Court Claim. BW Legal on behalf of Excel Parking

Lamilad

I've had to temporarily remove the document from dropbox as I hadn't redacted it. I will re post shortly. Thnaks

DoaM

Fruitcake wrote: »

Elliot vs Loake has been debunked by a judge and is now case law. The case can be found on the Prankster's blogsite.

With respect, can you refrain from calling it case law please? (This is at least the second time you've said this, that I'm aware of). The blog you refer to is for a small claim in the County Court. Whilst other judges may find it persuasive, it is NOT case law. Case law (which is binding) only comes from higher courts.

Lamilad

I've uploaded BWL's bundle again. The link is now...


https://www.dropbox.com/s/a1gsv2y57aysoe5/BWL%20Court%20Bundle.docx?dl=0

System

What's with the Authorisation. It's a squiggle on Excel letterhead and does not identify who has signed it and what authority they have.

There is the comment about no faults on the ANPR but there is no similar statement on the P&D machines. There are a number of other Excel cases where the machines are faulty and if you google Pay and Display machines you'll get lots of evidence they are not only faulty but they fail often.

Suggest you get some of those reports into your WS and Skeleton.

I also have an issue with BW Legal making the statement. It should be the claimant as a paralegal working for a client knows F all. Challenge the issue there is no WS from the claimant.

Coupon-mad

IamEmanresu makes valid points so follow his advice.

As you have already submitted your WS for the other case being heard the same day, I would be tempted to submit the same one again with a covering front page with THIS claim number on it, stating that the facts in this claim and claim number xxxxxxxx are essentially the same and you have been significantly disadvantaged to be expected to put your life on hold, to submit two defences, two witness statements and two sets of evidence. Surely the Claimant had a duty to mitigate costs by including all the similar issues within one claim.

Ask that both cases are heard together as they are already scheduled one after the other, on xx/xx/16 and deal with essentially the same matters and neither includes any evidence at all of any contravention by the driver(s) on the dates in question. Say that if there is a record of VRNs entered and payments made by drivers on those days, why has the Claimant not produced that crucial record, without which surely they have no case.

On this basis you feel the claims (both of them) are vexatious and the Claimant's conduct has been wholly unreasonable and you will seek your full costs in the matter, should you prevail or if the Claimant discontinues very late after putting you through this harassment.

Point out the lack of WS from Excel in this case, as IamEmanresu noticed.

Reiterate that in neither case has this Claimant adduced any evidence at all to support its statements (in this case, in #40 and #41 of this paralegal's WS) that there was 'no payment made' or in the alternative, that the VRN input did not match. Essentially there is not a shred of evidence at all that any contravention occurred, on the occasion relating to this claim or in the other claim that Excel have inexplicably decided to bring separately but at the same time.

Finish by saying that your other WS in many ways relates to this case as well and so you are attaching that and the exhibits for that case, as relevant for this claim too. It would take too long to write another different one just because the Claimant has decided to attempt what has felt like a two-pronged attack of aggressive litigation. All this being aimed at a registered keeper - with no evidence at all of the driver - despite admitting they do not bother to use the very statute that Parliament provided in 2012 for parking firms to hold keepers liable.

Say that, effectively this Claimant is saying 'we want to hold this keeper liable but we have not bothered to comply with the only route in law that would allow that'. This Claimant was 'found out' at a case this week: Excel v Mr C C8DP37F1 on 31/10/2016, where the Judge at Stockport made a finding of fact that Excel wording does not comply with the mandatory requirements of POFA 2012 to invoke keeper liability. This case is in the public domain in a Blog posted by a consumer champion:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016_10_01_archive.html

and no doubt the Claimant's Legal Representatives (whose first duty is to the Court) will be able to confirm that the Judge held that:

- Excel could not hold a registered keeper liable without the POFA 2012,
- Excel had provided no evidence of the driver.
- Elliott v Loake (a criminal case with forensic evidence as regards who was driving) was held by that Judge as not persuasive and that it can certainly be distinguished from a case with no evidence.



Add on IamEmanresu's other points as well. Get this submitted, basically with everything from your other case plus this added top page as a signed statement of truth/covering letter. Then breathe!

I wonder who will rock up as witnesses in these cases, or not?

Fruitcake

DoaM wrote: »

With respect, can you refrain from calling it case law please? (This is at least the second time you've said this, that I'm aware of). The blog you refer to is for a small claim in the County Court. Whilst other judges may find it persuasive, it is NOT case law. Case law (which is binding) only comes from higher courts.

Thanks for the correction. Point noted.

DoaM

And thanks for taking my comment in the manner it was intended.

Fruitcake

DoaM wrote: »

And thanks for taking my comment in the manner it was intended.

It is far too important a thing for me to get wrong. I thought it had been quoted elsewhere as "case law." Irrespective of whether or not that it was, if it isn't it shouldn't be referred to as such and I should have made sure of my facts.

Fruitcake

Lamilad wrote: »

I've uploaded BWL's bundle again. The link is now...




I can't open that link.

Lamilad

Fruitcake wrote: »

Lamilad wrote: »

I've uploaded BWL's bundle again. The link is now...




I can't open that link.

Ok, third time lucky... If anyone can't open the previous link. This one should work.....


https://www.dropbox.com/s/6exez1wyakas191/BWL%20Court%20Bundle%20v2.pdf?dl=0