Excel BW again

sgtbanjo

I raised the issue of ROA at the beginning and the judge asked her what supervision she was under. She gave a reply about phoning BW several times a day or something. I wasn't fully versed in wether this was acceptable so I didn't challenge it further :-)

Judge asked her to remain in her chambers after we left too.

claretmad62

Hmmmmm.....worth looking into I think. For future cases....ours included.

beamerguy

sgtbanjo wrote: »

Sounds like the rep from BW was the same as I had today Ms. Devenster Macklow or something similar. She didn't look like she could be bothered to be there and has obviously done this a hundred times before as had the judge.

The Judge did most of the defending for me too and basically asked if the Claimant could prove the driver. When she said no - the claim was dismissed. The judge knew exactly what the situation was re AJH and EvL and just wanted to hear me say the right things about them being a criminal case and an Employer/Employee situation.

It must be so tedious for the judges!

So you won :T

I am sure the courts are seeing BWLegal and their reps as complete timewasters
Until sanctioned, BWLegal will continue to believe in their own rubbish and continue to waste the courts time

Probably one of the worse legal firms in the UK

sgtbanjo

Maybe but I put loads of work into this (it took over my life reading transcripts and forums into the early hours) and most of it was pointless.

If they can't prove the driver and haven't relied on POFA correctly, the Skipton judges are (rightly) just dismissing the claims. The judge even told the representative that they couldn't presume the driver and that the defendant was under no legal obligation to name the driver either.

The representative had about 6 sheets of A4 stapled together and I had a massive box of paper documents. Given the costs involved in both postage, printing and my time - I'd be reluctant to do it again.

Fingers crossed for your next case BTW!:o

beamerguy

sgtbanjo wrote: »

Judge asked her to remain in her chambers after we left too.

Interesting, this will no doubt go on court records and easily
accessed by judges around the country

claretmad62

I have to agree with you there...I spent an age putting the bundle together....as will most of us. Please don't get me wrong, the advice on here is massive and reassuring and I much prefer having the bundle than not. But I did think at the end, I'm not sure anyone has actually read anything ive written here.

beamerguy

claretmad62 wrote: »

I have to agree with you there...I spent an age putting the bundle together....as will most of us. Please don't get me wrong, the advice on here is massive and reassuring and I much prefer having the bundle than not. But I did think at the end, I'm not sure anyone has actually read anything ive written here.

I am sure you are right but until the courts get rid of these
dodgy legals and make them prove their wild claims before a hearing, it's a job that has to be done.

There is always the chance that you come up against a judge
who is not up to speed, and there are a few around

I am certain that dodgy legals like BWLegal and Gladstones
are being carefully monitored by the courts

Umkomaas

Maybe but I put loads of work into this (it took over my life reading transcripts and forums into the early hours) and most of it was pointless.

This is the iniquity of the situation. The PPC can throw a small £25 pebble into the pond, leaving the motorist to try to then calm a tsunami, because if they don't (via copious research, drafting and submitting accurate and legally sound paperwork) they face either stumping up (unfairly) a £300+ default judgment charge, or shelling out a £255 set aside fee.

British justice at its finest.

Coupon-mad

Sums it up, Umkomaas.

More people should throw their own £25 pebbles at the scumbags. If everyone did, some specific (smaller, or useless) parking firms would actually go out of business.