Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Here's something I'm hoping to clarify before I get in trouble for it:   There is a street close to where I live that was transformed into a temporary Pedestrian and Cycle Zone due to a school that's there. I know I can't enter it during those times, but can I be fined for having my car parked on that street while the zone is active? So far I have only heard one interpretation, from my neighbour, who said you can have your car parked there and you can exit the zone while it is operational, oddly enough, but before I take her word for it I want to get some more opinions on the matter.   For reference, here is what the Council's own website states: "It is an offence to enter or drive in an active school Street without a valid school street permit." (emphasis mine) Would this prove my neighbour right or can they still find a different interpretation to it that would carry the risk of a fine if I park my car there?   The sign for the zone is very similar to the image attached below, only different operating times.   Edit: to clarify, there are permits you can apply for if you actually live on that street, but I'm just outside that area. Also, there are no other parking restriction on the road that would apply.  
    • good i can see where you got that from  pers i'd put back, suitable adapted the line:   3.Throughout this period XXX only ever served estimated bills which were grossly over estimated with values unrelated to actual use. There was and still remains an unresolved dispute with XXX which was never resolved prior to the assignment of the alleged debt.
    • Hi Mr S,   Read other threads here posted over the last year or so.   We pretty much advise the same thing - ignore demands from the gym, their admin company, any DCA they use and any legal firm they use.   No need to engage with the gym or admin company to discuss or argue your wish to cancel - it'll get you nowhere.   If you want to leave the gym now, just give a month's written notice then cancel the DD m,andate .   If you want to cancel from October 2021, confirm this to the gym in writing early October, allow the final DD to be taken in October, then cancel the DD mandate.   You'll see from other threads that no action is taken to claim money and gym m/ships do not affect your credit records.
    • Update on the situation:   Following the run in with the police he has actually gone to the police station himself to question what he was told and was told there is no issue with him idling or moving the car around the car park, so the police officers who told him that were wrong.   As a side note, he knows who it is that's reporting him. Seems to be a bit of a feud between them, but the clarification he got from the police should at least stop them coming around every time a report is made.   Thank you to everyone who replied to this question!
    • I have had another good look around but still struggled to find any templates. I did find a defence on a thread that I have adapted below. I would greatly appreciate some input before I file it. Again, many thanks in advance.   Defence   1. I the Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   2. It is admitted that I have had a supply and service agreement with Co-operative Energy in the past. During the period, Co-operative Energy actively blocked me from hanging to a cheaper tariff or switching provider as there was an outstanding balance on the account.   3. Throughout this period Co-operative Energy served estimated bills. This is shown in the one copy of a bill that the claimant has been able to provide. The claimant has given no details as to the full breakdown of their claim and what dates it relates to, so I am unable to defend specifically until the claimant can particularise and quantify its pleadings.   4. Pursuant to OFGEM code of back billing rules the alleged charges are now over 12 months old and relate to charges which have not been billed correctly by Co-operative Energy and are therefore prevented from charging.   5. The claimant does not have access to the agreement nor was the Assignor required to retain a copy. Therefore their claim is unsubstantiated.   Pursuant to the civil procedure rules Practice Direction 16 (7.3) Where a claim is based upon a written agreement.   1) a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement,  the original(s) should be available at the hearing along with a complete breakdown of how the charges accrued by date and amount.   With the court’s permission the Claimant is put to strict proof to: -   a) show and disclose how the Defendant has entered into an agreement. b) show and disclose how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed. c) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.   6. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   7. It is therefore denied that the defendant is indebted to the claimant as alleged or at all.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 32 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3836 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone

 

One of our Cagger's requested help for someone to represent her to be a 'mouth piece' at a mediation session as she has a speech impediment and needed someone just to say the words that she writes to make the mediation go smoothly. I have offered her that help and we have been communicating directly.

 

There is question about costs that has come up and I am asking for some help here on her behalf and with her permission to ask.

 

We are anticipating that at the mediation an offer may be made and pitched at a level that although not worthy of the level of discrimination that has been enacted on her may well also be accompanied with a reminder that costs could be awarded against her at trial should she not beat that offer.

