Evidence Submission

Loadsofchildren123

Good luck!

Romeo_

I did it, I won

Fruitcake

Romeo_ wrote: »

I did it, I won

I say, well done. :beer::j:T:beer::j:T

Guys_Dad

Romeo_ wrote: »

I did it, I won

Can't wait for the report !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Romeo_

Thanks! It is such a relief and I cant believe I won.

I was block booked for 10am but was told it could be in the afternoon. There was 14 excel cases scheduled for today, and the usher mentioned its one of the most shes witnessed, usually 10-12 every Monday. The wait was horrible with my emotions riding all over. One minute I was nervous, next minute I thought I cant wait to get in there to school them. You could spot out all the Bw Legal solicitors as they were all busy bodies, trying to look professional. We got notified just before 13:00 that they were breaking for lunch until 14:00 and then would allocate more of the cases. The usher mentioned that they might not even get through all of them today. I really didn't want to come back another day, also I don't have any holidays left for work. Luckily, we went in at just after 14:30 to see Judge Dignam.

Boy did the nerves kick in, I thought I was totally out of my depth. I passed my skeleton to both the judge and Bw legal rep. The judge did the usual background speech and then asked the Bw Legal rep to summarise her case. She spoke well, and generally seemed persuasive, until you realised she was just clutching at straws. She mentioned they are not relying on POFA and presuming I was the driver.

The judge started off slow and generally guided me at the beginning, asking me to confirm my personal details and what I had said in my WS. He asked me to confirm that my case was based around 2 points: 1) no keeper liability and 2) inadequate signage. He said we would start with signage first. Then turned to the claimant to ask her to argue her point. Well, the usual crap came out about how theres this many signs, grace period etc. Signage was something I hadn't really put much effort into as I was arguing I had no recollection of parking there. It was just something I added in to strengthen my case. My argument back was the signs are not clear and confusing with too much text, blue on yellow, quoting Martin Cutts. I then asked the judge to look at the Beavis sign compared to excels and that excels were not clear. The claimant then asked me questions re the signs. I thought id slipped up when I said whoever was driving didn't see the signs as they are inadequate, the judge quickly said "but you don't know that do you". The claimant got a bit excited at this and I quickly said "well it is a presumption, just like the presumption the claimant is making that I was the driver". I mentioned to the judge earlier that I have visited the peel centre before and I know it was roughly 2012 as I had my first car then, so roughly was that year. The claimant, again appearing excited asked me about this, saying did I abide by the rules of the car park when I parked there in 2012? I said I visited the peel centre, not that I parked there. Tesco is just across the road she quickly said "no further questions".

Now was my turn. I started by saying that the claimant is relying on the presumption that I, the registered keeper was the driver. I then, using my skeleton defence, attacked Eliott v Loake and Combine Parking Solutions Ltd v AJH films Ltd. I then referred them to my other points destroying Bw Legals WS using POFA, Lamilads case, H. Greenslade, and how vicarious liability does not apply. I then went on to talk about the validity of the claim and the judge interrupted me by saying, its not your strongest point. I took the hint and concluded that the claim is misconceived and without merit, and I ask you to dismiss the claim. We then went out for him to make judgement.

I felt like it was a 50/50 chance at this point, as I was expecting the judge to maybe engage Bw legal on points I made re no keeper liability. Somewhat in the approach Lamilads judge had. He was completely unbiased or showed no signs to suggest otherwise.

15 mins later we were back in. The judge summarised, and throughout I thought it was not going to go my way. He said ultimately the cases Bw Legal quoted to invoke keeper liability were completely irrelevant, and could not be considered like I had argued. He said therefore ultimately the claim is misconceived and I dismiss the claim....

I..was..shocked..I quickly asked for my schedule of costs and was awarded £95.66 which he told the Bw legal rep to pay within 14 days. She was out of that door so fast with her tail between her leg

I'm glad its all over though as I found the whole experience uncomfortable and stressful at times. I'm just glad I put the work in and stood up to them. Going off what I saw today, its a real shame other people don't either. Half of the defendants of the excel cases didn't even show. The Bw legal rep I was against was bragging to what I think was her boss, saying "were doing amazing, won them all up to now, having a great day, just 1 left" I said to my girlfriend "wait until she gets me"

Coupon-mad

Well Done!

I just posted congrats on your pepipoo thread too:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=108133

You played a blinder. Well worth the fight, with a bit of forum coaching.

What a shame people don't turn up or just lose, always sad to read that. How these parking firms and lawyers can sleep at night, ripping people off and railroading the unwary in court for huge sums and no actual case or right to any money, I have no idea.

Loadsofchildren123

And then they rely on those cases to claim they always win, which is a complete misrepresentation!

Lamilad

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

which is a complete misrepresentation!

Misrepresentation, misdirection, misuse of data, misconceived claims..... it's all in a days work for a PPC.

Brilliant news, Romeo, I already posted on your ppp thread too but well done again.

Just goes to show that Excel/VCS/BWL and their army of legally qualified agents cannot prevail against a well prepared defendant, armed with forum advice, and the will to fight.

Why can't they?..... because the innocent motorists has 'right' on their side... and the best solicitor in the world can't change that fact.