Excel BW again

claretmad62 · 10 June 2017 at 3:34PM

Can't thank you enough Fruitcake for responding and your good self Molts, I'd seen on other threads where you guys had written responses against the numbered comments of the Claimants WS... So was assuming similar, apologies if I mis-interpreted.

Fruitcake · 10 June 2017 at 3:58PM

I only skimmed it , but you should go through it line by line and rebut everything they say.
If they mention POFA, or appeals, or PoPLA, you say it didn't exist at the time of the alleged event, and obviously therefore cannot be retrospectively applied.

There is a comment I couldn't completely make out but it was something like, I am instructed that the signs shown here were in place at the time, or similar. Just ask for the metadata and time/date stamps to prove this. You just say I don't believe these signs were there at the time. They certainly aren't there now.

Just rebut everything and everything and ask for proof of every comment they make or document or sign they rely on.

Check information at Companies house. When was the company formed? What is the company name and company number and check that was it the same at the time of the alleged event? For example, was it once Parking Scammers Corp and is now Parking Scammers Inc, and was the company number changed if the name changed.
I'm only throwing ideas out here, and you don't really need that detail as I'm sure you will win on it being pre-POFA, but the more nails you can hammer in the less chance there is for them. Just concentrate on the most important stuff first and then work on other stuff if you have time.

claretmad62 · 10 June 2017 at 4:09PM

I have written something already, to the effect of that's not possible(signage) as my PCN states £60.00 fine discounted to £40.00. Your photos of the sign clearly show £100 & £60 . I will take a look over CM's input into Lamilads "me and excel at war" thread. CM went thru each of the Claimants remarks and pretty much destroyed them. I would imagine that as most of you allude to. The Claimants WS are pretty much 95% generic. I can't seem to get the link up from Lamilads thread showing the Excel WS. Would like to put that up against mine and then fill in the gaps. So if anyone knows how to get the link it would be appreciated. Cheers Fruitcake

Molts · 10 June 2017 at 4:48PM

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5478608&highlight=lamilad&page=3#59

Wow weird. Post #59...

claretmad62 · 10 June 2017 at 4:52PM

Tried that earlier this morning, says link broken when I try to open in new tab

Molts · 10 June 2017 at 4:54PM

Oh I think he has disabled it after finding out Excel were trawling the forums and tried to use his Pepipoo info against him. Hopefully Lamilad will see this and be able to get the info you need to you.

Maybe a PM to him?

Fruitcake · 10 June 2017 at 5:58PM

claretmad62 wrote: »

I have written something already, to the effect of that's not possible(signage) as my PCN states £60.00 fine discounted to £40.00. Your photos of the sign clearly show £100 & £60 . I will take a look over CM's input into Lamilads "me and excel at war" thread. CM went thru each of the Claimants remarks and pretty much destroyed them. I would imagine that as most of you allude to. The Claimants WS are pretty much 95% generic. I can't seem to get the link up from Lamilads thread showing the Excel WS. Would like to put that up against mine and then fill in the gaps. So if anyone knows how to get the link it would be appreciated. Cheers Fruitcake

Excellent. So you can rebut their bit where they say they have been informed that the signs are the ones in place at the time. This is an obvious lie and is a cynical attempt to try to get more out of you than the original PCN given to the driver.

They have tried to make you look unreasonable. Now you make them out to be unreasonable in return, but your biggest stick is still the fact that the POFA didn't exist at the time of the alleged event.
They have stated that are not relying on the POFA 2012, so you want to know what they are relying on in order to allege the keeper is liable.

Fruitcake · 10 June 2017 at 6:11PM

They know that Elliott vs Loake is not relevant in a small claims court because (I think) they have been involved in cases where judges have said this and similarly they know that CPS vs AJH films has also been rubbished by judges. Therefore they know full well that they cannot hold the keeper liable or assume the keeper is the driver.
Therefore they are being unreasonable by the whole shebang and are wasting the court's time knowing these points do not hold water.

Just keep hammering how unreasonable they are at every point. They are vexatious and know it.

Point out that a solicitor's first duty is to the court. The Parking Prankster reported in the last few days that one solicitor decided not to continue a case once he knew how unreasonable the case was. Why aren't this bunch carrying out the same duty of care to their clients?

Umkomaas · 10 June 2017 at 6:33PM

similarly they know that CPS vs AJH films has also been rubbished by judges

Confirmed at appeal, therefore now carries 'persuasive' weight. And given that this decision was at a BWL/Excel case, they should not be using this argument again.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/motorist-wins-appeal-cps-vs-ajh-films.html

Coupon-mad · 10 June 2017 at 10:04PM

I have written something already, to the effect of that's not possible(signage) as my PCN states £60.00 fine discounted to £40.00. Your photos of the sign clearly show £100 & £60.

Comedy gold. Well done, BW Legal! :rotfl:

Excel BW again

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free