 

The case has been put into the level which attracts compensation between £5k - £25k..... here is the question...

 

What is the procedure as far as costs are concerned in discrimination cases in the county court and at this level? Do the normal rules about beating an offer or payment into court apply?

 

Many thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trying hard - but I am utterly confused. CMD usually equates to Tribunal claims. But you say County Court? For a DDA claim? And who said it was "wirth £5 - 25k"?

 

If you actually are talking County Court (and I am struggling to believe it - is this a personal injury claim????) then costs are very readily awarded. Only in employment tribunals is it rare. But if you can clarify I might be able to give more information.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am a barrister specialising in employment law, and only represent employees. My advice on employment issues is advice - not legal opinion - and is based only on the facts you provide. If you want an accurate assessment of your case and prospects, you should get legal opinion from a lawyer - not a public forum. Anything I tell you is for guidance only, and is based on my experience of the law in the context of what details you provide.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi SarEl

 

Sorry this is confusing you. Perhaps I am confusing terms between ET and county court.

 

The case revolves around a DDA claim as to access to banking services. The case is not an ET case. I do not have details of the start of the case but solicitors for the claimant started off the claim. I am not sure why they are no longer involved but the claimant has been ploughing on herself. The claimant tells me that the solicitors have claimed between £5k - £25k in the official papers. There was a meeting of parties before a judge (I am not sure what this was for) and all parties have agreed to go to mediation which is occurring next week.

 

You have to appreciate I am only trying to act as the claimant's voice due to her speech disability. In our discussions by email it has become an issue as to what tactics may be used during the mediation and I believe that the other side may make the claimant an offer to settle the matter. The claimant has beliefs as to what she believes she should be offered but I wonder if her belief is unrealistic. Having been on the sharp end of this type of negotiation a few times now I am trying to educate her as to what to expect, but obviously I don't want to put my opinions in front of hers......... after all I am only her voice.

 

That all said, we are uncertain if a threat as to costs is made from the other side along with a realistic and acceptable offer, we need to know the rules that affect when costs are ordered in a trial for discrimination / adjustments etc under the DDA in the county court in order to evaluate whether to accept the offer or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Papasmurf1 - bearing in mind that this isn't an employment issue ( which is what I specialise in, as you know) - can you PM me any details of what the case is actually about? A "guestimate" of £5 - 25k worries me, because it really is broad - and most claims get down at the bottom not up at the top. But that's just my instinct, since I know nothing.

 

I believe that this is probably conciliation not mediation - a subtle but important difference in law. Most pointedly because (and bear in mind - I am guessing with no details!) it is usually a heavy hint by the court. Who it is directed at I can't guess because what happened in the meeting is something I don't know - and you probably don't either!

 

But unlike employment law (where a case that is wrong but faithfully taken out - in other words, not litigatious) parties to county court proceedings can claim their costs. Given you are talking a bank, they will have poured legal resource into this and it would easily wipe out £25k and then some. In other words, the risk of owing money could be huge. But I emphasise - that is a worst case secenario based on no knowledge of the situation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am a barrister specialising in employment law, and only represent employees. My advice on employment issues is advice - not legal opinion - and is based only on the facts you provide. If you want an accurate assessment of your case and prospects, you should get legal opinion from a lawyer - not a public forum. Anything I tell you is for guidance only, and is based on my experience of the law in the context of what details you provide.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had a chance to to look at this again for you, and I think that what your "friend" needs to do is to clarify exactly what it is that she wants out of this. There are two possibilities. One is that she wants the bank to understand how their failure to make reasonable adjustments has discriminated against her and others like - in other words, she wants them to change the way that they do things so that people with disabilities aren't discriminated against. Or she wants money. The two aren't mutually exclusive, but they are different! Obviously, if her primary aim is the former, then what she wants to get from this is for the bank to better consider the way that they are doing things. If it is the latter, then then she needs to guard against seeing things in £ signs. The point of the legislation is to get service providers to make adjustments rather than to penalise them if they don't - but the penalties for not doing so are expressed in £'s because money (or loss of it) is a powerful incentive! It seems to me that change is what she wants to get, and compensation is one of the methods of forcing them to do this.

