Court Claim. BW Legal on behalf of Excel Parking

Herzlos

Klaren wrote: »

Hi, never posted on here before but I'm researching excel as I'm up in court against them too. I just wondered if anyone has had a look at excels accounts? They're available online so I've been looking through them to see if there's anything I can use against them but I don't know what's what. Just thought I'd ask on here before I disregard them!

Thanks 😊

You might be able to use them to dispute PE's legally allowed fees - if there's any mention that the legal team is in-house, or any evidence of how much they are paying to file, coupled with the FOIA details on how many claims have been filed.

So, if they try and claim they pay £50 to their lawyer to file the claim (allowed), but you can show that it only costs them £x, you can use that to dispute the amount. If there's something in there that indicates the letter stamper isn't paid per filing, then you can use that too.

But I wouldn't waste much time on it.

dxdxdx

Klaren wrote: »

Hi, never posted on here before but I'm researching excel as I'm up in court against them too. I just wondered if anyone has had a look at excels accounts? They're available online so I've been looking through them to see if there's anything I can use against them but I don't know what's what. Just thought I'd ask on here before I disregard them!

Thanks 😊

Also, start another thread if you have any questions. This thread is for Lamilad's case and I want to know how he does.

juke_joint

Just to assure you our case was real - although it still feels unreal!

Excel's solicitor was a timid little Muslim woman who could barely read the T&C's on the photo of of the signage she produced to contest my "tiny font" attack. Ironic or what!

Before we went in she offered reduction of £160 - which we refused, but my wife regrets that given that it cost us £260 in the end - although slightly softened by a £20 a month repayment deal.

Anyway - good luck - I've been subscribed to your post from the beginning as it was similar to ours so will hope you beat the twisted old dragon!

brianj1991

Lamilad - I believe your case is now in 2 days time.
Good luck and eagerly awaiting the result.

Lamilad

juke_joint wrote: »

Just to assure you our case was real - although it still feels unreal!

Excel's solicitor was a timid little Muslim woman who could barely read the T&C's on the photo of of the signage she produced to contest my "tiny font" attack. Ironic or what!

Before we went in she offered reduction of £160 - which we refused, but my wife regrets that given that it cost us £260 in the end - although slightly softened by a £20 a month repayment deal.

Anyway - good luck - I've been subscribed to your post from the beginning as it was similar to ours so will hope you beat the twisted old dragon!

Hi Juke thanks for your comment.I know your case was real as I've now seen your posts on the FB group.

I appreciate your good wishes but I also have Faye Wright so my confidence is not high. Does she give you a fair chance to argue your case? I can't believe she said they didn't breach PoFA... Incredible!

Lamilad

I sent this letter to the court yesterday as per Coupon Mad's advice. Let's see if it strikes a chord with the judge.

"Dear! Judge

!

I am the defendant in these cases. As you will be aware they are due to be heard on Thursday 17th November.

!

I wish to draw your attention to the vexatious and unreasonable behavior of the claimant by bringing these cases against me separately when the details and alleged contraventions are essentially the same.

!

As a lay person who cannot afford any form of legal representation or advice to help defend myself; it is unfair that Excel have made me go through the process of doing everything twice. I have had to complete the Acknowledgement of Service (AOS) twice, as well as write two defences, complete two directions questionnaires (DQ), write two witness statements, and put together two court bundles. Not to mention all the paper I’ve had to use and printing that has had to be done… Twice.

!

In fact Excel have made me complete an AOS and defence on three occasions as they have brought another case against me, which, for all intents and purposes, is identical to the first mentioned in the subject line. The claim number is C9DP8C5D. This claim has been ‘stayed’ due to Excel/ BW Legal’s failure to respond to my defence. I found it most confusing when BW Legal wrote to me saying that Excel intend to proceed with the case when clearly, they have no such intent. Further evidence, I submit, of Excel/ BW Legal’s vexatious and unreasonable behavior.

!

It is surely a waste of mine and the court’s time and resources to go through two hearings which involve the same claimant, same defendant, and essentially, the same alleged contraventions.

!

If the presiding Judge still wishes to proceed with these cases despite the claimant’s conduct then I would respectfully request that the hearings are merged into one for the benefit of all concerned.

!

Yours Faithfully

Lamilad

Fruitcake wrote: »

Tie your bundle with something distinctive such as red ribbon before you enter the courtroom so it is obvious nothing else has been added.
If somebody does try to drop something in your lap, it might be advantageous for a concerned passer by to pick it up for safe keeping.

I'm taking 3 copies of the bundles to each case (so 6 in total) - 1 for me, 1 for claimant and 1 for the judge. Do I need to tie each one in red ribbon or just my copy?

bargepole

Lamilad wrote: »

I'm taking 3 copies of the bundles to each case (so 6 in total) - 1 for me, 1 for claimant and 1 for the judge. Do I need to tie each one in red ribbon or just my copy?

Unless you're a bewigged QC appearing at the Royal Courts of Justice, then you don't need to tie anything in red ribbon..

This is small claims, not the High Court.

Lamilad

bargepole wrote: »

Unless you're a bewigged QC appearing at the Royal Courts of Justice, then you don't need to tie anything in red ribbon..

This is small claims, not the High Court.

Lol, I'll leave the red ribbon at home. I'll just take my wig and black cloak

Lamilad

Ok, with my hearings about 17 hours away. I'm doing some last minute swotting up. Students might call it "cramming". Focussing on PoFA S4 as the judge seems to believe that Excel comply with it (even though they admit they don't) So I need to relentlessly hammer the point home that S4 has not been complied with and as such the RK cannot be held liable. I need make this indisputable, and to do so I'll need have all my facts in order....


So as I'm going through S4 (for about the 20th time) I'm gonna be postings lots of questions along the way about aspects I'm unsure about or don't fully understand - I apologise in advance for all the posts i'll be making - I'm only one person and I know you have lots of people to assist.


Ok, so first question:
Para 5 (1) states: "Conditions that must be met for the purposes of para 4"
The first condition is that the creditor -
(a) "has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges; but
(b) "is unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver"


Para 5 (2) states "sub paragraph (1) (b) ceases to apply if (at any time after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice to keeper is given) the creditor begins proceedings to recover the unpaid parking charges from the keeper."


Excel have begun proceedings to recover from the RK so have they breached this condition or not?