County Court Business Centre Claim Form via BW LEGAL

Coupon-mad

From this point on, I have only received correspondence regarding 1 of the 2 cases, so I assume my local county court are only proceeding with 1 of them for the time being. 

Dangerous assumption and why would you do that?   I went back to read post #1 and saw you have two claims, same car park, same facts. 

That is NOT ON.

You don't want two claims, two hearings, and possibly two conflicting decisions ruining and dominating your year, all because you didn't tell this Judge who reads your WS that there are two (carbon copy facts) claims in play, wasting the court's time and causing you extra distress and unnecessary costs, contrary to the CPR1 overriding objective.

We have wording for you to include in your Witness Statement about Henderson v Henderson and cause of action estoppel.  Search the forum.

Are you now confident as to why these NTKs are non-POFA?  Can you recount the law to the Judge and persuade him/her?

Fruitcake

earth_moon626 said:

@Fruitcake .... eyes of a hawk!! That's brilliant! Thanks so much for looking into this so deeply. 
Well I have literally spent ALL day on this.. feeling quite confident now especially thanks to your input @Fruitcake. You really do just have to give it your full attention and then it's not scary anymore. Thanks everyone. 
Here is my updated and way more badass WS & Evidence for your review if you can, 
afew questions too.. am I able to use a stock image to show example signage placement or should I only use my own images? 
Also, should I include:

• the full schedule 4 of PoFA or can I assume they will know this? Just aware its another 12 pages to add to a long doc
• Henry Greenslades Popla report 2015 
• BPAs Code of Practice or is it just ok to have quoted this

Thanks! 

You need to do a proof read for spilling and ghrandma errors. "Visable" and "ledgible" for egg-sample need addressing.

Para 15, implies that you were driving. "No authorised driver's reported finding a NTD affixed to the car" or similar might be better. Also, "Had the PCN been handed to me I would have appealed it" or perhaps, "Had I been aware of this NTD ..." might be better.

Para 21, you need to state this was an appeal court case and thus persuasive on the lower courts, and quote the case number.

Para 23 needs to refer to S43 of the CA 2006. You also need to say that express authority from the company owner or director or company secretary has not been provided, nor has implied authority been provided within the company's Articles of Association.

Para 27, needs an apostrophe, (person's signature, not persons).


You need to state that this case can be distinguished from the Beavis case because there the parking company paid the landowner to operate and therefore acted as if they were the landowner. In addition it was a retail park, not a residential site.

You need to attack the fake add on costs with the wording from the sticky thread concerning court cases where the add-ons have been applied. That thread refers to the PoFA, three specific paragraphs in the Beavis case, and the Consumer Rights Act.
Debt collectors work on a no-win, no-fee basis, so you aver that the claimant has not actually incurred any debt recovery costs.

I can't see where you have said the contract does not permit the claimant to issue court claims. It only mentions (debt) collections.

Exhibit 3 is not an entrance sign. You need to highlight where this sign is and why it can't be seen.

The BPA CoP Version 6 covers signage so that version should be quoted with regards to entrance sign requirements, with images to show the site was not compliant.

As a matter of interest, are any of the signs shown in their/your WS still in place today because the scammers are now IPC members, not BPA.

beamerguy

Fruitcake said:

Methinks Ismail doth not understand the strict requirements of the PoFA 2012.
Perhaps he is using a template witness statement despite his comments signed under a statement of truth.

I suggest you are right.  Ismail has signed the statement of truth that the sign shows the fake £60, which it does not, and Ismail provides proof of that with the picture in the statement.

Another "left hand, right hand" problem which seems to be how BWLegal operate

Not sure which court the OP will select but if it's Truro, that is a graveyard for BWL

BWL must now understand that this is a very dodgy WS

earth_moon626

Thanks all, yes @Coupon-mad I had two claims made against me however since transferring to my local court they seem to be only processing one. But i guess you're right and I should expect it to be dredged back up again at some point if not dealt with so I will edit my WS and mention the other claim. 

@Fruitcake thanks again! I will make this edits today. Looking forward to getting this sent off! 

Guys, should I be concerned about any of the material I have posted here being used against me in court? Would it be best to remove the docs I uploaded or any of the evidence photos? 

Thanks again! 

earth_moon626

Thanks @Umkomaas , I'll include then. Yes checked I'm using the right BPA CoP for reference. 

Coupon-mad

earth_moon626 said:

Thanks all, yes @Coupon-mad I had two claims made against me however since transferring to my local court they seem to be only processing one. But i guess you're right and I should expect it to be dredged back up again at some point if not dealt with so I will edit my WS and mention the other claim. 

Henderson v Henderson and 'cause of action estoppel'.  Copy the wording from a similar case by searching.

Le_Kirk

earth_moon626 said:

Guys, should I be concerned about any of the material I have posted here being used against me in court? Would it be best to remove the docs I uploaded or any of the evidence photos? 

Since you are going to be sending the docs and evidence to the court and the claimant, I see no difference, although they may (if they are that bothered or diligent) have sight of it slightly sooner by scouring the forums.

Fruitcake

The general comments from judges when a scammer whinges about a defendant using the internet for research is, "So what?"

nosferatu1001

You MUST find out about the other claim! Bonkers to just let it be. 

earth_moon626

Thanks again all, I have made all the amendments including notifying them of the second claim that is yet to have been addressed and have sent off this morning via email to the court and BWL. Thanks for all the support, lets see what happens next! My letter from the court about the hearing says I must ring them the working day before the hearing to see if it will go ahead.. is this usual? The letter reads; 
PLEASE NOTE
This case is listed behind another case which means that it will not necessarily go ahead if the other case is effective. Please contact the County Court between 4 and 4.30pm the working day before the hearing to check if and when your case will proceed.