BW Legal for VCS county court claim

Djdamo

Thanks beamerguy, I'm familiar with the case involving Lamilad and them referencing comments on here and was wondering if they've done the same here too.

beamerguy

Djdamo wrote: »

Thanks beamerguy, I'm familiar with the case involving Lamilad and them referencing comments on here and was wondering if they've done the same here too.

Who knows but decent judges will take little notice
especially with the reputation they have built up with courts
which is not clever

Djdamo

I have their response to the defence. can i post screenshots here? They are referencing the case Combined Parking Solutions Ltd v AJH Films Ltd regarding not giving the drivers details.

beamerguy

Djdamo wrote: »

I have their response to the defence. can i post screenshots here?

With now 42 posts, yes you can.

Best to upload to a free site and show the link here

Djdamo

Link to 1st page
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1m7yrDj3vYqaVEKedWMqyyT2SDFDs3Ts3

2nd page
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1KuzJ3BNb-kirE3g57obIuWvRIl1cqeLS

3rd page
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1hj37UTNIU3OjjYpq737DP6FQAWAGESg8

Djdamo

Ive also realised that the address of the car park they refer to is 200 meters away from where the car was parked, as identified by their documents, and not the car park i assumed the car had been parked outside of.

beamerguy

Djdamo wrote: »

Link to 1st page
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1m7yrDj3vYqaVEKedWMqyyT2SDFDs3Ts3

2nd page
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1KuzJ3BNb-kirE3g57obIuWvRIl1cqeLS

3rd page
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1hj37UTNIU3OjjYpq737DP6FQAWAGESg8

They are unreal ........ they have been told countless
times by the courts that CPS v AJH Films is not relevant
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5672664/bwlegal-the-list-of-failures-growing&highlight=bwlegal+the+list

What part of "not relevant" don't they understand ?????

Quoting Beavis yet again ???? That is not relevant either

Who on earth writes these BWLegals letters .... YAWN YAWN

Djdamo

I've had a redraft and amended some points. I'm still unsure what i should be writing regarding the keeper not being the driver, their documentation has picked this up.



IN THE COUNTY COURT - Claim No.: xxxxxxx

Between

Vehicle Control Services Ltd (Claimant)
vs
xxxxxxx (Defendant)

____________________________

WITNESS STATEMENT
__________________________

I, ****************** of **************, *********, ***********, **** *** am the defendant in this case.

1. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge they are true to the best of my information and belief.

2. I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as already filed.

3. I assert that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in this case. I was not the driver.

4. The vehicle registration xxxxxxx was not parked in any car park in SA1 on Sunday 5th June 2016 as claimed by the claimant. I include a copy of the original NTK, obtained through a SAR as the original was not left on the vehicles windscreen at the time of the alleged breach, (Exhibit A) which on the rear has a hand drawn map clearly showing the vehicle parked on Langdon Road directly outside the entrance to a car park located on Langdon road and not in the car park located at Swansea Waterfront SA1, A14 Kings Road Swansea, SA18QY as claimed. In the text box below the drawing there is a free text box where the parking attendant has written that the vehicle stopped and parked on the road. It also goes on to refer to the driver as ‘him’ and ‘he’. I also include a copy of my original appeal letter (Exhibit that the claimant has written notes regarding the case. These notes again state that the vehicle was parked on the road and refer to the driver as ‘him’ and ‘he’. I also include a Google maps image identifying where the car was parked and the location of the “Car Park’ (Exhibit C).

5. Langdon Road which is where the vehicle has been identified as being parked using the claimants own documents as above is under Swansea City Control according to the Swansea SA1 Waterfront Traffic Regulation Order Scheme which came into effect on Friday 19th May 2014, document WJ205 (Exhibit D). This land isn't relevant as defined in The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and therefore keeper liability cannot be claimed. The claimant is not the landowner nor have a contract for the location the vehicle was parked.

6. Regarding the letter dated 31/07/2018 from BW Legal which highlights the contravention type as ‘Parked in a restricted area of the car park’ (Exhibit E). Point 3 makes reference to your client being contracted to manage and enforce private parking at the private land known as the Swansea Waterfront SA1, A14 Kings Road Swansea, SA18QY (the ‘Car Park’) which is leased to DT C Technical Solutions Limited and therefore the Landowner. The claimant is contracted by the landowner to enforce the agreed terms and conditions which are contained on the signage throughout the car park which are accepted upon entering the ‘Car Park’. However as identified in point 4 using exhibit A, B & C, the vehicle was not parked in the ‘Car Park’ at Kings Road nor entered the ‘Car Park’ your client is alleged to be contracted to enforce parking restrictions. In fact the vehicle was parked, as identified in point 4, on Langdon Road, a public highway, which is currently owned by the Welsh Government and under Swansea City control as identified in point 5 and Exhibit D. The location of where the vehicle was parked is approximately 200 meters away from the car park the claimant is contracted to.

7. Regarding exhibit E, point 6 states that the terms and conditions were accepted upon entering the ‘Car Park’ however as identified in point 4 and exhibit A,B & C, the vehicle did not enter nor park in the ‘Car Park’ at Kings Road therefore no terms and conditions were accepted or breached.

8. No attempt was made by the claimant to provide suitable information or evidence of this alleged breach despite my direct request on appeal dated 17/08/2016 (Exhibit ??) following the 1st NTK received through the post dated 06/08/2016 (Exhibit ??), which was with the 28 day period to lodge an appeal and acknowledged by the claimant on 20/09/2016 (Exhibit ??). It was in this acknowledgement the claimant stated they would have a decision on the appeal by 12/10/2016. The next letter the claimant sent was dated 08/02/2017 stating I did not submit my appeal in time (Exhibit H).

Castle

Djdamo wrote: »

6. Regarding the letter dated 31/07/2018 from BW Legal which highlights the contravention type as ‘Parked in a restricted area of the car park’ (Exhibit E). Point 3 makes reference to your client being contracted to manage and enforce private parking at the private land known as the Swansea Waterfront SA1, A14 Kings Road Swansea, SA18QY (the ‘Car Park’) which is leased to DT C Technical Solutions Limited and therefore the Landowner.

According to Companies House there is no such company called DT C Technical Solutions Ltd, although there's a company called DT Technical Solutions Ltd:-
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07197277

Djdamo

Thanks Castle, I'll include this information in the same point.