 

The risk comes here in that people think that courts award big money. They don't usually. I handled a similar case for a friend last year, and although it was an employment one (refusal to make reasonable adjustments for interview) I think it is worth mentioning. My friend was clearly discriminated against - of that there is no doubt. But the award was only £1,000. As it happens he was expecting it to be low (I had warned him) - but many people I talk to expect that awards are much more. Now in county court proceedings the rules are somewhat different than tribunals - and it isn't an area that I deal with alot, as I said. But county courts will award costs, and do so very readily. They may even award costs if the claimant wins - if the claimant has been made an offer and the court awards less than the offer (which is a real risk, as I said, because awards are never as much as people think), the court could, if they chose to, make a compensation award and still award costs. I am not going to say that this happens all the time, because it doesn't. The problem is that you never know when they will do it, and obviously I don't know much about the case, so I can't say that they will or won't.

 

So I think your "friend" needs to be very clear about what she wants out of this. One thing she will not get - for certain - is an admission of liability. But she may get an agreement that they could have been more "clued up" about the needs of people, and that they need to do better at adapting to the needs of people with disabilities. It's semantics - but important to people like this. Banks are notoriously litigatious - they will fight to their dying breath, and then some. They are big enough to do so, and they crush people in the process - I know from having dealt with them a lot in employment cases. They are always the ones least likely to give way.

 

I hope that helps somewhat.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am a barrister specialising in employment law, and only represent employees. My advice on employment issues is advice - not legal opinion - and is based only on the facts you provide. If you want an accurate assessment of your case and prospects, you should get legal opinion from a lawyer - not a public forum. Anything I tell you is for guidance only, and is based on my experience of the law in the context of what details you provide.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) requires service providers to make reasonable adjustments for their customers – which can include alterations to premises.

A Court of Appeal ruling in the case of Allen v The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc provides useful guidance on the extent of this duty. The case is also the first time that a Court has compelled a service provider to carry out physical works in order to discharge its duties under disability discrimination laws.

In the case of Allen v The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc an award of £6500 was made for damages

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) requires service providers to make reasonable adjustments for their customers – which can include alterations to premises.

A Court of Appeal ruling in the case of Allen v The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc provides useful guidance on the extent of this duty. The case is also the first time that a Court has compelled a service provider to carry out physical works in order to discharge its duties under disability discrimination laws.

In the case of Allen v The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc an award of £6500 was made for damages

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) requires service providers to make reasonable adjustments for their customers – which can include alterations to premises.

A Court of Appeal ruling in the case of Allen v The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc provides useful guidance on the extent of this duty. The case is also the first time that a Court has compelled a service provider to carry out physical works in order to discharge its duties under disability discrimination laws.

In the case of Allen v The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc an award of £6500 was made for damages

 

Yes, this is absolutely true, but, whilst I am still emphasising that this is not my area of law, so I am not going to even start second guessing, it is important to note that the £6,500 was the largest award ever made for a non-employment related case, and the level of discrimination was high. That puts some perspective on what you can realistically expect to see as compensation. This confirms the point that I was making - that what RBS had to do to meet the requirements of the Act may have been costly - I beleive that the reasonable adjustment (which they still had to do) was in the order of £250,000 of building works - but the actual award was peanuts, all things considered. Whilst it is possible that the OP's friend may have a much more serious case, which may attract a larger award, it is by no means clear here - or certain that even if it were more serious that an award this high would be made. But my point is not what the award might be, but the answer to the question about the possible consequences of costs. Knowing the facts can only mean that the OP's friend is better informed about the risks - not whether the risks will come to fruition, or whether she would be better off in court than in conciliation. I'm afraid I don't know enough about the case, never mind this area of law, to be able to give a guess as to that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am a barrister specialising in employment law, and only represent employees. My advice on employment issues is advice - not legal opinion - and is based only on the facts you provide. If you want an accurate assessment of your case and prospects, you should get legal opinion from a lawyer - not a public forum. Anything I tell you is for guidance only, and is based on my experience of the law in the context of what details you provide.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...