Me and Excel - At war!

Lamilad

Fergie76 wrote: »

What happened with the SAR? And when did they finally disclose what they were claiming for rather than just various tickets over the course of a year?

Nothing, they refused my initial SAR and I didn't bother re-requesting. They mentioned the details of each alleged contravention in their WS

twhitehousescat

Lamilad wrote: »

Nothing, they refused my initial SAR and I didn't bother re-requesting. They mentioned the details of each alleged contravention in their WS

can they refuse a SAR?

Lamilad

twhitehousescat wrote: »

can they refuse a SAR?

They said I hadn't made the request properly, even though I'd used the template from the ICO website. They sent me a long complicated form to fill in and resubmit, but I couldn't be bothered.

beamerguy

Lamilad wrote: »

They said I hadn't made the request properly, even though I'd used the template from the ICO website. They sent me a long complicated form to fill in and resubmit, but I couldn't be bothered.

And so says Excel who together with BWLegal cannot even put together a good defence, not even with the Associate Chartered Legal Executive they employ.

Really looking forward to their next court whooping

twhitehousescat

obstruction? , how about informing the ICO that according to "muppet and Co " the online template is "wrong"

Lamilad

Lamilad wrote: »

They said I hadn't made the request properly, even though I'd used the template from the ICO website. They sent me a long complicated form to fill in and resubmit, but I couldn't be bothered.

twhitehousescat wrote: »

obstruction? , how about informing the ICO that according to "muppet and Co " the online template is "wrong"

I'll certainly be complaining to the ICO about them.

Lamilad

Apologies for the delay, I said I’d post this 2 days ago.

Be warned I’ve really babbled on with this one. It’s long, boring and probably full of spelling mistakes. Only read it if you’re sat in a comfortable chair and have plenty of popcorn.

Case Report:

SKIPTON COUNTY COURT - Claim No.: C7QZ5D00

Between

EXCEL PARKING SERVICES LTD (Claimant)

-and-

LAMILAD (Defendant)
____________________________

Nov ’16 to Feb ’17:
Ok so I stopped updating my thread back in November after my case was adjourned and Excel had stated their intention to use comments from my Pepipoo (ppp) threads as evidence to prove that, on the balance of probabilities, I was likely to have been the driver. Bargepole (bp) and SchoolRunMum/ Coupon Mad (srm/cm) contacted me concerned that Excel had connected my thread to my real identity were obviously monitoring it. They offered to advise me off forum via email.

The Judge had given Excel permission to submit the ‘internet forum comments’ as evidence within 14 days. She gave me permission to serve rebuttal evidence 14 days after that. She also ordered that, after another 14 days both parties must file and serve evidence as to why PoFA does or does not need to be relied upon. I later received a letter stating that the hearing had been rescheduled for 9th Feb 2017

So, after the first 14 days I received their evidence from the ‘internet forums’ which was simply a complete print of my first two threads on ppp, one of which was related to my successful case against Excel/BW Legal (bwl) and the other related to this case which had been adjourned the same day (I actually have a third thread on ppp about a case that was stayed after Excel/bwl didn’t respond to my defence).

Bp and srm/cm wrote a brilliant ‘second witness statement’ (WS) for me to submit as a rebuttal to the ppp evidence. Then things took an interesting turn… I received another set of court papers from bwl/excel regarding another alleged contravention. This was the fourth N1 I had received… I then receieved a fifth a day later, and a sixth the day after that. So whilst I was in full on ‘panic mode’ bp & srm/cm were busy writing a “Request for Special Directions” to the judge which would ask for these cases to be stayed pending the outcome of the case in progress. The judge responded with a letter ordering the new claims to be stayed as requested… brilliant move by my expert advisors. I would have never known to do this in a million years.

The next thing was Excel’s second WS which arrived on xmas eve (lovely gift). Written by Jake Burgess (jb) it basically said they don’t have to rely on pofa, the claim was brought under general contract law, and I was not a credible witness – it went on into a character assassination saying my comments on ppp were contradictory to my WS and I must by lying. It accused me of ‘perverting the course of justice’ and ‘contemp of court’

After this I heard nothing else from Excel.

