And suddenly there was a defence...

[heisenberg]

Re: And suddenly there was a defence...

Well no, you can take discrimination claim to court. My point is your claim is just too vague...in my view grossly under-valued too

You can't raise take a discrimination claim in a employment context to a County Court can you? If so, what are Employment Tribunals about? You may be able to take such a claim to a County Court when you have suffered personal injury though unless I am wrong?

I appreciate that all the redactions don't help matters. I also understand that the particulars need only be brief and that one can present a skeleton argument later.

The vagueness and undervalue was, to some extent, purposeful as I didn't want the court to assign it to the fast track. So yes, there is some method to my madness.

[Openlaw15]

Re: And suddenly there was a defence...

You can't raise take a discrimination claim in a employment context to a County Court can you? If so, what are Employment Tribunals about? You may be able to take such a claim to a County Court when you have suffered personal injury though unless I am wrong?

I appreciate that all the redactions don't help matters. I also understand that the particulars need only be brief and that one can present a skeleton argument later.

The vagueness and undervalue was, to some extent, purposeful as I didn't want the court to assign it to the fast track. So yes, there is some method to my madness.

Give me the facts of your case...I well tell you how strong or not so strong your case is

[heisenberg]

Re: And suddenly there was a defence...

what about your medical evidence to prove you have disability?

I have proved that many a time before. Even the NHS Trust that I have considered bringing a claim against has recently conceded I meet the definition without contest (and they instructed the most expensive firm, it seems, in the country).

[heisenberg]

Re: And suddenly there was a defence...

Give me the facts of your case...I well tell you how strong or not so strong your case is

Difficult to say at this stage as I do not know which facts are disputed but I think I have summed it up very briefly? If not, let me know which aspects aren't too clear. :thumb:

[Openlaw15]

Re: And suddenly there was a defence...

I have proved that many a time before. Even the NHS Trust that I have considered bringing a claim against has recently conceded I meet the definition without contest (and they instructed the most expensive firm, it seems, in the country).

- - - Updated - - -



Difficult to say at this stage as I do not know which facts are disputed but I think I have summed it very briefly? If not, let me know which aspects aren't too clear. :thumb:

I studied a law degree including constitutional law and that's dry as hell.. but i haven't got a clue what your facts are

[heisenberg]

Re: And suddenly there was a defence...

I studied a law degree including constitutional law and that's dry as hell.. but i haven't got a clue what your facts are

Haha... Understood. Okay, give me a few ticks and I will post a brief synopsis.

[Openlaw15]

Re: And suddenly there was a defence...

I believe the test for discrim is 'I would not have been treated that way but for my protected characteristic'

(Not quite that simplistic, but it's a starting point.)

it is not easy to win a discrimination case at all. it's first prove disability then prove discrimination. Charity, PCP relates to employment, college, school, university..ie an exam, job interview, or a job competence. Defence: Is the PCP reasonable, ie is genuine, is it proportionate.

[heisenberg]

Re: And suddenly there was a defence...

Background

I sought assistance from a psychotherapist in respect to my mental health condition (the disability). The disability essentially significantly impedes my overall mental health.

This psychotherapist in question denied me a service which I believe to be for unethical reasons (discrimination). This person also shared confidential information he should not have shared.

It is accepted by the psychotherapist's employer (the NHS) that this person acted in a manner well below that that was reasonably expected generally and that confidential information should not have been shared. The PHSO made a similar finding and recommend financial compensation.

I raised a concern with the psychotherapist's professional body (the Defendant) who he is registered with (before the paragraph above facts arose). They have the powers to strike him off their register or issue a warning.

I complained of a) discrimination b) wrongful sharing of confidential information and c) dishonesty once I had seen the initial response from the psychotherapist in respect to complaints (a) and (b).

In this case of (a) above they would not even process my complaint beyond the most initial stage(s). They simply averred that "we do not consider that the evidence you have provided demonstrates a reasonable prospect of success".

