Excel BW again

claretmad62

Just arrived for 12 kick off....no one here yet from other side....that I can see. Feeling a ltitle calmer now.

Umkomaas

We're with you all the way - in thoughts and in spirit.

claretmad62

So, we won...which is just a great feeling.
I thought we were in trouble at one point, as Judge Wright seemed rather bemused by my defence...as I had an inkling she may be. So of course as others have said on here, she took very little notice of what I had put in my WS as I was attempting to add more evidence to my argument that wasn't included in my intial (poor) defence. Now the strange thing is, she was ok with me being the Lay Rep. However what my Wife & I were not expecting was that they would continue to ask her questions and not point them to me. I hadn't prepared her for this, and she wasn't sure what to answer. We somehow managed to get through it, once we confirmed that neither us were driving (both on insurance) she then asked the Solictior...(think she called herself a Barrister when she introduced herself to us outside the room) what she was relying on given she didn't know the identity of the driver. I was preying she would bring up EL v Loake & CPS v AJH....and she did. I could see JW face as this came out, and could tell that it had pretty much rubber stamped a dismissal for the claimant. It really didn't last long at all, so in a way my poor defence brought about a quick decision. Sorry didn't get the other parties name, she was a very tall dark girl, with a very strange name if the lady on door is anything to go by...she just couldn't get it right. JW shot down my Costs layout, thought Id followed a template that was pretty much used by everybody, we got half of what I put in...but to be truthful it was never about making money out of it. So I'm sorry, not much in the way of real depth, as I say it was over in no time & my wife was very tearful and a tad angry with me that I hadn't warned her what was coming. I've learned quite a bit from today, biggest thing is to assume nothing & make sure you can back up the info you have supplied. I know I said it many times before, but heartfelt thanks to all of you for your help. My 2nd one is following fast on the heals of this, big difference this time is I feel I have a better defence. So if you don't mind..I will still be asking questions.

Umkomaas

Yay - great result. Well done you! :j:T

Thanks for updating us - it certainly gives me a lift when I see someone we've got to know well (in a virtual sense) overcomes the sc@mmers.

A small snifter tonight I suspect? :beer: Probably more likely claret than beer?

beamerguy

made my day ..... congrats :j:j:j

what on earth is wrong with these muppets to keep on using
EL v Loake & CPS v AJH

How many more times must this disgraceful incompetent legal firm
be told about this.
BWLegal are serious timewasters for the courts

Anyway, well done, it's all over now.

As far as to why they keep using EL v Loake & CPS v AJH,
best answer on the back of a postage stamp and post it to a
third world country

Don't forget to tell the parking prankster.

Another whooping for excel / bwlegal ....... next please

Loadsofchildren123

well done, what a relief for you!

Coupon-mad

Yay, well done! A win is a win, and they dug their own hole trying to assume who was driving and throwing Elliott v Loake and CPS v AJH Films at it (a bad move by the solicitor's rep).

Lamilad will be so pleased for you!

beamerguy

I wonder how much longer BWLegal will continue with the
"Elliott v Loake and CPS v AJH Films" rubbish

IT IS PURE RUBBISH and now cases can be referred to where judges
tell BWLegal they are wrong.

Loadsofchildren123

Madhatter752 has one in court next week where they are relying on AJH Films and EvL. It's VCS. They and BW Legal know full well that EvL and AJH have been rubbished but continue to rely on it in the hope that a hapless Defendant won't know better, or that they will get a stupid judge. There are still judges finding that EvL or AJH apply - there was a judge last week who held that under the law of agency the keeper was liable (although the case was won on another point).
There's nothing that we can do other than plod on. I've seen suggestions of complaints to the SRA but I honestly wouldn't waste my breath on a complaint, it won't go anywhere.

beamerguy

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

Madhatter752 has one in court next week where they are relying on AJH Films and EvL. It's VCS. They and BW Legal know full well that EvL and AJH have been rubbished but continue to rely on it in the hope that a hapless Defendant won't know better, or that they will get a stupid judge. There are still judges finding that EvL or AJH apply - there was a judge last week who held that under the law of agency the keeper was liable (although the case was won on another point).
There's nothing that we can do other than plod on. I've seen suggestions of complaints to the SRA but I honestly wouldn't waste my breath on a complaint, it won't go anywhere.

It is however interesting to read what claretmad62 said above
regarding the introduction of EvL and AJH

"I could see JW face as this came out, and could tell that it had pretty much rubber stamped a dismissal for the claimant."

Surely the courts have tagged this particular rubbish by BWLegal ?