9th Feb 2017
Hearing was at 14:00, Judge had allocated 3 hours for it. I had booked a few days off work to go over and over the evidence and plan what I was going to say, how I would respond to questions, and where I could pick further holes in their case (srm/cm had already torn their first WS to shreds). By the night before I felt well prepared and confident. In the morning I rung the court to ask which judge was presiding – it was judge Skalskyj-Reynolds (SR), same as my previous case – I was relieved.

I arrived at 13:40 there was no-one in the waiting room – first thought. ‘maybe they haven’t turned up’. I asked the desk clerk who said My Burgess had been there for the past hour and was in a side room. I now felt the nerves kick in. We went in at 14:05, jb did not attempt to settle (as I thought he might), he didn’t even acknowledge me as we walked in.

The Hearing
The judge introduced the hearing and explained how it would be conducted. She said she had read all the evidence except the internet forum stuff and she was happy for jb to explain what part of this he wanted to talk about. She made clear to jb her position that if they couldn’t rely on pofa then they would have to prove the driver. She remembered her previous judgement (the transcript of which I had adduced into evidence) and she stood by her reasoning, therefore she would not go over the same points again.

Jb responded that he only had to establish on balance of probabilities (bop) that I was likely to have been the driver on one of the six material occasions. He went on that where the two sides had opposing arguments (my word against theirs) then he only needed to convince the judge of his case by 51% - the ‘weight of a feather is all that was needed’ for his case to be accepted as fact! SR accepted this but said it remained the claimants ‘burden of proof’ and, as I had said under statement of truth (sot), that I was not the driver then they must discharge their burden. Jb didn’t like this, he wanted her to start from a mindset of 50-50 but she indicated her mindset was 100-0 in my favour and it was up to the claimant to change that balance.

Jb focussed on 2 comments from ppp, one which said ‘I use the car park regularly and at times have forgotten to p&d’ and another which said ‘I cannot remember the event, it could have been me or my wife who was driving’. He said these contradicted my WS which said ‘I had never driven to the car park’ therefore I must be lying to evade liability and this threw all my evidence into doubt as it showed I was not a credible witness.

He went on about this for a good 20mins really stressing his points. I sat there relaxed, I knew this was coming and had my response ready. The judge said ‘yes Mr B, we need Mr L to explain this, so let’s ask him… Mr L can you explain these comments?’

“I’d be happy to, Ma’am… Firstly, I have been a regular user of that car park in the past; that is true! I refer you to my WS which actually states ‘I have never driven THIS CAR to this car park’. Secondly, if Mr B had bothered to properly read his own evidence, and evidence from the previous case which I have provided to him then he would see, as is plainly obvious, that the comments he’s referring to relate to my first ppp thread which discusses my previous case. The comments were made before this claim was even issued. They have no bearing on today’s hearing whatsoever. Everything Mr B has just said is completely irrelevant. He must have known this as the same paragraph mentions the date and claimed amount of the previous case and the fact bwl are involved, which they are not in this case. In fact, the claimant referred to this paragraph in their previous claim stating that is was about that case, therefore I question why Mr B is trying to mislead the court by suggesting they are connected to this case!

I went on that the two threads involved two different vehicles. The previous case involved the car of which I am the main driver whereas this involved a vehicle which I rarely drive and was only a named driver. I showed the judge the last two years insurance certificates that proved I wasn't the main driver. This proved to be very persuasive. I also referred her to the opening post for my second thread which specifically states “I was not the driver”

Slam dunk! I was doing the Doctor Evil laugh in my head. SR told Mr B he cannot use evidence from the previous case to support his claim today. Jb said there was another comment he wanted to discuss.

There was an awkward pause now of several minutes while jb frantically rifled through his paperwork. The prints of both ppp threads amounted to over 100 pages (double sided) and he’d not separated them (as I had). As he became more flustered the pages got more mixed up. He had to stand to try get things in order. I could’ve used this pause to go over my own evidence but I wanted to appear confident and assured so I sat drumming my fingers on the table, tapping my knee, clicking my pen and sighing loudly. Eventually the judge said ‘what comment are you looking for, I’ll help you find it’. He’d given the judge both threads as one huge bundle with the second thread at the front and the first at the back; and he hadn’t numbered the pages so SR couldn’t find it either. I knew exactly which comment he wanted but enjoyed watching him squirm. Eventually I took pity on him… “is this the comment you want, Mr B?”… It was!

