Excel / BWLegal court rules against these bad boys and refers to Lamilad

beamerguy

BAD BOYS EXCEL AND BWLEGAL take another pounding

What part of "Elliott v Loake and CPS v AJH Films" that
BWLEGAL DO NOT understand ???

Even Mickey Mouse would understand

Mind you such rubbish is fully approved bY the SRA

Excel lose in Cardiff. Judge explains why Elliott v Loake and CPS v AJH films not relevant
Excel Parking Services Ltd v Mrs. Lynzi Evans
Judge: DJ McKay
Claim no: C8DP79CC in the Cardiff Civil Justice Centre.
Legal representative of BW Legal: Mr Singh

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/excel-lose-in-cardiff-judge-explains.html

Mr Singh appears again ?? is that a sensible thing for
BWLegal to do :rotfl:

pappa_golf

in every 10 cases they try that argument , 8 judges will be blind

beamerguy

pappa_golf wrote: »

in every 10 cases they try that argument , 8 judges will be blind

proving yet again that judges in county courts should be re-trained and bought up to speed regarding the scams and the motly
legals who take the p**s out of the courts

I guess right now that anyone could be a county court judge regardless of lack of knowledge

Lamilad

What part of "Elliott v Loake and CPS v AJH Films" that
BWLEGAL!DO NOT!understand ???

Genuinely astonished that they continue to rely on AJH films after the recent appeal judgement.

It would be a brave DJ or DDJ who accepted this argument and went against the judgement of a senior circuit judge. He or she would surely know that their judgement would be similarly reversed on appeal.

I think in all cases were AJH is relied on the defendant must push hard for additional 'unreasonable behavior' costs

torontoboy45

IT would be interesting to know the actual number of times BW excel have hoodwinked DJ's into accepting the Elliott v Loake/cps v ajh nonsense and under what circumstances. (Presumably, in cases where the defence is poor and no debunking of this rubbish is made; how could any half-decent DJ casually accept otherwise?).

beamerguy

The concern is that despite the judge saying that these two cases were not applicable, it went over the head of Mr Singh.
Mr Singh then continued

"Again, Mr Singh emphasised the importance of the judge adopting a pragmatic stance in accepting the two cases as proof of keeper liability."

Surely, the claimant should have withdrawn their claim once they realised that they couldn’t do this?
"Mr Singh was unable to provide an answer to this other than to state that he had only read through the paperwork the day before the hearing."

BWLegal and Mr Singh are a complete embarrassment to the legal system including the courts. Judges must be scratching their heads at the sheer incompetence.

A new wave of letters should start to the SRA asking one simple question ....

What are the SRA doing to protect the consumer from companies like BWLegal

pappa_golf

beamerguy wrote: »

The concern is that despite the judge saying that these two cases were not applicable, it went over the head of Mr Singh.
Mr Singh then continued

"Again, Mr Singh emphasised the importance of the judge adopting a pragmatic stance in accepting the two cases as proof of keeper liability."

Surely, the claimant should have withdrawn their claim once they realised that they couldn’t do this?
"Mr Singh was unable to provide an answer to this other than to state that he had only read through the paperwork the day before the hearing."

BWLegal and Mr Singh are a complete embarrassment to the legal system including the courts. Judges must be scratching their heads at the sheer incompetence.

A new wave of letters should start to the SRA asking one simple question ....

What are the SRA doing to protect the consumer from companies like BWLegal

the SRA are not there to protect consumers , has this not sunk in yet!

beamerguy

pappa_golf wrote: »

the SRA are not there to protect consumers , has this not sunk in yet!

Read the SRA principals (handbook) pappa
http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/sra-regulate/sra-regulate.page

Tell us what part you think voids the SRA from protecting
the consumer. They refer to "benefit the public interest"

When it comes to BWLegal protecting clients like Excel, the
handbook says it all

trisontana

The "pragmatic approach" should work both ways. If a motorist mis-types a registration number into a P&D machine, or if their tyre touches a line, or if they are few minutes over their allotted time, why aren't PPCs "pragmatic" in their approach to these heinous "crimes" ?