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

[dx100uk]

who'll say anything if you pay them enough..

 

dx

[cuckooflower]

1 hour ago, 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.

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?

[honeybee13]

Not the right spelling; no.

 

HB

[dx100uk]

misogynistic - Search

WWW.BING.COM

---

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

 

[cuckooflower]

@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?

[AndyOrch]

On 06/05/2023 at 01:23, Manxman in exile said:

 

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?

 

Not really as its comes under employment law although it could be possible as a manual claim if you can afford the multi track regime, Vento bands are named after a landmark case from 2003 (Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police) where the Court of Appeal set out clear guidelines for courts and Tribunals to apply when they are assessing injury to feelings awards.

[cuckooflower]

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...

 

[dx100uk]

under employment laws..

nothing to do with what happened to you , you were not employed by the PPC.

[cuckooflower]

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....

[dx100uk]

just type no need to keep hitting quote...

 

the above court decision was one of racism...not one of a ppc gaining a default judgement because you screwed up filing a defence in time.

 

if you want to resolve your issue it would be via an N244 set aside application but most certainly not using ......there was in effect a force majeure event of automatism. 

[Ethel Street]

@cuckooflower  I've lost track of what help it is you want from us.  If you could clarify what advice you would like we can see if anyone can help.

 

Unless you find a reported disability discrimination decision that is very similar to your own circumstances - ie something involving parking - there's not much point in posting unrelated decisions as they aren't relevant.  There are many reported employment tribunal decisions involving disabilty disrimination every month but they tell us nothing about how a court might judge your circumstances.

[cuckooflower]

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?

[dx100uk]

denied entry for racist reasons .........The pub’s owner.... denied allegations of discrimination.

 

the ppc did not discriminate against you when their ANPR system detected you and the automated system issued you with a speculative invoice.

 

they neither discriminated against you when they raised a county court claim against you.

 

your issue here is that you screwed up filing your defence and you got a default judgement.

 

if you had not have lost and got a CCJ by default, you'd not be doing a thing. 

 

the result was not by way of any discrimination... 

[cuckooflower]

Quote

denied entry for racist reasons .........The pub’s owner.... denied allegations of discrimination.

 

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.

 

 

[FTMDave]

4 hours ago, cuckooflower said:

I totally understand that your knowledge of type 1 diabetes (by that I mean actual experience in living with or handling of such)

I had 18 years' experience of living in the same house as someone in that position, whose life I saved on countless occasions, which is why I immediately recognised the symptoms you mentioned on 00765's thread and thought your posts were very useful for 00765.

 

Of course the parking company should immediately have cancelled their invoice when you contacted them, but they are fleecing slime and never do.

 

However, like the others here I'm concerned you might lose your claim and think the fact you paid the CCJ was a very bad move.

[Ethel Street]

I'll ask again @cuckooflower  Instead of arguing with us about whether you will win in court - a judge will decide that, it won't be decided here - please clarify what advice you would like then we can see if anyone can help.