He was referring to a line from an early draft of my defence I’d posted which said ‘I was not the driver’ I’d gone on to ask ‘should I change this to “it is not known who was driving”. Jb suggested this meant I didn’t know that I wasn’t the driver or I wouldn’t have asked that question. Therefore I could have been driving. I said that was ridiculous, I was just asking which wording was more appropriate in legal terms as I had no legal knowledge or experience of court.

SR then said if jb wanted ask me about comments in the threads then he should cross examine me. He agreed but didn’t ask me to take the oath.

JB: ‘ your defences and WS for both cases are the same aren’t they?’

Me: No

JB: yes, they are

Me: No, they’re not. My defences are similar but different and my Ws’s are completely different.

JB: but you’ve posted in your second thread a copy of your first defence saying you intend to use it again.

Me: No, the comment says I’m basing my second defence on my first but asking for advice to edit/ amend so it’s appropriate for this case. As further posts show my defence evolves with paragraphs and words added, removed or changed.

JB: No, all you’ve done is remove reference to bwl so the defences and WS’s for both cases are the same aren’t they?

(I’m becoming annoyed now, and my tone becomes raised and angry)

Me: For goodness sake! NO! my defences are not the same, they are both there in the threads – READ THEM! And my WS’s are completely different. What are you getting at?

(he starts shouting back)

JB: I’m saying your defences and WS’s are the same, Mr L. You’ve said in your posts they are, and now you’re saying they’re not.

SR: Where does it say that Mr B?

Me: It doesn’t Ma’am. I did base my second defence on the first simply because it was the same car park, same claimant, same alleged contravention. So, many of the defence points were the same. My WS’s are different because in this case I’ve focussed on the deficiencies in Anita Dile’s first WS.

SR: Well let’s have a look (reads some more of thread)." Clearly, Mr B the defence has been changed from the post you refer to" (she points out several posts where stuff has been added, removed or altered).

JB: Well yes but the WS’s are the same:

Me: (still annoyed) They are not, I would prove it but I have not brought my previous WS with me… why would I? Perhaps you have copy of it Ma’am.

SR: I do but it doesn’t matter. The only WS that is relevant is the one I have in front of me today. I will not hear evidence from the previous case. Mr B, I have to ask, where are you going with this?

- Jb explains that he is making the point that I am using both threads to discuss both cases, thereby trying to give credibility back to his opening argument. The judge isn’t interested in this and I point out that posting across threads is not allowed on ppp. I refer to a post from Southpaw explaining rule #1 to another poster.

JB is floundering now, he argues that it is my vehicle, I had made no attempt to resolve the issues with excel. I had not even contacted them to deny I was the driver. Therefore it is reasonable for them and the court to presume I was the driver. If I wasn't I at least had to offer something as proof.

Cue, Henry Greenslade, - the judge got in before me. 'no Mr B! Mr L is under no obligation to name the driver or respond to your letters.

JB argues that i have acted unreasonably and due to this they can reasonably assume I was driving.

SR: there is no law that says you can do that Mr B. She reads HG and says something about secretary of state vs Duff.

JB agrees there is no law but says he is arguing the bop. SR says 'in that case you need to convince me 51% and you are a long way from that'. She then did something really clever. She assigned points value to his arguments and mine and worked out that he'd only convinced her 7%. I felt utterly in control at this point and perhaps became a little complacent.

He came back to the comment about me using the car park regularly (from my first thread)and I said I used to do around 2011/2012. Then he asked when was the last time I used the car park. I had no idea but he somehow got me to say (or imply strongly) that it was 2011. He now said my comment - “I use this car park regularly” didn’t make sense if I hadn’t used it in 5 years. He suggested my comment would have said ‘I couldn’t have been the driver because I haven’t used the car park in years’ or ‘I used to use the car park regularly’

I said at the time of posting I had no reason to recall when I had last used the car park and was in a state of panic over receiving court papers. I wasn’t focussed on dates or finer details. I said it was as I investigated further that I was able to establish for definite that I wasn’t driving. He asked how came to know for definite that I wasn’t driving. I said I had looked back on text messages, emails, work schedules and worked out that I couldn’t have been in the car park on the day in question. He said if this was true, why weren’t these adduced into evidence previously? I replied that they were only useful to me and would not have stood up in court as credible evidence.

