Me vs Big Supermarket (DDA Claim)

[legalpickle]

There was no mention of waiving anyones rights, only of confidentiality.

 

Yes there was. Read the post that the OP has quoted.

[legalpickle]

If no conditions and you are happy with the money then fine if not let a judge decide .

 

Do not EVER give up your legal right to make future claims .. with this or any claim .. do not EVER agree to confidentiality in any claim.

 

I agree to most, but confidentiality is a clause that is accepted generally. If the OP would receive a Judgment in a hearing of the same, smaller or a little bit larger amount and the sole reason for refusing the offer was the confidentiality clause, then there is a decent risk of a costs order in accordance with CPR 27.14. If however the refusal is based upon the other clauses, then those would most likely be accepted as being unfair by a judge, or at minimum the judge would accept there was good reason to refuse such terms.

 

Whilst the letter is most likely 'Without Prejudice', the other side can disclose it in court if they wish and would have to if they were to ask for costs on the basis of unreasonable behaviour in refusing the offer.

 

Confidentiality is not an unreasonable clause.

 

I would therefore recommend that if the offer was an acceptable amount and revised to remove all clauses but confidentiality, then it be accepted.

[Janet-M]

Sorry but you are wrong .. they can't bring a without prejudice letter into court without both sides agreeing ..they can bring a without prejudice save to costs into court ..

 

confidentiality IS a an unreasonable clause and one I for one would never agree to unless they paid me in a seperate agreement to keep quiet ..They want confidentiality then they pay for it.

 

2 mins n il get the relevant case law

[seftonview]

Whilst the letter is most likely 'Without Prejudice', the other side can disclose it in court if they wish and would have to if they were to ask for costs on the basis of unreasonable behaviour in refusing the offer.

 

I feel that you are confusing Without Prejudice and Without Prejudice, save as to costs.

 

Without Prejudice Save as to Costs.

Because the Courts cannot order disclosure of “Without Prejudice” negotiations (or documents) against the wishes of one of the parties of those negotiations, this obviously will mean that in some instances the Court, when it comes to the question of costs, cannot decide whether one side or the other was unreasonable in its actions.

Although, as noted in Unilever v Proctor & Gamble [2000] WLR 2436 at p2445, there are exceptions to the general rule of non-admissibility of “Without Prejudice” documents, there is no general exception of non-admissibility when it comes to the question of costs.

However, the application of the non-admissibility rule in respect of “Without Prejudice” documents can easily be avoided in the arbitration context by the simple expedient of using the Calderbank formula (Calderbank v Calderbank [1976] Fam 93) of negotiating “Without Prejudice Save as to Costs”.

In respect of litigation, where a Defendant believes that there is some merit in the Claimant’s claim, but not as much as the Claimant claims, then the Defendant can make a payment into Court of the amount he thinks the claim is genuinely worth, and must notify the Claimant of this action. If the Defendant sets the payment into court at the right level, this gives him some protection from liability for the Claimant’s legal costs assuming that the amount eventually awarded to the Claimant by the Court does not exceed the amount paid into Court.

Source: Privileged, Without Prejudice, and Without Prejudice Save As to Costs documents. - Alway Associates

[Janet-M]

GRRRRRRRRRRRR it tool me bl**dy ages to find that

[Conniff]

OK then Conniff, say tomorrow I agree to settle, bearing in mind the terms they have asked for. In six months time, they have taken no/inadequate action to deal with the problem. I write to them, and yet again, they dont reply. What do I do then?

 

I don't see what the amount has to do with it. If they don't keep the bays clear and they have given you 9p or £10,000 it will not help you to park.

 

The only term they have asked for is one of confidentiality probably because they do not want every tom dick and harry reading your settlement and jumping on the bandwagon.

 

Without prejudice doesn't only mean it can't be offered into court, any communications which are intended to be part of a genuine settlement attempt should be clearly marked “Without Prejudice” at the top of the letter.

 

The only way they can guarantee that the bays remain free is to permantly post a warden there dedicated to just that task and that would be unreasonable. As the present regulations make these bays non exclusive to disabled then even a warden telling them to move cannot make them move if they do not want to and the issuing of an invoice for £40 cannot be enforced either.

