Tweet
Hi everyone
I have severe ADHD autism and am considered disabled under the required definition, I get PIP Payments etc , I have been taken to court by captial car park control ltd who say I breeched their terms on signage.
Their signs specify I must show a blue badge which I don't have and just use the correct bays.
Does my defense below appears to make sense
Defendant is considered disabled under the lawful definition, and the Equality Act does not require the driver to display any sort of badge or permit. Anyone who fits the lawful definition of disability is entitled to make use of the ‘reasonable adjustments’. The signage is adding arbitrary rules to the lawful right of someone to use a ‘reasonable adjustment’, and this is should be considered a breach of the Equality Act, and as such the contract is unenforceable.
EQUALITY ACT 2010
142 Unenforceable terms
(1) A term of a contract is unenforceable against a person in so far as it constitutes, promotes or provides for treatment of that or another person that is of a description prohibited by this Act.
144(1) A term of a contract is unenforceable by a person in whose favour it would operate in so far as it purports to exclude or limit a provision of or made under this Act.
29 Provision of services
(1) A person (a “service-provider”) concerned with the provision of a service to the public or a section of the public (for payment or not) must not discriminate against a person requiring the service by not providing the person with the service.
(2) A service-provider (A) must not, in providing the service, discriminate against a person (B)—
(a)as to the terms on which A provides the service to B;
(b)by terminating the provision of the service to B;
©by subjecting B to any other detriment.
(3) A service-provider must not, in relation to the provision of the service, harass—
(a)a person requiring the service, or
(b)a person to whom the service-provider provides the service.
(4) A service-provider must not victimise a person requiring the service by not providing the person with the service.
(5) A service-provider (A) must not, in providing the service, victimise a person (B)—
(a)as to the terms on which A provides the service to B;
I have severe ADHD autism and am considered disabled under the required definition, I get PIP Payments etc , I have been taken to court by captial car park control ltd who say I breeched their terms on signage.
Their signs specify I must show a blue badge which I don't have and just use the correct bays.
Does my defense below appears to make sense
Defendant is considered disabled under the lawful definition, and the Equality Act does not require the driver to display any sort of badge or permit. Anyone who fits the lawful definition of disability is entitled to make use of the ‘reasonable adjustments’. The signage is adding arbitrary rules to the lawful right of someone to use a ‘reasonable adjustment’, and this is should be considered a breach of the Equality Act, and as such the contract is unenforceable.
EQUALITY ACT 2010
142 Unenforceable terms
(1) A term of a contract is unenforceable against a person in so far as it constitutes, promotes or provides for treatment of that or another person that is of a description prohibited by this Act.
144(1) A term of a contract is unenforceable by a person in whose favour it would operate in so far as it purports to exclude or limit a provision of or made under this Act.
29 Provision of services
(1) A person (a “service-provider”) concerned with the provision of a service to the public or a section of the public (for payment or not) must not discriminate against a person requiring the service by not providing the person with the service.
(2) A service-provider (A) must not, in providing the service, discriminate against a person (B)—
(a)as to the terms on which A provides the service to B;
(b)by terminating the provision of the service to B;
©by subjecting B to any other detriment.
(3) A service-provider must not, in relation to the provision of the service, harass—
(a)a person requiring the service, or
(b)a person to whom the service-provider provides the service.
(4) A service-provider must not victimise a person requiring the service by not providing the person with the service.
(5) A service-provider (A) must not, in providing the service, victimise a person (B)—
(a)as to the terms on which A provides the service to B;