He was attacking with two main points now:
How I had established my whereabouts and why I had not mention this before or adduced anything in to evidence
My comment that I use the car park regularly, yet hadn’t used it in 5 years.

- Now my mistake here was that I was allowing him to resurrect a discussion that had already been dismissed as ‘irrelevant’. I should have simply reminded the judge that that these comments had no bearing on today’s case and refused to discuss them. But I didn’t – I allowed him to draw me into an argument which I wasn’t prepared for and wasn’t on strong ground. I was worried that if I didn’t address his questions the judge might think I have something to hide… and I certainly didn’t want her to think I might have been dishonest in my previous case – A) because I wasn’t; and it might diminish my credibility.

He kept coming at me with the above 2 points and how they were inconsistent with my evidence and other things I’d said. This went on for a while, I can’t remember specifics of the exchange as I was flustered and struggling to answer at times but I remember feeling under pressure and worried about how the judge was perceiving me.

Eventually SR intervened saying people don’t really think much about what they’re saying on the internet and it should be taken that I had worded my comments loosely. She looked as if she was ready to sum up and asked if there was anything else. I felt I needed to win some points back so I asked if I could ask jb some questions. They both looked at the clock. Jb said there wasn’t time. SR asked what it was I wanted to discuss.

I wanted to turn the credibility issue back around on Excel. I had the DQ completed by VCS and I had a truck load of things I could attack about their first WS from Anita Dile (thanks to srm/cm). I got through some of the issues with AD’s WS one of which stated that they DO comply with pofa. I said this contradicted everything JB had said today and they were attempting to change the basis for their claim. JB didn’t respond but the judge wanted to go through pofa again, which we did. She said this established without doubt Excel do not comply.

She then gave Jb a lengthy reprimand about Excel bringing claims against people who deny being the driver and there being no proof otherwise. She told him to go back to his company and tell them in the strongest terms that they must comply with the act if they wish to pursue ‘not the driver’ claims.

She now read her judgement. I felt 70/30 it would go my way but was uneasy. She went over everything we’d discussed which seemed to take ages . She then said ‘so where does that leave me?’ [pause] I thought she’d announce the verdict but she didn’t. My 70/30 had dropped to 60/40. She talked about the claimant’s burden of proof and whether she felt they’d discharged it. She didn’t! JB was sinking in his chair. She then talked about bop and had they convinced her that I was more than likely the driver. She was not convinced. She then went on about pofa again before dismissing the claim. JB was gutted.

She asked if I wanted to apply for costs. I said I wanted 2 days loss of earnings, travel expenses and parking. Jb argued that it should only be one day as it was not their fault the case was adjourned in Nov. I countered that it was their fault I had to take the day off to defend the claim in the first place. Judge wouldn’t go fo it. He then said I could’ve worked the morning so can only claim half day. I said my shift would’ve started at 12pm. SR agreed with me. I got: £95 loss of earnings, £5 travel, £4.50 parking. When I asked for parking JB quipped ‘so you didn’t forget to pay for it today then’?

Umkomaas

Brilliant report back Lami. Best I've ever read on here. And what a demolition of JB and his assertions.

it went on into a character assassination saying my comments on ppp were contradictory to my WS and I must by lying. It accused me of ‘perverting the course of justice’ and ‘contemp of court'

He must have been desperate!

Sock it to 'em [STRIKE]JB[/STRIKE] Lamilad!

beamerguy

I am very impressed with the way you handled this, I think the Judge was impressed as well.

As the Judge reprimanded Jake Burgess and the practice of Excel, it must be clear that the courts are aware of this racket

As for the final comments made by Jake Burgess, these are the very sour grapes of a very unprofessional and incompetent man

This is a very important case which proves the incompetence of Excel and all their associated companies which includes BWLegal

All I can say .... be careful Excel, your card is marked

Topcat_147

Fantastic read. Well done for standing your ground and beating them in their own back yard.