 

Your beef shouldn't be towards the supermarkets. You should be writing to your MP and asking that he/she introduce a bill in parliament that will give disabled bays legal standing.

[legalpickle]

Sorry but you are wrong .. they can't bring a without prejudice letter into court without both sides agreeing ..they can bring a without prejudice save to costs into court ..

 

confidentiality IS a an unreasonable clause and one I for one would never agree to unless they paid me in a seperate agreement to keep quiet ..They want confidentiality then they pay for it.

 

2 mins n il get the relevant case law

 

 

That is for a judge to decide if confidentiality is an unreasonable clause or not, but experience tells me that it is not. Personally I would agree that it is, but I seriously doubt that it would be accepted by a court as being an unreasonable clause.

 

Experience also tells me that the party who writes a 'Without Prejudice' letter has the right to show it to whoever they want - providing confidential information is not disclosed, as that would obviously breach the Data Protection Act.

 

In response to Conniff: The amount is compensation for injury to feelings and to cover any losses [such as travelling further away to another supermarket and/or having to spend more on more expensive products elsewhere]. It is obvious that the supermarket considers the OP has a case otherwise they would not offer anything.

 

The beef should be towards the supermarkets. Till the government would pass any more laws or regulations would take a couple of years - at least, most likely - and the supermarkets can change their policies now.

 

In a hearing about two months ago, the Defendant tried to present a letter I had written that was clearly marked 'Without Prejudice' without any 'Save As To Costs'. The District Judge asked me if I was agreeable to the letter being displayed - hence proving I am right in that the party that writes a 'Without Prejudice' letter can display it with or without the other party's agreement.

[legalpickle]

The only term they have asked for is one of confidentiality probably because they do not want every tom dick and harry reading your settlement and jumping on the bandwagon.

 

 

Oh, and Conniff, if you read the OP's posts you will see that the confidentiality clause is not the only term they have asked for.

 

I agree that that would be one of the reasons they would want confidentiality.

[MARTIN3030]

In respect of litigation, where a Defendant believes that there is some merit in the Claimant’s claim, but not as much as the Claimant claims, then the Defendant can make a payment into Court of the amount he thinks the claim is genuinely worth, and must notify the Claimant of this action. If the Defendant sets the payment into court at the right level, this gives him some protection from liability for the Claimant’s legal costs assuming that the amount eventually awarded to the Claimant by the Court does not exceed the amount paid into Court.

 

 

 

Is this still current now ?

Theres a notice posted on the wall in my local Court saying that from (I think last October) the Court will no longer be accepting payments into Court-there is a CPR reference but cant remember under what it is.

[seftonview]

I don't see what the amount has to do with it. If they don't keep the bays clear and they have given you 9p or £10,000 it will not help you to park.

 

And no matter what I say you plainly won't see what the amount has to do with it. So I'm just going to jog on. Oh wait, I can't jog. Shoot.

 

The only term they have asked for is one of confidentiality probably because they do not want every tom dick and harry reading your settlement and jumping on the bandwagon.

 

Apart from the term restraining me from bringing DDA claims relating to parking for a period of 24 months. Quite a significant term, don't you think? Did you miss that one... it has been posted prominently above in at least two posts of mine.

 

Without prejudice doesn't only mean it can't be offered into court, any communications which are intended to be part of a genuine settlement attempt should be clearly marked “Without Prejudice” at the top of the letter.

 

Eh?

 

The only way they can guarantee that the bays remain free is to permantly post a warden there dedicated to just that task and that would be unreasonable.

 

Examples of adjustments that may be reasonable under the DDA:-

 

• Civil enforcement notices
  
• Towing
  
• Clamping
  
• Segregated parking with a barrier/ANPR
  
• Attaching warning stickers to offending vehicles
  
• Repositioning spaces where they are less likely to be abused
  
• Tannoy reminders regularly that disabled spaces should not be abused
  
• Not positioning cash machines/other dive-in-dive-out near protected parking
  
• Spacehog or similar devices
  
• Threats to bar offenders from the store
  

There are some off the top of my head that don't require 24/7 staffing. Some, such as civil penalties, would only need to be used at peak times.

 

As the present regulations make these bays non exclusive to disabled then even a warden telling them to move cannot make them move if they do not want to and the issuing of an invoice for £40 cannot be enforced either.

