but were still found against....did you read that bit? Here is another one, Restaurant forced to pay compensation after blind man refused entry WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK John Hardy was told that having his dog, Sidney, in the restaurant would be “unhygienic” FAILED TO MAKE REASONABLE ADJUSTMENT the ppc did not discriminate against you when their ANPR system detected you and the automated system issued you with a speculative invoice. correct in the first instance then they were notified and failed to make reasonable adjustment so are guilty under the act If they had not been notified then the discrimination was non intentional and would never have passed any test. they neither discriminated against you when they raised a county court claim against you. having been made aware of the circumstances that frustrated the contract and of my being disabled they continued not to make reasonable adjustment your issue here is that you screwed up filing your defence and you got a default judgement. what defence? what counter claim...I was sued for breach of contract....that's it. not for having awful shoes or wearing a green dress. Irrespective of events, please point me to law (not your twisted logic) that states that if someone sues you that you must defend the claim or loose the right to counter sue at a latter date. Claims can be taken to court for a period of 6 years unless? fill in the rest from quoting an Act please. if you had not have lost and got a CCJ by default, you'd not be doing a thing. yeah duhhhh because discrimination had to have an actual event..the event of being punished financially for being disabled. Sit down, think the logic through, you spend too much time repeating the same old thing on contract law to understand that there are many aspects of contract law other than private parking. ps...how many people have you helped (personally) by representing them in court as a lay person? How many have managed to have the contract claims struck out from wording you have provided for them to say in court? You really are struggling with this concept No damage to a disabled person meant no claim...OK? Damage to a disabled person...claim...OK? the result was not by way of any discrimination... Not from the court as there was no court hearing. The system did not discriminate as it was not aware that discrimination had occurred. It occurred only when the penalty occurred and I suffered loss and paid the amount. In paying the amount, the damages became actual and quantifiable. Had they made reasonable adjustment and cancelled, then there is no claim for discrimination. How can you not see that point. Take the example of the man and his dog. Manager turns them away on hygiene grounds and refuses entry....events occurred that resulted in the discrimination. If the manager had of then said, hey look, sorry, I should not have said that and then allowed him in, then no discrimination. This barrister knew how to play the system (which is why the good ones earn lots of money) which is why this is novel. He saw that there was an opportunity to weaponise events rather than go for a retrospective hearing to have the ccj struck. I think it was genius, I will win as there are no mitigating circumstances to argue I told you on several occasion, here are the copies, you chose to ignore them. Now they might argue a clerical error in which case the judge might agree and call it indirect discrimination. The judge might at that point, simply order repayment in full, with interest and a little extra for harassment , the question will be does the court accept accidental discrimination or deliberate. Either way, my money will be returned in full and with interest and some damages on top. This is a multi layered claim, discrimination is but one aspect. I have harassment to add as well and to that I can now add fraud and deception as there is no contract with the land owner so the court was deceived, a fraudulent claim was made, I was defrauded a sum of money so that's a police matter and of course there is the GDPR element with DVLA...not to mention the national press coverage and the claims being made by those who have paid in the past.

so was it civil tort under the racism act? or perhaps is was that same old equality act. automatism is The theory that the body is a machine whose functions are accompanied but not controlled by consciousness. Lacks the animus to prevent themselves from carrying out an act. I totally understand that your knowledge of type 1 diabetes (by that I mean actual experience in living with or handling of such) is zero but that is your limitation, not of others. Now what you also have to try and get inside your head is that this is contract law and as such, is always a fine line for the parking companies because they have to prove there was sufficient information to make a contract when our common laws would disagree. Your obsession that there is a separate private parking law is becoming clear. There is only contract law, there is only 1 equality act. Why do you keep harping back to defence and counter claim of a sudo contract when I'm going for them under contract law for what they did and did not do...why are you finding that difficult to understand?

ah...she sued under which act? I'm trying to find the "this only applies to work equalities act" vs the "other equalities act". So I'm going to throw you a curve ball, see how you react to this Irish Traveller delegates denied entry to pub win damages from JD Wetherspoon | JD Wetherspoon | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Judge rules there was discrimination when attendees at Traveller Movement’s annual conference were not allowed into the Coronet pub in... Maybe this was under the "equalities in the pub act" and not the other act....

