PPC PCN Default judgement - paid CCJ - now want to sue them using discrimination laws...??

[cuckooflower]

I was in the same situation where my blood sugar levels would not rise  (you are legally required to be above 5 for at least an hour). I eventually called my husband and he had to come and take me and the car home. This resulted in an overstay of approx 16 minutes. This is a car park I have used several times each week for the past 22 years (without incident)

 

I wrote and emailed the parking company and explained the situation (4 separate occasions) but they never responded nor did they acknowledge my letters or emails)

 

Passed to DBCL who themselves were informed on 3 occasions...they chose to say that they were just doing their job and what the client had asked them to do and that making decisions was not their remit.

 

I wrote to the land owner who turned out to be a company registered off shore and the UK address they provided turned out to be in a private block of flats in London.

Despite my efforts, I received the county court documentation. Registered to defend the claim and then sent (by post) the copies of letters and emails and signed the form

 

Waiting for the court date I received a default judgement amounting to just short of £300. Court accept that I had registered and logged the fact I intended to challenge but said they did not receive the documentation (this was over the Christmas period with the post strikes)

 

I'm now in the final process of taking the company to court for a discrimination. Letter before claim has been sent (and ignored) and a SAR to DCBL resulted in them saying they had no paperwork for the court action they undertook so deny having been informed directly or having any attachments to my defence for the parking company. They said they destroyed all documents

 

Type 1 diabetes is a protected characteristic under the discrimination act so they have committed the criminal offence of discrimination based on disability and on the vento scale ranks as the higher band

(£25-43,000) as the discrimination was persistent and deliberate.

 

My letter before claim (ignored like all letters) made them an offer to compensate on the lower band of vento but it also stated that should they not accept, I would pursue the higher band in court.

 

As it was dbcl to whom the payment was made (court default), should I also be suing them for discrimination at the same time?

 

As the offence (financial injury occurred in Jan) I have 6 months in which to bring the claims

 

[dx100uk]

please create your own topic by hitting create or + in the top red banner

 

dx

[cuckooflower]

I'm suing a parking company for discrimination (persistent and deliberate is the claim) following them obtaining a default judgement for parking with which I had a legal defence of automatism (could not legally or physically remove the vehicle from the car park due to low blood sugar level)

dcbl took the court action on behalf of the parking company and dcbl were notified of the legal defence of automatism but continued their court route.

 

Do you think its worth suing dcbl at the same time as the parking company (separate proceedings) or wait until the result of the parking company outcome?

 

There are a few issues with the parking company and the land owner:

The land owner is registered in the British Virgin Islands and their laws dictate that all contracts are "wet" (require actual signatures on the contract)

The parking company did not respond to requests to show documentation of the contract in force and locals suggest that it does not nor can ever exist.

If it does not exist, is this fraud to send these invoices?

If there exists a contract with the parking company to issue invoices, where would the governing law be? under which jurisdiction? UK or BVI?

If it can be established that despite the land owner being offshore, if it can be shown they have a contract under UK law, is it worth having a pop at suing them as well as the parking company and dcbl?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ethel Street]

Which jurisdiction governs a contract can be legally complex and you'd need a lawyer to study all the documents.  But as you are unlikely ever to obtain those best to assume that English law applies. That could challenged by the land owner but they would presumably have to produce evidence of how the contract was formed.

 

Unless the contract contains an express jurisdiction clause saying which law applies to it.

 

I doubt an English PPC would be prepared to operate under a contract that was subject to BVI law, but stranger things have happened.

 

 

[dx100uk]

I doubt youll win.

Why dont you simply set aside the ccj?

 

You mistake here was not using mcol to respond to the claim in the 1st place.

 

Did you file a defence to the court rather than writing to the fleecers sol?

[AndyOrch]

Quote

Despite my efforts, I received the county court documentation. Registered to defend the claim and then sent (by post) the copies of letters and emails and signed the form

 

Waiting for the court date I received a default judgement amounting to just short of £300. Court accept that I had registered and logged the fact I intended to challenge but said they did not receive the documentation (this was over the Christmas period with the post strikes)

 

 

 

 

.

[cuckooflower]

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

 

On 05/05/2023 at 13:28, dx100uk said:

Did you file a defence to the court rather than writing to the fleecers sol?

 

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

[dx100uk]

notified via website? 

what do you mean - you did use mcol and did aos? ,

cant see where you are getting defence needs to be signed if you file in by mcol

 

just trying to understand your way of describing what happened and why you had to mail defence using n9 form when you could of done it online?

 

anyway as you've paid the ccj so done deal...now, i cant see the point of suing ppc for discrimination....that wont work...

[cuckooflower]

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? 

 

 

[Ethel Street]

Have you taken legal advice on whether a Vento band claim for loss of feelings etc can be  brought through MCOL?  Or are you starting the action in a different court?

 

Have you taken legal advice on whether the PPC continuing with their recovery action amounts to disability discrimination? The issuing of the original PCN presumably wasn't discrimination as the PPC did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that you had a disability at the time of issuing the PCN.

 

Incidentally, breach of the disability discrimination provisions of the Equality Act 2010 is not a " criminal offence of discrimination".  It is not a crime, it is a civil matter.

[AndyOrch]

Quote

Vento band claim for loss of feelings etc can be  brought through MCOL?

 

Cant be done through MCOL...tribunal and normally employer> employee

[cuckooflower]

4 hours ago, dx100uk said:

notified via website?  what do you mean you did use mcol and did aos? , cant see where you are getting defence needs to be signed if you file in by mcol

 

just trying to understand your way of describing what happened and why you had to mail defence using n9 form when you could of done it oneline?