 

At present there are no regulations relating to private land. It is based on contract and the tort of trespass. I'm not going off topic discussing effective civil enforcement notices on this thread, as I've also said several times now. The relevant regulations are sections 19-21 of the DDA, and the require to make adjustments.

 

Your beef shouldn't be towards the supermarkets. You should be writing to your MP and asking that he/she introduce a bill in parliament that will give disabled bays legal standing.

 

Again, going off-topic. Though this is still a good idea and I take it on board.

[seftonview]

In a hearing about two months ago, the Defendant tried to present a letter I had written that was clearly marked 'Without Prejudice' without any 'Save As To Costs'. The District Judge asked me if I was agreeable to the letter being displayed - hence proving I am right in that the party that writes a 'Without Prejudice' letter can display it with or without the other party's agreement.

 

There goes one of those DJ's setting a precedent again! Whopppeeeee!

 

You fail to mention of both sides agreed to the disclosure of the document, and it would require the agreement of both sides to be disclosed to the Court.

[Conniff]

In response to Conniff: The amount is compensation for injury to feelings and to cover any losses [such as travelling further away to another supermarket and/or having to spend more on more expensive products elsewhere].

 

What is to say that any supermarket in the country will have empty bays at any given time or when the op visits them. Because there were no bays empty at the time of the visit, that doesn't mean there were none five minutes later.

 

You can't say I now have to travel 10 miles up the road because they 'have' empty bays, they could also be taken up with non disabled, and would be infering that there were 'never' any empty bays at the supermarket visited in this instance.

 

I am just trying to make the point that this is not as clear cut as the op appears to think it is.

[Conniff]

And no matter what I say you plainly won't see what the amount has to do with it.

 

No I don't, please explain it to me, I really am listening to all you say.

[MARTIN3030]

Originally Posted by Conniff

The only term they have asked for is one of confidentiality probably because they do not want every tom dick and harry reading your settlement and jumping on the bandwagon.

 

 

 

And can we please stop discriminating.

 

Its Tom Dick And Sharon;)

[seftonview]

Is this still current now ?

Theres a notice posted on the wall in my local Court saying that from (I think last October) the Court will no longer be accepting payments into Court-there is a CPR reference but cant remember under what it is.

 

I assume so, the source is a Solicitor's website, though the article is dated 2004.

 

The payments into court part may have been superceded py Part 36 of the CPR.

[legalpickle]

In respect of litigation, where a Defendant believes that there is some merit in the Claimant’s claim, but not as much as the Claimant claims, then the Defendant can make a payment into Court of the amount he thinks the claim is genuinely worth, and must notify the Claimant of this action. If the Defendant sets the payment into court at the right level, this gives him some protection from liability for the Claimant’s legal costs assuming that the amount eventually awarded to the Claimant by the Court does not exceed the amount paid into Court.

 

 

 

Is this still current now ?

Theres a notice posted on the wall in my local Court saying that from (I think last October) the Court will no longer be accepting payments into Court-there is a CPR reference but cant remember under what it is.

 

I don't think the courts have been accepting payments into court for a while, and for small claims track there has never been the default protection for costs - it's CPR 36 that deals with offers in fast-track & multi-track, but is not relevant for the small claims track.

 

The only time a costs order - above travel costs and court fees - is made in the small claims track is where the judge believes a party has acted unreasonably for which there are a few definitions in CPR 27.14 but the end decision is up to the judge. Not accepting an offer is considered, but not as in the fast track and multi track, where made on the basis of CPR 36 [as a 'Part 36 offer'] there is a virtually automatic entitlement to costs if the Judgment amount is more or of the same amount as the offer. In such a case however, the offer letter must meet certain obligations including marking clearly that the offer is a 'Part 36 offer', however all this is irrelevant to this case as it is most likely on the small claims track [if it isn't then I couldn't criticize the OP enough!].

[legalpickle]

There goes one of those DJ's setting a precedent again! Whopppeeeee!

 

You fail to mention of both sides agreed to the disclosure of the document, and it would require the agreement of both sides to be disclosed to the Court.

 

I am not confusing 'Without Prejudice' and 'Without Prejudice, Save As To Costs'.

