Me vs Big Supermarket (DDA Claim)

[robin9342]

Well done (I assume )

Damn. After 6 pages and we don't get to see the outcome

[seftonview]

Can you just say if the clause on not bringing similar proceedings over the next two years was included, please?

 

That clause, and no clause similar, had been agreed to.

[legalpickle]

That clause, and no clause similar, had been agreed to.

 

Then a double WELL DONE!!!

 

[Maybe I'll look into making such a claim now! Lol! ]

[seftonview]

Read the thread. I'm not aware of any other "large supermarket" whose name begins with T and has five letters.

 

For the avoidance of doubt and for my own legal protection I would like to point out and confirm for the complete avoidance of doubt that at no point in this thread have I indicated the name of the supermarket against whom I have issued the claim. The use of the T word within this thread has in no way been precipitated by me or my posts, and I would like to make that clear.

 

I would also point out, for the avoidance of doubt, that I neither confirm nor deny that the referenced company was the other party to this matter.

[389shell]

Well done Seftonview, it just goes to show what happens if you stick to your guns.

 

Hope you now have your own parking space with a red carpet

[Conniff]

I'm posting up to let everyone know that settlement has been reached with the Defendant in these proceedings (subject to contract), and that the matter, for the timebeing, is now closed.

 

Terms of settlement are confidential and will not be disclosed.

 

Thankyou to everone for their contributions (even the plain stupid ones).

 

 

That's a convenient copout seeing as you rejected it in the begining because of that clause.

[legalpickle]

That's a convenient copout seeing as you rejected it in the begining because of that clause.

 

Actually, Conniff, if you read the thread nowhere does seftonview say that that's the reason he rejected the first offer, and nowhere does he say that this offer was the same as the first offer or an upgraded offer.

 

In fact, it seems most likely that the clause that seftonview rejected the first offer on was that no further similar claims be brought by seftonview over the next two years - which was not included in this offer.

 

It seems habitual part of CAG that people don't read threads before posting. An excellent example above is 'meagain' misreading who the post about Tesco was from therefore criticizing me for not reading the thread.

 

I can't say I'm perfect, and we all make mistakes, but if people actually tried reading the threads in more detail before posting it would make life a lot simpler!

[robin9342]

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.

..

[Conniff]

It seems habitual part of CAG that people don't read threads before posting.

 

I quite agree:

 

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

 

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

[seftonview]

Conniff, how many times do you have to be asked to stop looking for fights? I won't ask you again.

 

FYI, there is a material difference between confidentiality of settlement, and confidentiality of circumstances and settlement.

 

Now please troll elsewhere.

[legalpickle]

Read the post. seftonview didn't reject it just for that clause but the other two clauses as well.

 

So it wasn't the reason he rejected the first offer, but one of the reasons, and as can be seen from seftonview's response to my earlier post, clause 3 of the original offer, was not included.

 

Addition: And as seftonview has backed me up by pointing out the difference between the two versions of that clause, whilst similar are still different. Thanks seftonview

[raydetinu]

Why the hell did you bother posting this in the first place? You got advice ,some of which you did not like and now you have an outcome you wont tell anybody what it is; Have you been gagged! as part of the settlement?

 

You go all holyier than thou and get indignant when somebody tries to put a different spin on it or dissagrees with you.

 

Come on was it worth the complaint, would you recommend others to do same?

 

Whats your advice.

[Janet-M]

Firstly

 

CONGRATULATIONS

:D :D

 

I for one am glad you started this thread and made people aware that they are able to claim because of this .. for that THANK YOU

 

as a long standing user of CAG I also feel the need to apologise to you for the way some people have been right the way through your thread .I can assure you that the majority of the users in CAG are not like this .

[seftonview]

Why the hell did you bother posting this in the first place? You got advice ,some of which you did not like and now you have an outcome you wont tell anybody what it is; Have you been gagged! as part of the settlement?

 

As stated in my post yesterday, the terms of settlement are subject to confidentiality by agreement with the other party.

