BW Legal and the flawed ANPR

Castle

The car that was never there: defendant awarded punitive costs of £160.95.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/excel-anpr-flawed-car-was-having-mot-at.html

beamerguy

Simon Renshaw-Smith, Excel's main shareholder, stated that the main reason he moved to the IPC was so that he would not lose so many appeals.

Simon Renshaw-Smith CONFIRMS the scam operated by the IPC.

Let's thank Simon Renshaw-Smith for confirming this

he would not lose so many appeals

SCAM ...... CONFIRMED

Bad move Simon, terrible move to even consider BWLegal.

If you as Excel acted in a professional manner and drop your scamming, you might fair better and reduce the risk of being made to look stupid in court by so called solicitors who will continue to be blasted in court

The_Deep

£160 is hardly punitive, a meal for two in a good restaurant, a night in a four star hotel in London, a one way train ticket to Newcastle.

nigelbb

The_Deep wrote: »

£160 is hardly punitive, a meal for two in a good restaurant, a night in a four star hotel in London, a one way train ticket to Newcastle.

When did you last stay in a hotel in London? £160 often doesn't even buy a night in a Travelodge https://www.travelodge.co.uk/hotels/344/London-Central-Euston-hotel?checkIn=22%2F11%2F16&checkOut=23%2F11%2F16&rooms%5B0%5D%5BroomId%5D=k6f3ql87p3vd27&rooms%5B0%5D%5Badults%5D=1&rooms%5B0%5D%5Bchildren%5D=0&rooms%5B0%5D%5Bextras%5D%5B0%5D=

The_Deep

You are right, I do not stay in hotels in London, but I recently stayed in a gorgeous five star wedding cake in Santander for less than a century.


The point remains however, £160 is peanuts for the amount of offence this PPC caused.

bargepole

Castle wrote: »

The car that was never there: defendant awarded punitive costs of £160.95.

To be strictly accurate, there is no such thing as 'punitive costs'.

A successful defendant can claim Ordinary Costs, which is loss of earnings (max £95 per day), travel to court at 45p per mile, and parking near the Court.

If it is ruled that the Claimant has behaved unreasonably, as in this case, the defendant can claim Additional Costs, which in this case were the lay rep's travel expenses.

Punitive or Exemplary damages can be awarded under CPR 16.4, and are applicable in cases where one party has behaved so badly that the Court wishes to express its disapproval by awarding a large sum to discourage such behaviour in future.

But in order for those to be claimable in a parking case, the defendant would need to issue a Counterclaim when they first receive the Claim Form and file a defence. To claim, say, £1,000 they would need to pay a court fee of £80, so it's a risky strategy.

The_Deep

If a PPC called me a liar when I had already proven to them my veracity I would willingly punt £80 to give them a £1000 headache.

Carthesis

Surely this is a prime example of the defendant being able to claim for data misuse under DPA, as has been done previously in "double-dip" situations?

(Yes, I know not strictly a double-dip, but basically the same thing.)

Castle

bargepole wrote: »

To be strictly accurate, there is no such thing as 'punitive costs'.

A successful defendant can claim Ordinary Costs, which is loss of earnings (max £95 per day), travel to court at 45p per mile, and parking near the Court.

If it is ruled that the Claimant has behaved unreasonably, as in this case, the defendant can claim Additional Costs, which in this case were the lay rep's travel expenses.

Thanks Bargepole;

The "Punitive costs" was re-quoted from the Prankster's article; it sounds far better than "Additional costs".

Was there any reason why the defendant couldn't/didn't claim LIP costs at £19.00 per hour in preparing their defence?

bargepole

Castle wrote: »

Thanks Bargepole;

The "Punitive costs" was re-quoted from the Prankster's article; it sounds far better than "Additional costs".

Was there any reason why the defendant couldn't/didn't claim LIP costs at £19.00 per hour in preparing their defence?

The Prankster isn't always as pedantic as I am, and sometimes I have to give him a slap :rotfl:

I wasn't directly involved in that one, but I understand someone off-forum assisted with the defence, so she couldn't truthfully say she spent much time on it. But it's certainly a valid category of Additional Costs which could be claimed.

peter_the_piper

Pity the judge did not halt use of the anpr system until proven to be working correctly, then if it was proven and other cases of double dipping come up then the book could be thrown at them.