Excel/BW Legal - Defendant is not RK

Lamilad

Thanks to Bargepole for finding this out:

"Miss Devans-Tamakloe - Not listed as a solicitor or a barrister in the databases. Definitely challengeable on RoA, but be careful that the Judge doesn’t just adjourn the case."

[Deleted User]

elms legal

Lamilad

Well I'm guessing it didn't get struck out based on witness non attendance or RoA.

henrik777

If the RoA is successful, as it appears it should, you should ask the particulars of claim also be struck out as they are not signed in accordance with practice directions 7E & 22 and CPR 16 & 22

ElParque

Are you out celebrating, Matthew?

Matthew87

Ok, so.... Excel Parking Services v Matthew Pulford [C2DP20CZ] in Manchester.

I arrived nice and early, read the case listings (of which approx. 5 were Excel cases) and made my way to floor 5 where I signed in. I sat right next to the desk, so that I could hear who else signed in.

Miss Devans-Tamakloe, signed in as 'solicitor's agent' for a few of the Excel cases and disappeared around the corner. I searched the necessary databases, to see whether Miss D-T was an authorised person, but couldn't find her.

I was told my case had been allocated to DJ Hassell, on the 3rd floor and I had to make my way down, to sign in with the Usher.

I signed in, and Miss D-T immediately after. The Usher mentioned that Miss D-T was being called straight away for her first case (Excel v Dowie??), so I thought I'd seize the opportunity and ask who/what she was.

She was very nice, she reassured me and helped calmed my nerves. I played the swimming teacher who didn't have a clue. She stated she was a barrister, albeit unregistered. So blam... I wapped out the preliminary matters etc, and said I'd be raising it with the judge (beforehand via the usher) - my Preliminary Matters document is in my OneDrive, alongwith everything else: https://1drv.ms/f/s!AsLbpETb6Et3j3yADaebkkR-iXRW.

Then before she could respond, she got called in.

Excel v Dowie (??) seemed to take about 45 minutes. Mr Dowie and Miss D-T didn't give anything away upon leaving, but I caught Miss D-T saying something along the lines of "Well, that's the end of that" to Mr Dowie.

The Usher went straight in with my preliminaries, and I was called about 15 minutes later.

The Court was a massive room, with DJ Hassell sat higher up and myself and Miss D-T at either ends of a long desk - it felt very much like a 'proper' court room.

DJ Hassell began by getting what seemed like formalities out of the way, and then said something like:

"I have read your preliminary matters Mr Pulford, but want to enlighten you on reasons why I will deal with your case first, before dealing with Miss D-T's RoA. I need no further comment from you."

"The case that preceded yours, was in relation to the same Car Park... and I found in that case, the illumination of the signage, to be insufficient."

He asked Miss D-T what evidence she had to show of the signage on the day, to which she stated pages 7- 13 of BW's bundle. I asked the Judge if it was appropriate for me to counter, to which he accepted, and I pointed out that those images weren't of the night in question, but in June 2015, a different season altogether (I parked in December).

He asked for me to show my evidence of the night in question to him on my iPad (I had said I would, as my photo's weren't clear enough, as they were too dark to print!! Haha)

He asked Miss D-T if she had seen my photos (my WS or Exhibits), she said she hadn't. I said I had evidence of the fact that I'd sent them (email acknowledgements etc), but he suggested I show her the dark photo on my iPad anyway.

DJ Hassell said that he preferred my evidence of the inadequately illuminated signage, and that the Claimant had failed to prove therefore, that a contract was formed. Rather than go through all my arguments/defence points...

CLAIM DISMISSED!

He asked if there was anything further, to which I mentioned I'd like for him to consider my Schedule of Costs (in my OneDrive!). As I own my own Swim School, he asked what profit I had lost by being in Court (he wouldn't entertain the idea that I pay myself £X p/h to teach). I said that I had to pay another swimming teacher to teach on my behalf, and that was in excess of the £95 limit, hence why I was claiming the maximum.

He agreed to those ordinary costs, and then asked me about the 'unreasonable costs'. I said I could go into the details about how the Claimant had been unreasonable, but he said that he felt, taking everything into context, they hadn't acted unreasonably and refused them.

But still, ordinary costs were awarded of £118.

All-in-all, very pleased for this whole thing to be over

A massive thanks to everyone who has helped, both on and off forum.

Lamilad

Bloody well done! :j:T

A textbook performance - well prepared and well executed. Just goes to show, a forum assisted defendant who follows the advice, does the research, and the work, WILL prevail in court (bar the occassional looney Judge that we sometimes hear about).

You played this one perfectly, Matthew87; your case will be an example to others, hopefully you'll stick around and maybe help some of the newbies who are dreading their day in court.

Well done for getting costs - again, textbook! Unreasonable behaviour costs are really difficult to get, in fact, we very rarely see them awarded so don't worry about those. Enjoy your moment and celebrate with a good drink. :beer:

beamerguy

A massive well done Matthew:beer::beer:, had my fingers crossed for you today.

So Excel/BWLegal lost 2 cases, one after the other :rotfl:

Seems Miss Devans-Tamakloe is working for a company that fires blanks ..... BWLegal ?

Great report, do please stay around to help others:T

Between you, lamilad, coupon-mad and bargepole, not forgetting all the input from all the others, this forum is a force to worry about .... you know, for the scammers

The_Deep

Well done indeed, but I am still not clear about the RoA matter.

Matthew87

The_Deep wrote: »

Did Miss D Whatsit have ROA?

The Judge never went back to it (after mentioning that he'd come back to it right at the start! Haha)