BW Legal for VCS county court claim

Djdamo

Is there a way to find out if a claim has been discontinued? Or is it just a waiting game?

beamerguy

Djdamo wrote: »

Is there a way to find out if a claim has been discontinued? Or is it just a waiting game?

simply phone the court

Djdamo

It's been a while but I received notification of a court date for November 2nd.

As a recap, the defendant was not the driver on the day of the alleged parking offence. The vehicle was not parked in their car park as stated on all correspondence received from the claimant. The road is under local council control since a TRO was issued in 2014.

The case is now at the witness statement stage. As the defendant was not the driver, does that mean the witness statements just need to come from the driver and the person they were meeting? Or are these just a further two statements as evidence, and a witness statement from the defendant is still required?

Quentin

Yes. Defendant sends WS

Djdamo

Thanks, found the link on the second post for an example, missed it before.

Djdamo

Starting to put the Witness statement together, not sure if I'm detailing too much here? can someone give me any pointers please?

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 there 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.
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 the car park and not in the car park as claimed. In the text box below the drawing there is a free test 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 you have been using to make notes of 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 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 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. 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 E) following the 1st NTK received through the post dated 06/08/2016 (Exhibit F), which was with the 28 day period to lodge an appeal and acknowledged by the claimant on 20/09/2016. 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.

7. Regarding your letter dated 31/07/2018 which highlights the contravention type as ‘Parked in a restricted area of the car park’ and was in response to my defence, you point out that your client manages and enforces 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 carpark which are accepted upon entering the ‘Car Park’. However as identified in point 4 using exhibit A and B, the vehicle was not parked nor entered the ‘Car Park’ your client is alleged to be contracted to enforce parking restrictions.

KeithP

Remember, you are writing to the court.

There are several mentions of 'you' and 'your' which are clearly referencing the Claimant - in para 4, and repeatedly in para 7.


In para 5 you say "This land isn't relevant and therefore keeper liability cannot be claimed."

That is perhaps a little too brief and maybe better written as:
"This land isn't relevant land as defined in The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and therefore keeper liability cannot be claimed."

Do you need to then go on to say somehow that the keeper wasn't the driver, if that's the case? You certainly seem to be hinting at that by mentioning "the driver as ‘him’ and ‘he’." in para 4.

Djdamo

Excellent, thanks Keith. I've anmended references to claimant.

I wasn't exactly sure how to bring in the point that the keeper wasnt the driver. In their response to the defence they state that I've made an allegation that the keeper wasn't the driver and to supply the information however up until now there's nothing in the defence that states that. Are they clutching due to the fact of him and he being referenced in their documentation?

DoaM

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

Proof-read, proof-read then proof-read again. And get someone else to do it too.

beamerguy

Djdamo wrote: »

Are they clutching due to the fact of him and he being referenced in their documentation?

They will clutch on every word so you must be careful

However, what they clutch at and what they understand
are two different things.

A while ago, one of our members Lamilad, had a couple
of cases running where BWLegal were involved.

He thrashed them in the first case and in the second case, they
made reference to words used on MSE.
BWLegal got very mixed up because the words were used
in the first case shown on MSE.
Lamilad thrashed the second case as well with BWLegal

Unlike real solicitors, BWLegal are only a robo claim outfit
who probably skim read info given to them by the PPC ?

SO, be professional and remember they read this forum

I do hope you read this .....
BWLegal - the list of failures growing
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5672664&highlight=bwlegal+the+list