My Witness Statement is due

safarmuk

Well done @ElParque ... great job. Have a beverage of your choice (on the PPC) and I look forward to reading your full write up in due course.

Am so glad the last minute AJH Films wobble didn't cause any problems for you. Kudos to Johnersh for seeing the post in time and responding quickly. Shame we can't have a known case rebuttal sticky ....

DJ Manasse seems like one of the very good, clued up DJ's.

Please do stick around the forum if you can, your experience will be invaluable for the flood of people who come on here with their first LBC or MCOL. Having been through it you will be able to set their minds at ease.

EDIT - I would also remove your mobile number from post #76 when you come back on here.

[Deleted User]

*blushes* solicitor as it happens. Pour yourself a beer that man, though, it was your persistence and advocacy that won it for you.

Lamilad

MASSIVE thanks to the clever, caring and knowledgeable people on here; especially to Lamilad, (even though he shouted at me)

Superb News El Parque, another fine example of someone who put in the time & effort, did the research, followed the advice and got the result. Great stuff!

Re: Above, I assure you I wasn't shouting at you. Context is sometimes lost in written communication, no offence was intended. I think your RoA thread is actually a very useful addition to the forum.

It's been a rough week for Excel and BWL, There was Matthew87's case on Tue (+the one prior to his hearing), you today, and another case today in Liverpool involving VCS, which I lay rep'd on (will post details later). All in all a costly and very unproductive week for SR-S (his poor cat will get a good kick tonight)

Get ready to hit them again. If they haven't paid up within 14 days, go back to court the next day and apply for a Warrant of Control. This will result in County Court Baliffs attending their premises and demanding payment in full or they will take possession of goods to the value. It costs £110 which is added to Excel's bill.

Well done. Looking forward to your full report - after you've had a drink, of course! :beer:

Umkomaas

Excellent news. Pity the Prankster seems to be taking a bit of a sabbatical. It would be good to see him blog about this win (and the others as above).

safarmuk

@Lamilad, here is another BWL/Excel one that just popped up on the forum.
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5644272

Not sure if this is the one you were the lay rep for? If not that is four this week.

trisontana

Was the question raised about the Elms Rep's qualifications and if they could actually and legitimately be there in court? Other judges have sent them packing for not being qualified as Elms are not a legal firm, just a bunch of debt collectors.

Lamilad

safarmuk wrote: »

@Lamilad, here is another BWL/Excel one that just popped up on the forum.
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5644272

Not sure if this is the one you were the lay rep for? If not that is four this week.

No that's a different case :j That actually makes 5, as Matthew87 commented that there was an Excel case before his (nothing to do with the forums) that he's sure was found for the defendant.

safarmuk

@Lamilad, here is another BWL/Excel one that just popped up on the forum.
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5644272

Not sure if this is the one you were the lay rep for? If not that is four this week.
Originally posted by safarmuk
”No that's a different case That actually makes 5, as Matthew87 commented that there was an Excel case before his (nothing to do with the forums) that he's sure was found for the defendant

.
Excellent that is 5 then as I remember Matthew87 saying that the case in before him took 45 minutes but the judge that heard his case said that preceeding case was in the exact same location and was won on poorly illuminated signs that prevented a contract being formed.

So this week we have:
* The one before Mathew87
* Mathew87
* El Parque
* The one I provided a link to
* The one you were lay rep for (look forward to reading that)

That's a grand in advocate fees right there ...

Don't want to be that cat today.

ElParque

Got to court early and met Ms Amber M from Elms Legal. I'd decided to not go down the RoA objection route because I wasn't sure of the law and I didn't want to start off on a bad foot with the judge. An experienced litigant would have had a good chance of stopping her appearing I'm sure. She was a nice kid; friendly. We talked about the case whilst we waited to go in to court. I felt like I'd told her too much of my case but it may have induced her into telling me more than she should have. She told me that she was going to rely on CPS v AJH films Ltd.

The case started with the DJ telling us that he thought this was a very unusual case because though it predated POFA the claimant was claiming the keeper was liable. He said he'd never come across such a case and he'd dealt with many PCN cases. He then asked Amber to state her case. When she mentioned keeper and driver liability in relation to the AJH Films case, he looked aghast and asked her if she was seriously trying to say that an owner could be responsible for the actions of a driver! She made some other pretty irrelevant points. I felt I could have picked off all her points.

It was going well and I hadn't yet spoken!

Next the DJ asked me to sit in the witness box and expand on my defence. I reiterated the argument against AJH Films but he'd made the same points and strangely, (or not) he'd used the same form of words I had written down from a post on this forum! So, I felt that either he's a member of this board or maybe he did his research on here!

I don't think I did that well. I was a bit all over the place and didn't read much of the stuff I had intended to. I mentioned signage and the witness statement signed by the landowner's employee.

The DJ then asked Amber if she'd like to question me. She went on for ages asking some frankly daft and irrelevant questions which didn't seem to lead anywhere nor intended to establish anything. She asked me who was driving the car. I told her a family member. She asked who exactly and suggested that not telling the court might prejudice my case and that it wasn't fair that her client didn't have that info (she didn't use the word 'fair' but that was the implication). I told her it wasn't my job to help Excel and I wasn't going to sacrifice my child in order to help my case.

I then sat back down. The DJ asked Amber if she wanted to say anything else. She waffled a bit. He then turned to me and said it wasn't necessary for me to say anything more.

He then gave his judgment. He said he was going to assume the signage was ok and that the contract was ok but he was convinced I wasn't the driver, the claimant hadn't established that I should be liable (because of AJH Films) so he was dismissing the case.

I asked for £300 costs (£200 for unreasonable behaviour). He said they hadn't been unreasonable. He allowed £97.70. Amber asked for 21 days to pay. I acceded to that request and the judge said that was very decent of me!

That was it. I ran back to my car which I'd parked in an ALDI car park which had cameras and a big sign saying 180 minutes maximum for shoppers or a £90 fine. Quickly went into Aldi to buy some things I didn't need and went home!

I've got some thoughts about my case and similar ones which maybe I'll share at some point (but not in this thread. That's not meant to sound grand!).. Being in court did crystalize the process for me. I think I could be of some help to others who are going through a similar situation.

All in all, it was a good day out. I actually enjoyed the court experience. I don't think I was very good but the judge was and it was an easy case for a defendant.

<Phew>

Coupon-mad

Brilliant, I am loving all these court reports flying in at the moment!