Excel & BW Legal

Mahone1302

beamerguy wrote: »

Mahone1302 .... great read and a big well done to you :T

I suspect the judge was on your side all along because of the quick turnaround in your favour. They have to be seen to be doing their job ?

Excel and BWLegal are no doubt well known to the courts now with their charade.

Excel v Lamoureux and Excel v Smith whilst not a precedence, are very persuasive for a fellow judge to take notice of.

Excel and BWLegal will remember the days when Mr Lamoureux (lami), ripped them apart and spat them out again

BWLegal are not that smart, sending a green horn to court.

I have added this case in post #1 here ....
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5672664/bwlegal-the-list-of-failures-growing

I understand the Prankster is busy on projects at the moment but we all miss his amazing blogs and wish he would return

Bit in bold - I did consider that as a possibility, maybe all along she planned to dismiss the claim, but didn't want to be seen to be impartial, or to have made her mind up without letting both sides make submissions?


On the other hand I've considered that maybe (without insulting the Judge's knowledge) she hadn't dealt with many well defended parking cases in the past, and expected my defence to be based around signage and GPEOL etc, thus didn't have much knowledge of POFA. Maybe she was planning to rule in favour of Excel, but found my argument to be incredibly persuasive?


Who knows...

Coupon-mad

The Prankster is too busy to blog I believe, but he still takes an interest.

I loved your account of this - the Judge was completely wrong about Rights of Audience (it's been said several times here that Elms Legal reps do not have it!) but it's her court - her rules!

She was also hopelessly wrong in seeing Beavis as a blanket affirmation of the legit interest and signage for all other parking firm cases - quite the opposite and the Supreme Curt even tweeted within hours of the terrible decision, wriggling to clarify that the case was ONLY about those specific signs/those facts, in that case only.

I feel sorry for less well prepared Defendants up against her flawed view!

You did brilliantly. Maybe the Judge learned something about the POFA too! :T

beamerguy

Mahone1302 wrote: »

Bit in bold - I did consider that as a possibility, maybe all along she planned to dismiss the claim, but didn't want to be seen to be impartial, or to have made her mind up without letting both sides make submissions?


On the other hand I've considered that maybe (without insulting the Judge's knowledge) she hadn't dealt with many well defended parking cases in the past, and expected my defence to be based around signage and GPEOL etc, thus didn't have much knowledge of POFA. Maybe she was planning to rule in favour of Excel, but found my argument to be incredibly persuasive?


Who knows...

We will never know ..... Judges will talk to each other and can also make notes on their system.

These parking companies and their dodgy legals are constantly wasting the courts time and using the County Court as a debt collector.

If real legals got involved they would no doubt advise their clients such a claim is futile.

Very sad that the 4 legals who involve themselves with scammers will continue to waste time.

Hopefully, the new government CoP and appeals service will in the end reduce some of these stupid claims

The_Deep

Well done.

Why not send the PPC an invoice for those costs which the judge refused to award. Then, if they ignore, send them an LBC. They have wasted your time, waste some of theirs

https://www.rocketlawyer.co.uk/documents-and-forms/letter-before-action.rl#

You then have six years in wich to make a claim.

Also, if you have not already done so, complain to your MP.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, and persistent offenders denied access. Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers.

Until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

Coupon-mad

thus didn't have much knowledge of POFA. Maybe she was planning to rule in favour of Excel, but found my argument to be incredibly persuasive?

That was my take on what you described.

When lamilad (our poster here who is the Mr Lamoureux from the Excel case) first explained the POFA to Skipton court, apparently it was like scales fell from their eyes. They previously had a reputation of kicking Defences out and not even thinking about keeper liability.

Like yours, the Judge wanted lamilad to talk her through POFA. And she saw the issue.

Now Skipton is a happy hunting ground for parking case Defendants. Maybe the Judges at Worcester will all talk to each other and open their eyes in future cases to what is being slipped under their noses with the excuse: ''Beavis trumps all, Ma'am...''

Mahone1302

Coupon-mad wrote: »

That was my take on what you described.

When lamilad (our poster here who is the Mr Lamoureux from the Excel case) first explained the POFA to Skipton court, apparently it was like scales fell from their eyes. They previously had a reputation of kicking Defences out and not even thinking about keeper liability.

Like yours, the Judge wanted lamilad to talk her through POFA. And she saw the issue.

Now Skipton is a happy hunting ground for parking case Defendants. maybe the Judges at Worcester will all talk to each other and open their eyes in future cases to what is being slipped under their noses with the excuse: ''Beavis trumps all, Ma'am...''

My gut feeling is that is the more likely of the two options also. It did feel very much as if she wanted me to walk her through POFA. That was second nature to me as I work with legislation in my day job so have no difficulty reading and interpreting it, however I can imagine for others it might not be so simple. I find it odd that Judges ruling on such cases are often found to be unaware of POFA entirely.

Coupon-mad

I find it odd as well, and that people like phoenixfreespirit lost recently because (even though she wasn't the driver and the POFA had not been complied with) she just couldn't walk the Judge through the POFA, when surely the Judge is best placed to interpret the Schedule (which in her case v PPS, was in evidence all along).

Unfair on ordinary people for a Judge to ask 'explain this statute law for me'.

Snakes_Belly

Very interesting reading and well done.

Mahone1302

Does anybody have any idea what the rough cost of the transcript may be? I understand that the cost is based on the number of "folios" however I have absolutely no idea how many "folios" there will be! The hearing lasted for 30-45 minutes if that helps? Just wondering if anybody can advise even a rough figure, based upon other previous transcripts obtained? I.e. am I looking at £50, less, more, £100 etc?

Umkomaas

Mahone1302 wrote: »

Does anybody have any idea what the rough cost of the transcript may be? I understand that the cost is based on the number of "folios" however I have absolutely no idea how many "folios" there will be! The hearing lasted for 30-45 minutes if that helps? Just wondering if anybody can advise even a rough figure, based upon other previous transcripts obtained? I.e. am I looking at £50, less, more, £100 etc?

Can’t base it on links to actual cases, but I’ve always had a figure (over the years of being on this and PePiPoo forums) of around £200 for a case of half a dozen or so pages of transcript. I’ve never really had to undertake any detailed research to confirm or otherwise.

See what others say. If bargepole is about, I’m sure he could be more specific.