 

I have read the link posted above which is interesting. Yes, in this case both parties had agreed to disclose the document, so I admit it was not supportive of my statements.

 

By the a District Judge sitting in a County Court can only set a 'persuasive precedent' as opposed to a 'precedent' which means it does not need to be followed, but should be taken into consideration.

 

I have had several other cases where I have disclosed my letters which were 'Without Prejudice' and the other party has objected, but the judge has admitted the letter/e-mail. Whilst I do not doubt - now that a link has been posted - that this is wrong, it has happened this way for me and many others that I know.

 

I do usually put a clause at the beginning, saying something like "If the matter proceeds to hearing then I reserve the right to display this letter in the hearing. You however do not have the same rights as with regards to my 'Without Prejudice' documents, but do have the same rights as with regards to your own 'Without Prejudice' documents, providing they do not refer to my previous 'Without Prejudice' documents." I haven't had the problem till now where a judge has refused my 'Without Prejudice' documents on the basis of the other party disagreeing with disclosure.

 

Anyway's, back to topic. Where is the OP up to?

[legalpickle]

What is to say that any supermarket in the country will have empty bays at any given time or when the op visits them. Because there were no bays empty at the time of the visit, that doesn't mean there were none five minutes later.

 

You can't say I now have to travel 10 miles up the road because they 'have' empty bays, they could also be taken up with non disabled, and would be infering that there were 'never' any empty bays at the supermarket visited in this instance.

 

I am just trying to make the point that this is not as clear cut as the op appears to think it is.

 

Point made. Back to topic please?

[seftonview]

What is to say that any supermarket in the country will have empty bays at any given time or when the op visits them. Because there were no bays empty at the time of the visit, that doesn't mean there were none five minutes later.

 

It doesn't mean there will be either. Is your position now that I should sit patiently in the car like a good second class citizen until a space becomes free?

 

The issue isnt that there were no empty bays. The issue is that there were no empty bays because a number were being abused by those not entitled to be there.

 

You can't say I now have to travel 10 miles up the road because they 'have' empty bays, they could also be taken up with non disabled, and would be infering that there were 'never' any empty bays at the supermarket visited in this instance.

 

So the crux of this argument is that service provicer one can defend by saying that the disabled person could have also been discriminated against by service provider two?

 

I am just trying to make the point that this is not as clear cut as the op appears to think it is.

 

The problem is I don't yet know full circumstances. I've had no communication from the other side at all apart from a without prejudice offer with content amounting to an admission of liability. I'm not, and have never, said this is clear cut.

[Janet-M]

please delete

Edited August 21, 2008 by Janet-M

[meagain]

Note that the main source of the shades of grey here is the fact that Tesco car parks are private property, and things would be somewhat clearer if these were bays marked alongside a public road. A significant difference is that local authorities may be able to enforce parking restrictions with a fine, whereas private companies may not (as much as they might like to think otherwise). Anyway, on with the show ...

 

It doesn't mean there will be either. Is your position now that I should sit patiently in the car like a good second class citizen until a space becomes free?

 

In what respect would that make you a second-class citizen? Those of us with use of our legs also have to sit and wait if the car park is full.

 

The issue isnt that there were no empty bays. The issue is that there were no empty bays because a number were being abused by those not entitled to be there.

 

As I understand it, designated spaces are a priority, they are not exclusive. The idea is that if there are plenty of other spaces around, those not in need should (rather than must) leave them empty. If the only parking bay left in a car park is a designated bay, all bets are off. The only circumstances you can generally get a court to blame someone for actions of a third party is when the third party has acted on instruction or behalf of them (which is why e.g. we can blame banks for the actions of debt collectors). It's clearly the case that those people in the spaces were acting against Tesco's instructions (the ones that say "you probably shouldn't be parked here").

 

The prima facie issue is that of no empty bays. The matter of them being occupied by ignorant plebs is only an issue because you made it one.

 

So the crux of this argument is that service provicer one can defend by saying that the disabled person could have also been discriminated against by service provider two?

