1.	I am a sufferer from Multiple Sclerosis, a degenerative neurological condition. It is important for my condition that I maintain my physical and mental health.
2.	I use an adapted cycle as my primary mobility aid.
3.	I went for an extended ride on DATE. I need to ride primarily on dedicated cycle paths as I find on-road cycling too dangerous. On this occasion I decided to use an advertised route from the YYY
4.	The route indicates barriers: I was aware of this but I had not tried it with my cycle with stabilisers fitted.
5.	I took a radar key with me.
6.	The primary cycle way that I took on this particular day is obstructed by a combination of a cattle grid, a standard K frame barrier and a metal footplate. The custom-made footplate is impassable to adapted cycles.
7.	A radar key bypass gate is advertised. I was not able to use the radar bypass as I cannot access the gate lock whilst remaining mounted.
8.	Whilst I did not attempt this, I don’t believe, even if I had succeeded in opening the gate, I would be able to move my cycle through the gate either mounted or dismounted.
9.	I was unable to access this advertised cycle route and location independently. I assert that this is an act of discrimination.
10.	The barriers (I believe there are 5 in total) in this and neighbouring locations are of unique design and make it impossible for me to access this public green space.
11.	The barriers have a disproportionate impact on those with a disability and the advertised reasonable adjustment does not allow independent access.
12.	The barriers exclude me from a large area which hosts important safe cycle routes, including the signposted orbital cycle route, and has high amenity and historical value.
13.	The inability to access safe cycling infrastructure independently greatly limits my ability to safely exercise.
14.	I enquired for further design details via a Freedom of information request (REF).
15.	I received a perfunctory response, with many key details absent.
16.	I note that the in-house designed footplate appears not to have an equality impact assessment for it (though the DDA (2005) would appear to have applied when the footplate was originally installed in 2007).
17.	No attempt to update this appears to have been made after the Equality Act 2010 was published.
18.	I have experienced discrimination counter to the Equality Act 2010 by the following measures.
a.	The defendant did not conduct an equality assessment on the design when installed.
b.	The defendant has not reviewed the impact of the footplates in light of the Equality Act (2010) or the Disability Discrimination Act (2005)
c.	The defendant has not put in place mitigation that permits independent use.
19.	It is my contention that in so doing the Defendant has failed in their legal duties to prevent undue difficulty to disabled people, to make reasonable adjustments and to promote disability equality, counter to the Equality Act 2010.
20.	I wrote to the defendant on DATE, outlining these concerns and the defendant chose not to respond, excepting an acknowledgement.
21.	I experienced considerable stress due to the discrimination. I am angry that the defendant has failed to constructively discuss when reasonably approached on this matter.

I believe that the facts stated in these Particulars of Claim are true.

SIGNATURE
XXX
DATE