It has become evident that they did not process complaints (b) and/or (c) correctly or at all (having seen a recent report published by the Professional Standards Authority and relative discussions with Professional Standards Authority before this was published).

I remain unclear on why all complaints were not progressed correctly or at all. In the case of complaint (a) I remain exceptionally unclear on what the substantive reasons were . I made significant attempts to gain clarity and none has been forthcoming.

The Defendant is seemingly obliged (although this is not clear) to provide a little more rationale than that to assist me in drafting a fresh complaint if I so do deem necessary.

The Professional Standards Authority, who oversee this organisation in terms of professional standards, has recently made it clear that the limited wording used was insufficient and difficult to comprehend. They also have made it clear to me that this overall decision-making was not sound nor fair.

The Defendant refused to engage further (in respect to this matter as whole and, seemingly, as a consequence of me requesting further information) and has caused me prejudice in regards to processing my complaints appropriately and caused me further prejudice by not assisting me in understanding the full reasons underlying the decision not to progress the complaints. I made the Defendant abundantly aware of my mental health so it is aware that I have/had problems in this regard.

The Claims

The Equality Act 2010 makes it unlawful to knowingly assist another person discriminate (section 112). On the face of it, the Defendant is making every effort to assist the psychotherapist in question. Other organisations have relied on the Defendant's 'findings'.

The Defendant also has/had a duty to make reasonable adjustments. In the event that it is standard practice (though this remains unclear notwithstanding complaints to the Defendant in this regard) for the Defendant to simply assert "no prospects" in response to a series of complaints then I aver that they would need to offer more comprehensive reasoning in these circumstances. Such a request was not unreasonable and something the Defendant could easily have done to facilitate the adverse effects of my disability (unless of course it had something to hide).

Section 19 (indirect discrimination) is also called into question for the above reasons.

It is further evident that I have been treated poorly. The question arises is this the normal manner in which the Defendant treats all complainants (section 13).

By virtue of the Defendant's refusal to engage with me at all in regards to this matter have I been treated unfavourably? The answer has to be yes. I am unable to draft another complaint appropriately and it seem the Defendant is refusing to deal with any further correspondence in any event. Section 15 (discrimination arising from disability) is therefore called into question.

Have I also been victimised (section 27) due to asserting that I am disabled person and that I need further assistance? I believe I have suffered at least one detriment as set out above.

[heisenberg]

Re: And suddenly there was a defence...

it is not easy to win a discrimination case at all. it's first prove disability then prove discrimination. Charity, PCP relates to employment, college, school, university..ie an exam, job interview, or a job competence. Defence: Is the PCP reasonable, ie is genuine, is it proportionate.

Totally agreed. Proving anything in court is very difficult (as you probably well know) as the burden of proof rests with the Claimant. How many organisations are going to overly concede to discrimination? None I imagine if they think they have even the smallest chances of successfully defending such a claim.

[heisenberg]

Re: And suddenly there was a defence...

So, it does not leave much to the imagination as to why they did not respond to the pre-action letter and the action so far.

[charitynjw]

Re: And suddenly there was a defence...

Can you claim for psychological harm without a traumatic event occurring? (ie RTA, personal physical injury, events such as Hillsborough, etc,)

Also, must the psychiatric injury be a 'listed' condition? (ie more than depression, etc)

[heisenberg]

Re: And suddenly there was a defence...

Can you claim for psychological harm without a traumatic event occurring? (ie RTA, personal physical injury, events such as Hillsborough, etc,)

Also, must the psychiatric injury be a 'listed' condition? (ie more than depression, etc)

Good questions. I am not sure.

I do know that in discrimination cases the psychiatric damage could get mixed into the 'injury to feelings'.

[charitynjw]

Re: And suddenly there was a defence...

The 'listed' condition mentioned above refers to DSM-IV

[heisenberg]

Re: And suddenly there was a defence...

The 'listed' condition mentioned above refers to DSM-IV

That list is quite extensive so I would be very surprised if anything isn't listed these days.

[wales01man]

Re: And suddenly there was a defence...

If you have a listed disability has it been diagnosed and documented