 

You don't know that you have been discriminated against. If I were offering a service of some kind, nothing anywhere says I have to provide parking for my customers. What you're suggesting is that if I can park and you can't, that's discrimination on grounds of disability. Some might argue that it's actually discrimination on grounds of when we arrived into the car park. If the car park is half-empty, you've probably got no case, since you were probably not prevented from parking. If the car park is full, you've definitely got no case, because (as I said above) all bets are off, and able-bodied people were also prevented from parking.

 

I've had no communication from the other side at all apart from a without prejudice offer with content amounting to an admission of liability.

 

The courts are loath to infer any admission of liability, particularly as these letters often come across as "we're really really really sorry, and we'd really really really appreciate it if you didn't let this get to trial", and yet come with a fairly clear "this is not an admission of liability". Without seeing the letter, I can't say for certain, but unless it actually says explicitly that they admit liability, I wouldn't rely on this.

 

Apart from the term restraining me from bringing DDA claims relating to parking for a period of 24 months. Quite a significant term, don't you think?

 

No, I don't. Mainly because the only way you can be prevented from bringing another claim is if the court issues a restraining order against you, as was issued against a certain married couple earlier this year when a DJ considered their repeated claims were vexatious and not brought in good faith. Other than this limited set of circumstances, nobody else can deprive you of your absolute right of redress.

 

Earlier, you mentioned something about using civil penalties. I should warn you at this point that it is well established that these are entirely unenforceable, as they are applied on the same basis as those of the banks.

 

My suggestion would be to accept the token payment and get on with your life, unless you are happy to become a test case. I would imagine that a test case would take much longer to decide than one based on setteld law, and at the very least you will probably be forced to something higher than a County Court.

 

In summary, you need to think very carefully about how you reach the conclusion that you were discriminated against, and the sort of questions that will be asked by the opposition should they decide to defend in court, and even by the judge as a matter of basic rigour.

 

So I'm just going to jog on. Oh wait, I can't jog. Shoot.

 

I see what you did there, I almost forgot to laugh. Noblesse oblige.

[legalpickle]

Note that the main source of the shades of grey here is the fact that Tesco car parks are private property, and things would be somewhat clearer if these were bays marked alongside a public road. A significant difference is that local authorities may be able to enforce parking restrictions with a fine, whereas private companies may not (as much as they might like to think otherwise). Anyway, on with the show ...

As has been mentioned above in this thread; They are obligated to do their utmost to make sure that bays are available for blue-badge holders. The fines do act as a deterrent to most residents who have no clue that they are unenforceable. Also, as was stated earlier in some stores, parking attendants act as deterrent officers telling cars to move away from disabled spaces if they don't have a valid blue-badge with the blue-badge holder either as a passenger or driver.

I am also under the impression that there is a route to have such tickets made in a way that they would be enforceable, though I am not sure exactly how.

 

In what respect would that make you a second-class citizen? Those of us with use of our legs also have to sit and wait if the car park is full.

No, those of you with full use of bodily functions can park a mile up and walk. Physically disabled people are more limited than that.

 

As I understand it, designated spaces are a priority, they are not exclusive. The idea is that if there are plenty of other spaces around, those not in need should (rather than must) leave them empty. If the only parking bay left in a car park is a designated bay, all bets are off. The only circumstances you can generally get a court to blame someone for actions of a third party is when the third party has acted on instruction or behalf of them (which is why e.g. we can blame banks for the actions of debt collectors). It's clearly the case that those people in the spaces were acting against Tesco's instructions (the ones that say "you probably shouldn't be parked here").

Irrelevant. Tesco - or any other supermarket [and seftonview hasn't to the best of my knowledge said he's taking the claim against Tesco, only a large supermarket] would need to have a policy. The lack of a policy that shows that they did their utmost is a breach of the DDA.

You are wrong on your statement of the only circumstances you can generally get a court to blame someone for actions of a third party.

Firstly, it is irrelevant because seftonview is not trying to get the court to blame any supermarket for the actions of those that have abused the disabled parking spaces, but blame the supermarket for not having a proper policy - and keeping to it - to abide by the DDA.

Secondly, the supermarket - Tesco in your example - was responsible for at minimum putting in place sufficient deterrents to make the majority of abusers move away. In most large supermarkets it is very rare that the parking lot will get full, so even if you could argue - like you have done above - that able-bodied shoppers should not have to park a mile away, there is still in most cases room for such shoppers to park within the same lot without taking up spaces for blue-badge holders. The issue here is that the supermarket is responsible for not doing it's utmost to prevent others from abusing these spaces, and that is something that the court could and would blame them for.

