Court Claim. BW Legal on behalf of Excel Parking

Herzlos

Lamilad wrote: »

Thanks Beamerguy, an interesting read. I've decided against requesting the case to be heard at Truro county court It's just rather annoying that my local court is not far from BW's base in Leeds so it'll be no bother for them to get there.

That might actually be worse for them; it'll look even more unreasonable if they don't turn up, and you might actually get a real staffer attend to get torn apart by the judge.

Lamilad

Ok, not really an update, more of an FYI. I complained to the court about their confusing communications regarding my case - as described above. I received the following response this morning.

Dear Mr ********

Thank you for your email complaint of 9 August 2016 in which you complain about the level of service provided by the County Court Business Centre (CCBC). I am the helpdesk team leader and as such I have conducted a thorough investigation into your complaint

I would like to apologise that your experience with the CCBC Helpdesk was not to the high standard that we strive to achieve and you have had the cause to complain.

In order to address the issues raised in your complaint, I would like to briefly outline what has happened with your claim in the chronological order:

27/05/16: Excel Parking Services Ltd issued a county court claim against you.

09/06/16: You filed an Acknowledgment of Service

29/06/16: You filed a response to the claim, a defence.

29/06/16: The court processed your defence and forwarded a copy to the claimant. The claimant has 33 days to respond to the defence and confirm whether or not they intend to proceed with the claim. The deadline for response was 02/08/16.

Failure to respond by the deadline would result in the case being stayed. A “stay” prevents the claimant from proceeding further, without submitting an application for consideration by a District Judge to have the stay lifted. There is a £100 administration fee for this application.

02/08/16: Case automatically stayed.

04/08/16: You telephoned the CCBC Helpdesk for an update, and were advised of the automatic stay and the claimant’s options should they wish to proceed.

05/08/16: The claimant’s response to your defence (intention to proceed) was processed.

I can confirm the claimant’s intention to proceed was received by the court on 29 July 2016 which was within the deadline. It was not processed until 5 August 2016 because of the workload pressure of the court. As the intention to proceed was received before the case was automatically stayed, it was processed accordingly and the stay was removed without the need for an application or fee.

05/08/16: Directions Questionnaires sent to both parties as a result of the claimant’s intention to proceed being processed.

09/08/16: You telephoned the CCBC Helpdesk once more to ask for an update, and if the claimants submitted an application and paid the necessary fee. The helpdesk clerk advised that the case was proceeding.

I apologise if the clerk was not clear as to the reason why the stay was lifted without an application and fee. It should have been made clear to you that the claimant’s intention to proceed was received within the deadline set by the court and processed accordingly. I have discussed with the clerk and emphasised the important of providing clear and full explanation.

The current status of your case is that a Directions Questionnaire (DQ) has been posted to you. Please follow the instructions on the accompanying letter and submit your completed DQ by 22 August 2016.

I apologise for the lack of clarity provided by the helpdesk clerk, however I hope the above adequately explains the handling of your case by the CCBC. If you remain dissatisfied with the administrative handling of your case you have the right to refer your complaint in writing to Mrs Claire Brown, the Operations Manager, at the following address. St Katharines House, 21-27 St Katharines Street, Northampton, NN1 2LH.

Umkomaas

Thanks for the FYI.

Well that's the help desk clerk hung out to dry.

Perhaps the pressure of work is more to do with the exponential increase in the number of PPC issued claims in the past few months - something they should be blaming the Supreme Court for, not a lowly desk clerk.

Lamilad

I've notice on BW's DQ in the section which asks how many witnesses including yourself do you intend to use they've put TBC...

Is this a valid response on court documents? I would've of thought you have to be definite and specific on court documents not give an answer that says 'maybe I will, maybe I won't'

Should I complain to the court about this?

Lamilad

Update on this: My case has been assigned the court I requested. It will be heard in mid November. Whats interesting is that my second case, which is Excel alone (without BWL) will be held at the same court on the same day immediately afterwards. Don't know if that's a good thing or not. I'm worried if I lose my first case I may as well not bother with my second.

BWL have acknowledged my SAR but haven't responded yet.

The_Deep

IMO is s highly unlikely that you will lose either, even if either turn up. They are ion dodgy ground on so many levels.


I hope that you have your costs sheet ready to give to the judge when you win. You might also wosh to read CPR27.14.(2)(g) about unreasonable behaviour, citing £54, mentioning CCJs, etc. Have they mentioned Elliott v Loake? If so use it as another stick with which to beat them.

Lamilad

PANICKING! The hearing for this is 2 weeks on Thursday but I have done nothing in terms of preparing my bundle. I have been flat out working on my other case which is being heard the same day.


I haven't received BWL's bundle so I don't have anything to respond to but my understanding is that I still need to give the court my bundle which should contain my WS and exhibits. I need to throw something together very quickly. For those familiar with my other case I'm hoping I can use a similar WS and exhibits. Thing is BWL are not involved in that case and I've received the bundle so my WS focusses on that.


I'm worried I'm going to trip up at the final hurdle with this. I'm still working on my other case and I'm working all day today and tomorrow so have very little free time.


Any help, massively appreciated. Thanks

Lamilad

Ok so I've received my court bundle from BWL. Came through by email at 15:20 on deadline day. Link to the doc is below. The quality of the document, especially the pictures is appalling. I would really appreciate it if people in the know could look at theit WS and give me tips on how to attack it. I can't do this in my WS as I had already submitted it to the court earlier in the day; so I'll have to make my rebuttals on the day. Although I did pre-emptively attack E vs L as I knew they would use it.... Many thanks

The email I received reads as follows:

"Good afternoon

Please see attached a copy of the claimant's witness statement for your attention and note that a copy of the same has been sent to you via first class post.

thanks
Tallulah Tyrer-Dubarrie
Legal Secretary

E-mail: [EMAIL="ttyrer-dubarrie@bwlegal.co.uk"]ttyrer-dubarrie@bwlegal.co.uk[/EMAIL]
Postal: The Tannery, 91 Kirkstall Road, Leeds, West Yorkshire, LS3 1HS"


https://www.dropbox.com/s/xogtc1x0ljmtruy/BWL%20Court%20Bundle.pdf?dl=0


Let me know if the link doesn't work.

Fruitcake

The link works OK for me.

Fruitcake

Elliot vs Loake has been debunked by a judge so another judge may also find it persuasive. The case can be found on the Prankster's blogsite.

The witness statement is from the parking company, not from the landowner. The date on it appears to me to be March 2028.

I can't see anything at all wrong with their pictures of signs .... *snigger*