. I'd very much suggest you consider making an application for costs on grounds of Excel's unreasonable behaviour in the conduct of the claim. If you need any help with this, let me know. Seftonview

A couple of quick questions - 1. Were there any disabled parking spaces within the car park or site? 2. Were there any physical restrictions to entering the car park with a vehicle? (I mean such as a barrier that requires an access fob, or a garage door, or something similar).

Yes. To clafiy though, I'm not looking for advice as to the merits of the claim at the moment; just some procedural advice..

A is a very small, owner run business. I am unfamiliar with their staffing structure, but they have failed to respond substantively to any of the pre-action correspondence to date; including my requests for dislosure of particulars of B and C. They appear to be being deliberately evasive.

I've looked at CPR31.16, however I'm not entirely confident that would be the correct type of application to make - it is not disclosure of documents per se that I am seeking; simply the name and address of potential other Defendants. I don't want to b*llocks things up by making an inappropriate/incorrect application. SV

Thanks for the reply postggj. I didn't refer to the SDA1975, only to the fact that the act amounts to sex discrimination. Apologies if my post was confusing. I don't want to give huge amounts of detail because of the novelty of the situation, to prevent the opponents being able to identify the case. However I will briefly say it relates to a refusal to admit a female to a "gay bar" on grounds of her sex. SV

I am at the stage of issing a claim relating to sex discrimination in the provision of services. Briefly the circumstances are: A is the service provider. A has instructed B as their agent in the course of provision of the service. B employs C. C commits the discriminatory act. Accordingly A is liable as the service provider, and B/C are liable for aiding unlawful acts etc. I was able to obtain the contact particulars of A for the purpose of statutory questions and letter of claim. I asked A to disclose the particulars of B and C, in order to intimate claims for aiding unlawful acts etc. A has deliberately evaded disclosing those details. How can I go about compelling A to disclose the particulars of B and C? I am familiar with Norwich Pharmacal orders, but my (potentially incorrect) understanding is that, for this to be the correct type of order, A would have to be no more than a mere bystander. Thanks in advance. SV

No he doesn't; a service provider can quite legitimately and lawfully treat some disabled people more favourably than others, should he chose to. What he cannot do, is treat disabled less favourably. That is to say, he can raise the bar, but not lower it. There is of course an anticipatory reasonable adjustment duty, which is quite a seperate concept. SV

In my opinion you would have strong grounds to challenge both the ticketing company and the hospital for disability discrimination by failing to make reasonable adjustments. If this is something you'd like to explore, let me know and I can explain further. SV

Hi Peter, You've mentioned you're a Union member. Contact your Union and see if they offer a personal injury service. Most unions tend to do so. Stress claims are exceedingly difficult to win, and I feel the best source of advice for you would be a Solicitor. SV

It sounds as though there may well be grounds for a claim of clinical negligence. I'd suggest your first port of call should be to a Solicitor. SV

It does make a difference, but for the reasons I give below I won't go into why it makes a difference. There was cause to ask this, but for the reasons I give below I won't explain why. You appear to have an arrogant attitude, and I'm not going to waste my valuable time trying to help you. SV

I'd have thought in the retail group; its just a specialised retail subforum really... SV