Claim Form Originating from bwlegal and Britannia parking

Coupon-mad

Am I right in thinking I need to submit my claim for costs a couple of days prior the hearing?
I've looked at what can be claimed for, have I missed anything?:

Due to the nature of my work, I can only take holiday in blocks of 7 days, not single days. So I've had to take 7 days off to ensure I am free for the hearing. I intend to claim for this whole week.

Yes that's right, but you can only claim these larger amounts rarely, if you convince the Judge after winning, that the Claimant as acted wholly unreasonably in the litigation.

So you will also need a crib list as to how you will argue unreasonableness which is a very high bar. Things like lies and misleading evidence?

Not saying don't try. I would put in a large costs schedule if it were me! Nothing to lose.

avem1

Cheers Castle and thanks for posting that link, and yes thanks again Coupon Mad (my apologies for using the wrong name earlier!) for going through my Witness Pack and for the advice you have given.

avem1

If you get this Castle and Coupon...
In the link you gave me (Castle) to the almost identical case at the same car park, I saw you wrote:
Jones Lang Lassalle are not the Landowner (re the 'contract'). Could you tell me who they are and also who the landowner actually is?

Hearing is imminent so just also looking at points for claiming unreasonable conduct when claiming my costs (which are fairly substantial).
I only sent my costs to the court. Should I have sent them to Claimant too?

Many thanks

Castle

avem1 wrote: »

If you get this Castle and Coupon...
In the link you gave me (Castle) to the almost identical case at the same car park, I saw you wrote:
Jones Lang Lassalle are not the Landowner (re the 'contract'). Could you tell me who they are and also who the landowner actually is?

Based on this link it would appear to be jointly owned by Hammerson and GIC (a Singapore investment company):-
https://www.hammerson.com/property/shopping-centres/westquay/

Coupon-mad

Hearing is imminent so just also looking at points for claiming unreasonable conduct when claiming my costs (which are fairly substantial).

If you have the same lies in their WS as in the linked case, then take a list with you!

See my reply and Castle's reply to that poster last week, which exposed the misleading rubbish they've signed under a statement of truth. There are actual LIES there about liability and the wrong version of the Code of Practice (unforgivable, tantamount to fraud, you can say) for which there is no reasonable explanation, therefore the CPRs allows costs on the indemnity basis to send out a message to the Claimant not to repeat this vexatious conduct.

Oh, and here is how to argue for costs on the INDEMNITY basis for unreasonableness:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6001157/ukcpm-gladstoned

Post #9 there. They got £700 but it's a high bar to meet. Set your sights on it!
Your list of unreasonable conduct might even be longer, go to town on it, you need to.

avem1

I won!

Not long got back from the court.
I will post a full debrief when I get a chance but suffice to say it was a very short hearing with the judge picking up straight away that 'Britannia Parking Limited'- the Claimant, was a dormant company as per my WS and had no standing to bring a claim. The judge had looked this up herself this morning on companies house website.
A legal rep was present for Britannia, and was asked to account for this and also explain the "contract" which was unlike anything the judge had seen before re parking companies. Judge also mentioned that the name of the landowner was redacted and also that Britannia parking Services and Britannia parking group limited were not the claimant and again asked the rep to respond to this.
All the poor woman representing Britannia could say was the WS para 9 and 10 accounted for this at which point the judge said "but that is referring to the claimant" who is not the same.

Judge then said this is going to be a very short hearing on this basis alone. She also said I had stated this in my Defence and WS and given the claimant plenty of time to examine but they had not and ruled in my favour on this point alone......I didnt even get to show my nice photos and videos of woeful signage!

Judge then accepted the claimant had been unreasonable and would award me costs which came to approx £320 (10% of what I was claiming for but i wasnt going to argue!).....including the £1 I claimed for parking at the retail centre (which the judge made a point of stating) when I went back to do my evidence gathering.

Judge told legal rep that they couldnt even get the right name for the claimant and they needed to tidy up their act.
Judge Chedgy was very pleasant and helped explain a few things to me at the start as I was not legally qualified.

Like I said, when I get some time I will post a full version of events etc but just wanted to let you guys know.

Castle

avem1 wrote: »

I won!

Not long got back from the court.
I will post a full debrief when I get a chance but suffice to say it was a very short hearing with the judge picking up straight away that 'Britannia Parking Limited'- the Claimant, was a dormant company as per my WS and had no standing to bring a claim. The judge had looked this up herself this morning on companies house website.

Well done: it just proves the lack of due diligence carried out by BW Legal.

Le_Kirk

Brilliant result - good for you!

Coupon-mad

Hooray - which court was Judge Chedgy at?

Can't wait to read more, if there is more to add.

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

We must remember to tell newbies to include this in Britannia Defences all the time the Claimant is shown as 'Britannia Parking Limited':

I will post a full debrief when I get a chance but suffice to say it was a very short hearing with the judge picking up straight away that 'Britannia Parking Limited'- the Claimant, was a dormant company as per my WS and had no standing to bring a claim.

The judge had looked this up herself this morning on companies house website.

Umkomaas

Excellent win. Well done.

Hopefully this will make Britannia sit up and realise that what BWL might be offering in terms of actual court representation could be more risky to them than to the Defendant.