 

I have taken on board all of the advice I have been given, however I've had to endure a good amount of rubbish and distraction on this thread from a number of users of the forum, some of whom have not given good or accurate advice. Where I know someone to have incorrect knowledge I have provided information, in much the same way I would hope users would if I gave bad advice. We are all on the same team here I would hope.

 

You go all holyier than thou and get indignant when somebody tries to put a different spin on it or dissagrees with you.

 

What I've done is refused to get into irrelevant conversations - those relating to concessions who aren't disabled under the DDA for example, because they aren't relevant to the thread and the problem at hand. I didn't post this up for a talking shop, I wanted constructive and relevant advice and discussion. I made it clear more than once that this was a discussion of law and rights, rather than morality and ethics. If you're not happy with that, feel free to make another thread, to which I will happily contribute.

 

Come on was it worth the complaint, would you recommend others to do same? Whats your advice.

 

I feel my complaint was very worth it, and I am extremely glad that I 'reclaimed the right'. I would not hesitate to suggest anyone else does the same either!

[Conniff]

 

as a long standing user of CAG I also feel the need to apologise to you for the way some people have been right the way through your thread .

 

I hope you are not including me in that apology, I don't need others to speak for me.

I have nothing to apologise for and never offered advice, but did ask questions that would help me understand the real reason behind the claim, I never received any answers.

 

I have made up my mind what I think this was all about, but it will remain confidential.

[Janet-M]

I hope you are not including me in that apology,

if you feel you was one of the people who was just plain nasty at times then yes .. if you think your posts have been helpful to the OP then no ..

 

I don't think it needs a genius to see the reasons behind your posts .. but of course my thoughts on your behaviour throughout this thread remain confidential

 

now go and bait someone else as I think you have failed to bait the OP and you will have even less chance of baiting me

 

oh did I say CONGRATULATIONS seftonview anything you may have got is IMO well deserved and may hopefully get retailers to start abiding by the law .. or at least a step in the right direction

[seftonview]

...and never offered advice, but did ask questions that would help me understand the real reason behind the claim, I never received any answers.

 

Here's that advice you never gave sweetheart:

 

Post #20: "Yes you should accept if your true motive is to keep disabled bays free from non disabled parking."

 

Post #31: "You should be writing to your MP and asking that he/she introduce a bill in parliament that will give disabled bays legal standing."

 

There's probably more but I'm watching TV!

 

I have made up my mind what I think this was all about, but it will remain confidential.

 

Please do keep it confidential. I'd hate to have to start a thread about bringing a defamation suit against a member of CAG. It doesn't mean I wouldn't do it though. Capiche?

[Conniff]

hopefully get retailers to start abiding by the law ..

 

What law? can you give me and anyone else who might be interested a link to this law please.

[seftonview]

What law? can you give me and anyone else who might be interested a link to this law please.

 

Merry christmas

[Janet-M]

can you give me and anyone else who might be interested a link to this law please.

 

You , no

 

anyone else who is interested would of done the same as me and actually done some research and found out for them selves

[jonni2bad]

Girls and boys, don't make us take the toys away.

 

Play nice.

[Janet-M]

Girls and boys, don't make us take the toys away.

 

you might as well as my batteries have ran out

[Conniff]

..How did that double post.

Edited August 27, 2008 by Conniff
Duplicate posting deleted.

[Conniff]

Thank you seftonview. I have read through it and can see no mention at all of 'blue badges', however, the very first line reads:

 

19.

Discrimination in relation to goods, facilities and services.

— (1) It is unlawful for a provider of services to discriminate against a disabled person

 

You have discounted anyone without a blue badge as disabled.

[Conniff]

Girls and boys, don't make us take the toys away.

 

Play nice.

 

Don't stop it now - all I need to see is something that will convince me that someone with a broken leg is not disabled and not entitled to use a parking bay that says "Disabled parking only".

 

If that is forthcoming then I will be the first to grovel.