Marketing manager who had breast cancer wins £30,000 payout after bosses sacked her | Daily Mail Online WWW.DAILYMAIL.CO.UK Lucy Lyddall, 50 (pictured with her husband Chris, 37), was underperforming in her job in Surrey while battling cancer but was never told her managers...

So no daily insulin injections? No blood sugar testing 6-8 times a day? No counting carbs and adjusting insulin intake? No forward thinking on activity/alcohol consumption/exercise and balancing intake vs insulin.

been applied very successfully on numerous occasion. Tell me, why do you feel threatened by my posts? Are you involved day to day as a barrister on complex cases of contract law?

just to clarify a point, you are type 1 and already drive on a restricted licence..right! Counter claims in court to automatism will be in the fact that you have poor control and therefore have culpable neglect How old is your current annual review and can you demonstrate a good quality HbA1c. I would also not mention medical emergency unless you required actual medical assistance (IV for example) as having such would require you to surrender your licence and it would only be returned after months and a doctors say so. Can I ask how long have you been a type 1 diabetic!

@Manxman in exile said: I'm not entirely sure what the OP is claiming has happened, but I presume it would be something along these lines. 1. The OP suffers from diabetes It is a chronic condition to which there are no cures. It is life ending if the disease is not managed, it is life changing (blindness, amputation, kidney failure etc) if not managed 2. Diabetes is recognised as a disability in the same way that being a quadriplegic is recognised as being unable to walk 3. The OP was parked in a car park. 4. The OP (I presume) suffered some sort of hypoglycemic episode while in the car park which temporarily incapacitated them to the extent that they overstayed and got a parking charge. (OP - I don't think this is an example of "automatism" in law) The term is way too broad and used by those without knowledge or understanding as a catch all. I was unable to leave the car park due to a blood sugar that was stubbornly refusing to rise. I was not incapacitated, I was not unconscious, I did not require blue light response. 5. The OP notified the PPC of her disability in the expectation that - as the overstay was a direct result of her disability and outside of her control - that the PPC would cancel the charge, or at least consider cancelling it, but they did not. [Edit: Thiswould have been the reasonable adjustment - cancelling the charge] 6. The OP believes she has been directly discriminated against as a result of her disability. Discrimination is an adverse outcome against a person by another. The court will decide if this was deliberate or casual, in either case, damages are awarded according to the scale If considered deliberate, the damages are very high. Whether or not that argument would amount to a viable claim in law, I don't know, but I'm not necessarily sure it can be dismissed off-hand as "bunkum" either. Did you treat this person differently? Did you afford this person any benefit towards he disability? Did you make any provision to make adjustment for this persons disability? Of course, if such a claim did get off the ground, the PPC might possibly argue that cancelling the charge was not a "reasonable adjustment" in all the circumstances. If the charge being dropped was not a reasonable adjustment (simple, immediate at zero cost or change to operations) then it must have been decided to be deliberate to continue. We are in the land of contract law, it just happens to be related to a private car park. If tesco said they were removing all disabled bays to allow for more parking as they don't recognise the need to make the allowance or adjustment, would that be considered appropriate? , or introducing turnstiles at the entry points to discourage theft on made claim that it was better for operations to cater for the many, not the few, would that hold up in court? Assuming the OP did have a potential discrimination claim, I'm not sure that the fact(?) that the OP didn't follow the correct procedure in defending the parking claim would be relevant. Any alleged discrimination by the PPC is a separate issue from the OP having judgment against her on the parking charge. Ah, good one. So your Honour, I agree that I discriminated against a disabled person but in my defence, she should have come to court to contest it for you to dismiss it. Just because I gained a pecuniary advantaged over a disabled person it is mitigated by the fact that she should have stopped me being able to discriminate her. Can you see that circular argument working?