 

The prima facie issue is that of no empty bays. The matter of them being occupied by ignorant plebs is only an issue because you made it one.

Not true. "The matter of them being occupied by ignorant plebs" - as you so aptly word it - is an issue, not because seftonview made it one, but because the supermarket - as stated numerous times above - had an obligation to do it's utmost to make sure that these "ignorant plebs" would not occupy the spaces.

As I wrote above, had an armed robbery occurred at the same time and the getaway vehicles with gunmen parked in the disabled spaces - then the supermarket would not have been obligated to police these spaces.

 

You don't know that you have been discriminated against. If I were offering a service of some kind, nothing anywhere says I have to provide parking for my customers. What you're suggesting is that if I can park and you can't, that's discrimination on grounds of disability. Some might argue that it's actually discrimination on grounds of when we arrived into the car park. If the car park is half-empty, you've probably got no case, since you were probably not prevented from parking. If the car park is full, you've definitely got no case, because (as I said above) all bets are off, and able-bodied people were also prevented from parking.

In the absence of a policy, disabled persons have automatically been discriminated against.

It would not be discrimination vice versa, because the supermarket would have been doing their utmost to fulfill their obligations under the DDA.

You seem to ignore the fact that the point of disabled spaces is to be as close as possible to the store. I for one - like most physically disabled persons - could not and cannot walk that far. Therefore even if 90% of parking lot was empty, but those bays were taken up by "ignorant plebs" then the supermarket would still be either not having a DDA policy or in breach of their DDA policy, and thus in material breach of the DDA.

Able-bodied people can park a mile away without difficulties. So if the car park is full together with "ignorant plebs" occupying the parking lot, then all bets are still on. If however the parking lot was full - or even almost empty - with only valid blue-badge holders in the parking spaces, and a policy existed to show that the amount of spaces was sufficient, then and only then all bets are off. But in such large parking lots, that is rare - and not the case here.

 

The courts are loath to infer any admission of liability, particularly as these letters often come across as "we're really really really sorry, and we'd really really really appreciate it if you didn't let this get to trial", and yet come with a fairly clear "this is not an admission of liability". Without seeing the letter, I can't say for certain, but unless it actually says explicitly that they admit liability, I wouldn't rely on this.

It was an offer letter and 'Without Prejudice' so can't be displayed by seftonview anyway without mutual agreement - as has been pointed out above - so this is irrelevant.

 

No, I don't. Mainly because the only way you can be prevented from bringing another claim is if the court issues a restraining order against you, as was issued against a certain married couple earlier this year when a DJ considered their repeated claims were vexatious and not brought in good faith. Other than this limited set of circumstances, nobody else can deprive you of your absolute right of redress.

You can search the net - I think it's on the HMCS website - for the amount of vexatious litigant orders are given every year - very few, and also for the reasons.

In order to consider somebody a vexatious litigant, they must bring repeated claims against the same and similar bodies even when they know they don't have a chance.

If somebody does not abide by the rules, and you sue them, and they persistently don't abide by the rules, so you persistently sue them - that alone would not cause somebody to be considered a vexatious litigant.

In order to be called a vexatious litigant, the order must be approved by - I believe - the Lord Chief Justice - or somebody else high up, and I believe by at minimum the High Court. A DJ can make a recommendation, but cannot solely call somebody a vexatious litigant.

If what you mean is solely a restraining order for bringing similar cases, then the circumstances would have to be similar, though not as bad.

Bringing a second claim would hardly consider somebody a vexatious litigant, especially if they won the first claim.

So any proposed agreement to force somebody to waive their basic human rights is unreasonable, but as said above, as the letter is 'Without Prejudice' this is irrelevant, unless they agree to present it to the judge - which I very much doubt.

Earlier, you mentioned something about using civil penalties. I should warn you at this point that it is well established that these are entirely unenforceable, as they are applied on the same basis as those of the banks.

Please read the posts. Even if these are unenforceable, it is definitely not as well established amongst consumers as the information about bank charges is. I'd fathom a guess that most consumers do not know that these are unenforceable and they do act as a very good deterrent.

