Victory against BW Legal!

ang77

Just wanted to post a huge 'THANK YOU' to all the contributors to these forums - without this online community it is unlikely that I would have stood my ground and gone to court.
BW Legal's sloppiness was the deciding factor - The photos of the car park attached to their defence were dated 17 September 2015 when the alleged offence took place prior to that date. The judge agreed that as such the claimant had not satisfied the court that the signage was adequate on the day in question especially as the nature of the car park was 'open' (Chorlton Square car park).
At least 2 x solicitors representing Excel at court.
We were approached whilst waiting and asked 'do you want to discuss the case?' - 'er no'.
Then witnessed the another solicitor approach a gentleman - He did not say he was for the other side just asked if they had their witness statement and could he see their evidence. I butted in at that point 'do you realise he is representing BW Legal?'
No they most certainly did not - they assumed he was some court official.
And again all of the claimants photographs were dated 12 September 2015.
So if you are arguing over signage check the dates on their evidence is prior to disputed date, watch out for their sharks prior to going into court and good luck.

beamerguy

ang77 wrote: »

Just wanted to post a huge 'THANK YOU' to all the contributors to these forums - without this online community it is unlikely that I would have stood my ground and gone to court.
BW Legal's sloppiness was the deciding factor - The photos of the car park attached to their defence were dated 17 September 2015 when the alleged offence took place prior to that date. The judge agreed that as such the claimant had not satisfied the court that the signage was adequate on the day in question especially as the nature of the car park was 'open' (Chorlton Square car park).
At least 2 x solicitors representing Excel at court.
We were approached whilst waiting and asked 'do you want to discuss the case?' - 'er no'.
Then witnessed the another solicitor approach a gentleman - He did not say he was for the other side just asked if they had their witness statement and could he see their evidence. I butted in at that point 'do you realise he is representing BW Legal?'
No they most certainly did not - they assumed he was some court official.
And again all of the claimants photographs were dated 12 September 2015.
So if you are arguing over signage check the dates on their evidence is prior to disputed date, watch out for their sharks prior to going into court and good luck.

well done you :T

BWLegal was no match for you

"BW Legal's sloppiness was the deciding factor"

Even with 2 solicitors they still manage to make a pigs ear of it.

The moral for everyone is never talk to a stranger before entering the court, they may be diseased

Pugnator

Great news.

Which court was this? And which Judge?

Coupon-mad

ang77 wrote: »

Just wanted to post a huge 'THANK YOU' to all the contributors to these forums - without this online community it is unlikely that I would have stood my ground and gone to court.
BW Legal's sloppiness was the deciding factor - The photos of the car park attached to their defence were dated 17 September 2015 when the alleged offence took place prior to that date. The judge agreed that as such the claimant had not satisfied the court that the signage was adequate on the day in question especially as the nature of the car park was 'open' (Chorlton Square car park).
At least 2 x solicitors representing Excel at court.
We were approached whilst waiting and asked 'do you want to discuss the case?' - 'er no'.
Then witnessed the another solicitor approach a gentleman - He did not say he was for the other side just asked if they had their witness statement and could he see their evidence. I butted in at that point 'do you realise he is representing BW Legal?'
No they most certainly did not - they assumed he was some court official.
And again all of the claimants photographs were dated 12 September 2015.
So if you are arguing over signage check the dates on their evidence is prior to disputed date, watch out for their sharks prior to going into court and good luck.

Well done - please tell us more and summarise your actual court experience for others, how it went from the moment it started, to how you felt when you won! Did you major only on signs or was the keeper defending about lack of keeper liability as well?

Did the other gentleman also win or don't you know?

Can you tell us the Court claim number date of decision and Judge - in fact if you are up for the case to be blogged for a wider audience, please can you let the Parking Prankster know about your case, maybe write a 'guest blog' like this sort of thing?

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/excel-parking-v-booth.html

Or is that your case?

ang77

Hi again
It was Manchester County Court - sorry but I can't remember the name of the female judge - it was a little daunting never having been in court before. We were redirected to 3rd floor court 12 and I was also thrown by the fact it was a proper court room with the judge sitting up high - I had expected it to be just a normal room. Excel's BW Legal solicitor was a timid little muslim woman - I suggest the same one that made an appearance in another recent court case mentioned on here. (The other Excel solicitor was a man about 30 who was wearing an extremely dirty suit - literally had holes in the collar - and no sorry I don't know the outcome of the other case - they were sent to a separate court). The court staff were lovely and the judge appreciated we didn't have a clue and she was very helpful in paraphrasing what I had said and asking if she had understood correctly. You asked me to say how I felt - a little nervous but actually just really glad that it was all about to be over one way or another. The gentleman in the other case had said 'they' had made his life hell for the last 2 years. I was glad that even if they won the net profit to Excel from my case would be reduced by me simply turning up in court. The proceedings began with their solicitor droning on and on, constantly saying 'if it please the court'. The only surprise was the production of a copy of a court decision dated 3rd December 2015 Combined Parking Solutions Ltd v AJH Films Ltd ( B2/2014/4255) - which they offered as evidence to support the registered keeper being responsible. The judge seemed a little put out that our defence contained 'everything but the kitchen sink' and asked what was our main argument - so I said signage. Chorlton Square Car Park for those who don't know has a road running through it - that looks like it is a public highway not part of a car park. I asked if she would look at 2 further pictures (from google maps - showing the view from Wilbraham Road - one showing the turning from this road and then another view from further along the road so you could see right through the car park. (I gather we should have submitted this before but again the judge was lenient). And I asked what was the relevance of all of Excel's photographs supporting signage if they were dated several months after the day of the alleged offence. Too much to remember - we were in court for an hour - but Judge summed up straight away and said that the burden of proof was on the claimant and by providing photographs dated after the relevant date and the 'open nature' of the car park she was not satisfied that BW Legal had proved that Excel's signage was sufficient. Felt absolutely marvellous:j:j:j

Redx

ha ha ha , an infamous car park that features a lot on here and on pepipoo too . apparently owned by tameside council and for some reason has a road through it as mentioned above (I havent been)

well done on winning at this awkward site

up yours EXCEL !!

looks like EXCEL dropped to the Combined Parking Solutions Ltd v AJH Films Ltd ( B2/2014/4255 argument when its clear they have failed on that other argument they were peddling Elliott v Loake [1982]