I saw the thread re diabetes which is of current interest and joined in. My question was retorical BTW how do you spell misoginst? is that the correct spelling?

yes, I wrote it on form0

I have been type 1 diabetic from birth so I am now accepting that the general public's understanding of type 1 diabetes is zero. Medical emergency in diabetic terms would mean a blood sugar of 1 or 21. (people have no idea of the difference between hypo and hyper, both are LIFE ENDING....) A bs of 1 would render the person incapable of anything and this requires a blue light intervention. A bs of 4 means the person is compos mentis but their actions(reactions) are on a level with someone who has had a few whiskeys. A bs of 3 then they are drunk, bs 2 they are palatic drunk. This is why driving with a low bs is a criminal offence and does result in jail time. So DVLA insist on a bs of 5 + for at least the last hour before you drive. So with a bs of 4, I could drive but can't drive for legal and safety reasons. Its not an emergency but its an incapacity. How do I prove I was incapable of driving and had a low bs? I don't have to, I'm registered type 1 diabetic. TYPE 1 DIABETES IS A REGISTERED DISABILITY......now lets work back from that perspective and tell me how you did not discriminate against me by not recognising my disability in the fact that I could not leave the car park...that will make for an interesting defence..its indefensible

"I had no idea anyone would want to access my building in a wheel chair so I decided not to install a ramp and decided wheel chair access was not to be allowed." "I believed that a blind person would never come into my restaurant so I just banned all dogs regardless" The equality act now provides the concept of “discrimination arising from disability” to replace protection under previous legislation lost as a result of a legal judgment. This is not about challenging a parking charge, it is not about the legality of the charge, this is about the fact that when notified of a disability and frustration of the contract, the companies made a deliberate and conscious decision not to make "reasonable adjustment" when that adjustment could have been implemented with immediate effect and at zero cost. Get over the whole parking thing, this is not about that, parking was the catalyst

form 0 This is a direct discrimination claim centred around my being penalised financially for having a disability. My claim is that I was treated unfairly and with contempt and without viable or just cause I use the term direct as the defendant(s) had been notified on several occasions of my protected disability and chose to ignore the consequences of their actions. They had contempt for the law and sought to gain financially by exploiting my protected disability. This discrimination occurred over a protracted period of time but only become substantive and measurable (i.e. not hurt feelings alone) when the sum was awarded by default so there can be no counter claim of it being inadvertent discrimination as a one off or non intentional. There has been proven to be intent and proven to be discrimination. The parking company made no provisions for automatism being the key element that frustrated the contract, the provision could have been implemented with zero cost or material changes to the car park or its operation. There was no valid reason not to make adjustments for a disabled person. The financial penalty I was subject to was the result of the claim for breach of a contract that I could not fulfil despite my best efforts and intention I'm asking a judge to rule on these points and to consider if the terms were unfair and impossible to comply with. The discrimination is deliberate where the principle and third parties were informed of and made aware of my protected disability and yet continued to pursue their breach of contract claim where there was in effect a force majeure event of automatism. The contract I read on the signage made no reference to force majeure factors nor did the signage state that individuals with the disease of type 1 diabetes should not use the car park. Nor did the wording state that in the event of a frustration of contract due to a medial condition rendering the individual incapable of leaving the car park that the breach of contract is still valid as the contract is still in full force. The judge will have to decide these matters. This is why the MoneyClaim is for the actual amount paid (in full) with interest etc, and for the matter of discrimination centred on my protected disability to be considered and damages awarded if any.

well not so much mistake, rather a victim of Christmas and strikes. I paid the CCJ with immediate effect as a challenge was about the same fee again so having paid the CCJ, direct discrimination had been established and proven (financial loss) where prior to there being no loss, there could be no discrimination. Why do you think a disability claim would be unsuccessful?

If it were under BVI business law it could never have happened as all contracts need to be signed so to park I'd need to have signed a contract. Gaining access to documents might not be that big an issue if I can serve notice at the address given at land registry. The issue is if the court would find in my favour against a foreign company Yes, notified via website and as it asked for a signature I sent the response forms and documents via post. Court says they did not receive them and royal main said that during the strike period an ADDITIONAL 400,000 items of post went missing