Policing the parking lot is another thing that could be done, and is done in some supermarkets. The fact remains that they obviously did none of these, and obviously - as they haven't presented it yet, and would have presented it immediately if they had it - they don't have a policy, so they are in breach and could have used both of these as deterrents.

The issue of whether these specific fines are unenforceable is irrelevant to these proceedings, and I very much doubt that any supermarket is going to want to admit that in court, so the issue of their enforceability or lack thereof is irrelevant to this claim.

 

My suggestion would be to accept the token payment and get on with your life, unless you are happy to become a test case. I would imagine that a test case would take much longer to decide than one based on setteld law, and at the very least you will probably be forced to something higher than a County Court.

 

I completely disagree, and doubt very much that a case of such a small size would be taken to anywhere higher than County Court due to its cost. Also, a county court claim would - as I have explained above - at the most be a 'persuasive precedent', so unless the bulk of claims grows to a massive stage - as the bank charges claims did - it is unlikely that a test case will be staged as it is not worth the risk for anybody.

 

In summary, you need to think very carefully about how you reach the conclusion that you were discriminated against, and the sort of questions that will be asked by the opposition should they decide to defend in court, and even by the judge as a matter of basic rigour.

Yes, with every case, one needs to consider every aspect in depth. However, I think that the responses to the posts on this thread show a damned good start.

 

Meagain: Some of your post shows that you have not read this thread. Most of these points have been answered before, patiently by seftonview or somebody else. I have patiently answered them again, but please in future read the whole thread.

Edited August 22, 2008 by legalpickle
.

[raydetinu]

Wher does this blue badge holder requirement come from, nowhere in the act or code of practice does it mention blue badges, just disability within the terms of the act! The bays are for all of them, badge or not, you dont even have to be the driver, the dissabled person can be a passenger. And It can be any disability, not just to limbs; blind, downs syndrome etc.

To restrict the bays to Blue badge holders only would also be illegal and against the terms of the act!

[legalpickle]

Wher does this blue badge holder requirement come from, nowhere in the act or code of practice does it mention blue badges, just disability within the terms of the act! The bays are for all of them, badge or not, you dont even have to be the driver, the dissabled person can be a passenger. And It can be any disability, not just to limbs; blind, downs syndrome etc.

To restrict the bays to Blue badge holders only would also be illegal and against the terms of the act!

 

Ray, you are clearly not reading my posts! I will reiterate as clearly as I can now.

 

Anybody who is disabled under the DDA is entitled to a blue-badge - all the illnesses you quote would entitle the person to a blue-badge.

 

The supermarket would be entitled to say, well how do we know you are disabled under the terms of the DDA? They are obviously not expected to call the doctors surgery - even at 1am - to find out the patient records!

 

But there must be some line for them to draw to be sure that they have not allowed somebody who is not disabled in accordance with the DDA.

 

Therefore assuming they have a policy that complies with the DDA it would be reasonable for them to say that anybody disabled under the terms of the DDA will need a blue-badge in order to park in the parking lots.

 

The point is that no judge is going to tell off a supermarket for refusing a disabled parking space to somebody who at the time couldn't prove they were disabled under the terms of the Act. Valid proof is a blue-badge.

 

If there was other valid proof then fine, but otherwise it just couldn't make sense to trust all these "ignorant plebs" as 'meagain' aptly describes them.

[robin9342]

The point is that no judge is going to tell off a supermarket for refusing a disabled parking space to somebody who at the time couldn't prove they were disabled under the terms of the Act. Valid proof is a blue-badge.

Problem is, the blue badge is open to abuse, especially in private car parks. Many times I have seen them used to park by someone other than the holder (who was not in the car at the time). Supermarkets do not check the photograph on the badge, neither do council CEOs

 

If there was other valid proof then fine, but otherwise it just couldn't make sense to trust all these "ignorant plebs" as 'meagain' aptly describes them.

So, if someone forgets their badge they become an ignorant pleb, not to be trusted as they have no other valid proof.

 

What does annoy me about certain parts of this thread is the seeming lack of concern for the temporarily disabled. Do you really expect the supermarket to say to the person with broken legs "sorry, you don't qualify for a blue badge under DDA, go and park somewhere else"?