 

#anway as you've paid the ccj so done deal...now, i cant see the point of suing  ppc for discrimination....that wont work...

form  0

3 hours ago, Ethel Street said:

Have you taken legal advice on whether a Vento band claim for loss of feelings etc can be  brought through MCOL?  Or are you starting the action in a different court?

 

Have you taken legal advcie on whether the PPC continuing with their recovery action amounts to disability discrimination.? The original issuing of the original PCN presumably wasn't discrimination as the PPC did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that you had a disability at the time of issuing the PCN.

 

Incidentally, breach of the disability discrimination provisions of the Equality Act 2010 is not a " criminal offence of discrimination".  It is not a crime, it is a civil matter.

 

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.

 

 

 

[Ethel Street]

My question was @cuckooflower whether you have taken professional legal advcie that has confirmed the many stetments of the law in your post.  Have you? Has a litigation lawyer told you that you have a good chance of winning such an an action ?

[dx100uk]

Total bunkum and not applicable in this case 

 

No car park, be it private nor council can ever have nor need a contract that encompasses such .

 

They did not know, nor could they have known your condition and under the likes of gdpr etc etc neither should they know 

 

You got a default judgement, you could and should have used mcol, for whatever reason YOU decided not to and it screwed up.

 

Even if you had of managed to file such a defence, it's not one. Now a mere 16 mins overstay is only 1 min outside the new gov'mt guidelines that might have worked.

 

Sorry but you don't stand a chance..uptree barking at invisible squirrel.

 

Moved on, or get it set aside properly for the right reasons, IF you meet them, which to date you don't appear too 

 

Dx

 

 

[dx100uk]

6 hours ago, cuckooflower said:

form  0

what is a form 0 when replying to a court claim....never heard of it????

[dx100uk]

9 hours ago, cuckooflower said:

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

[Manxman in exile]

8 hours ago, Andyorch said:

 

Cant be done through MCOL...tribunal and normally employer> employee

 

But if somebody wanted to make a disability discrimination claim against somebody other than their employer (eg a shop or a public body - or a private parking company) is that still the same route?

[cuckooflower]

"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

[honeybee13]

I'm not clear what 'reasonable adjustment' you think they should have made.

 

HB

[cuckooflower]

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

[Ethel Street]

I'll ask again @cuckooflower. Have you taken professional legal advice that has confirmed the many statments of the law in your posts.  Has a litigation lawyer told you that you have a good chance of winning such an an action for discrimination?

[cuckooflower]

On 06/05/2023 at 09:07, honeybee13 said:

I'm not clear what 'reasonable adjustment' you think they should have made.

 

HB

 

On 06/05/2023 at 09:33, Ethel Street said:

I'll ask again @cuckooflower. Have you taken professional legal advice that has confirmed the many statments of the law in your posts.  Has a litigation lawyer told you that you have a good chance of winning such an an action for discrimination?

yes, I wrote it on form0

 

 

On 06/05/2023 at 09:07, honeybee13 said:

I'm not clear what 'reasonable adjustment' you think they should have made.

 

HB

reasonable adjustment is to accept that there are 400,000 people with type 1 diabetes in the UK and that some will be drivers. There needs be no "special parking bays" or signage etc etc, so reasonable adjustment would be to accept and cancel. How will that not be accepted in court? ZERO COST, ZERO TIME FRAME, ZERO DISRUPTION....takes no effort whatsoever so not making that simple easy adjustment had to be deliberate...unless you can counter that simple premise

 

On 05/05/2023 at 18:25, Ethel Street said:

My question was @cuckooflower whether you have taken professional legal advcie that has confirmed the many stetments of the law in your post.  Have you? Has a litigation lawyer told you that you have a good chance of winning such an an action ?

A very inventive and rather expensive Barrister came up with this approach. So you are the judge and I am the defendant and I present these responses to you. Which one does the judge accept and dismiss the claim?

 

"We decided to pursue this claim even though we were informed of her disability and grounds for cancellation as we believed she would attend court and have the claim for contract breach rejected so she would not suffer financial loss. We believed the court would do their job"

 

"But she did not register a defence therefore we believed she wanted to pay us a fee even though it would never have been allowed in court and as a business, we need to maximise profits from any source, regardless of whether the person we want to transfer wealth from is disabled or not."

 

"We did not receive the correspondence and all correspondence we did hold we now don’t hold as it was destroyed with immediate effect after the default judgement so we can’t look back retrospectively on the case"

 

"We don’t care about disabled people, we don’t care about frustration of contract because we don’t allow for contracts to be frustrated"

 

"Making reasonable adjustment would have been prohibitive in that we are not aware of any type 1 diabetics that use our managed car parks around the entire UK as there are only 200,000 type 1 diabetic drivers so we decided not to make any adjustments as we could not predict if or when a disabled person would use the car park"

 

We do not agree that type 1 diabetes is a disability so we ignore all claims from diabetics"

"

 

[Ethel Street]

If you already have a barrister acting for you would be better off asking them these legal questions, rather than ask them here on a forum where no-one is a qualified lawyer.

[Manxman in exile]

On 06/05/2023 at 09:07, honeybee13 said:

I'm not clear what 'reasonable adjustment' you think they should have made.

 

HB

 

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

 

2.  Diabetes is recognised as a disability

 

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)

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

On 06/05/2023 at 12:43, Ethel Street said:

If you already have a barrister acting for you would be better off asking them these legal questions, rather than ask them here on a forum where no-one is a qualified lawyer.

 

Quite - although I'm not sure if the OP has actually retained counsel or is just putting forward some hypothetical "what ifs"

 

I think the other thing is that the question the OP is asking isn't a private parking issue.  It simply arose from a parking charge.

Edited May 6, 2023 by Manxman in exile

[honeybee13]

From post #24.

 

A very inventive and rather expensive Barrister came up with this approach.

 

HB