BW Legal - HELP!

KeithP

You do not have to pay any fee. It is for the Claimant to pay that fee.

How is your Witness Statement coming along?
It looks like you have just six days left to finalise that together with getting all your evidence together.

As you know, all the information you need is in the NEWBIES thread - the second post in the NEWBIES thread

Groutledge90

Thanks KeithP, I have started the witness statement but I honestly don't have a legitimate reason as to why I did not pay for a parking ticket, I just forgot on the day and refuse to pay this crazy sum of money now so does half of the info in the newbies thread still apply to MY witness statement? Thanks

Coupon-mad

The claimant pays the fee.  You need to do a Witness statement, which the NEWBIES thread explains.  When you've re-read the NEWBIES thread section about WS stage and the red heading 'IMPORTANT - KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN', then go and read the two good WS bundle examples by @Nosy and @jryhs, which shows what to include and how it all looks.

You can do this.  Congrats on the new baby - welcome to this odd but loving world, little one!

Groutledge90

I did all the documents and sent them off in time.. i then had the documents from Napier Parking who have said I have copied and pasted from templates on money saving expert forums and that I am wasting time and money by going to court with them. They have picked my letter apart and as I have no real stable argument (like I said I jut forgot to pay the ticket originally, then the original fine was sent to a wrong address and by the time I got it at my correct address it was £180 which I refuse to pay!!) I have a feeling I'm going to get obliterated in this hearing and end up paying more than originally asked for because of their points and my lack of!! please help! any advise would be appreciated.

Le_Kirk

Absolutely not! Judges are aware of this nonsense from claimants.  One Judge even commented in a recent case, when he was told that the defendant had copied his defence "from the Internet"  So what!  Just ignore it and wait and see what a rubbish copied and pasted witness statement you get from them!

milo_2020

Le_Kirk said:

Absolutely not! Judges are aware of this nonsense from claimants.  One Judge even commented in a recent case, when he was told that the defendant had copied his defence "from the Internet"  So what!  Just ignore it and wait and see what a rubbish copied and pasted witness statement you get from them!

In my case which went against me the judge did acknowledge the internet part which BWLegal raised and said that it doesn't mean anything to him. (along with my entire defence lol)

patient_dream

Groutledge90 said:

I did all the documents and sent them off in time.. i then had the documents from Napier Parking who have said I have copied and pasted from templates on money saving expert forums and that I am wasting time and money by going to court with them. They have picked my letter apart and as I have no real stable argument (like I said I jut forgot to pay the ticket originally, then the original fine was sent to a wrong address and by the time I got it at my correct address it was £180 which I refuse to pay!!) I have a feeling I'm going to get obliterated in this hearing and end up paying more than originally asked for because of their points and my lack of!! please help! any advise would be appreciated.

Napier are living in the clouds ..... judges are only interested in facts and not stupid heresay and propaganda, just because their legal, BWLegal do copy and paste does not mean everyone does the same.  That comment  shows desperation

Judges take no notice of such stupidity as they know people need help in this mega scam

Why would you think you will be obliterated ???  I helped someone in court against BWLegal and they sent one of their "rent by hour" reps who did not have a clue and the judge obliterated him and awarded costs ...... another BWLegal failure
And a PS on that ..... the rep did mention copy and paste and that flew over the judges head like a bat out of hell

So ignore the Napier rubbish, sounds like they got that copy and paste letter directly from BWLegal

Your job now is to listen to the experienced posters here and go forth to obliterate Napier and BWLegal ... it's not that difficult especially when BWLegal are scamming you with fake amounta

Coupon-mad

But that's just a template letter. Everyone gets that.

When a local PPC at a court hearing where I was lay rep, tried to say that the Defendant's response was copied and pasted from an internet forum, the Judge retorted "So what?!"

You will not get higher charges than the claim unless you act unreasonably, such as not answering your phone to attend the hearing,  Attend and defend.

If you do lose the case, you surely already know how to argue against the false added 'costs' because we gave you all that in your defence.

Re-read it.  Know your arguments.

Groutledge90

patient_dream said:

Groutledge90 said:

I did all the documents and sent them off in time.. i then had the documents from Napier Parking who have said I have copied and pasted from templates on money saving expert forums and that I am wasting time and money by going to court with them. They have picked my letter apart and as I have no real stable argument (like I said I jut forgot to pay the ticket originally, then the original fine was sent to a wrong address and by the time I got it at my correct address it was £180 which I refuse to pay!!) I have a feeling I'm going to get obliterated in this hearing and end up paying more than originally asked for because of their points and my lack of!! please help! any advise would be appreciated.

Napier are living in the clouds ..... judges are only interested in facts and not stupid heresay and propaganda, just because their legal, BWLegal do copy and paste does not mean everyone does the same.  That comment  shows desperation

Judges take no notice of such stupidity as they know people need help in this mega scam

Why would you think you will be obliterated ???  I helped someone in court against BWLegal and they sent one of their "rent by hour" reps who did not have a clue and the judge obliterated him and awarded costs ...... another BWLegal failure
And a PS on that ..... the rep did mention copy and paste and that flew over the judges head like a bat out of hell

So ignore the Napier rubbish, sounds like they got that copy and paste letter directly from BWLegal

Your job now is to listen to the experienced posters here and go forth to obliterate Napier and BWLegal ... it's not that difficult especially when BWLegal are scamming you with fake amounta

Ok thanks guys, this gives me hope! Well the reason is because all the examples I've read, people seem to have a genuine case or reason for getting the fine in the first place (e.g. car broke down or something) I have NO reason, I just forgot to pay for a ticket! So i thought I might get told off for wasting courts time rather than just paying the fine originally or sorting it out with BW Legal (in the judges eyes maybe).

I have read over everything again as my hearing is tomorrow... this suspicious '£60' fee seems to crop up in many of my letters but all under different headings ('clients legal costs'/'debt recovery costs'/'instructions fees') so I'm going to go in at that angle (excel v wilkinson). They also defended me saying they were harassing me with letters by saying they've only sent 5... well I've counted 16 letters from April 2018 so that's already a lie and may help my defence?


Coupon-mad said:

But that's just a template letter. Everyone gets that.

When a local PPC at a court hearing where I was lay rep, tried to say that the Defendant's response was copied and pasted from an internet forum, the Judge retorted "So what?!"

You will not get higher charges than the claim unless you act unreasonably, such as not answering your phone to attend the hearing,  Attend and defend.

If you do lose the case, you surely already know how to argue against the false added 'costs' because we gave you all that in your defence.

Re-read it.  Know your arguments.

Okay thank you for the info. I think I do know but I will re-read to be sure anyway. I just can't wait for this to be over!!

Coupon-mad

If your stance is that you forgot to pay then you might well struggle in this case.

Do not put it like that.

Are you not saying that in fact you didn't pay because the signs and machines/payment methods were not prominent?  That's a more arguable defence reason for not paying because it's up to the parking firm to then show the signage was conspicuous and so was the payment machine and app instructions.

Does their evidence show not just stock photos of signs but a clear 'entrance sign' AND the conspicuous presence of machines and that the terms were all prominent and there to be seen?

Did you know that the pre-action protocol (PAP) is not there to be used by claimants to run up costs?

Did you know that the Select Committee wrote to the Government last month about the added false costs that parking firms blithely add?

The parking industry is about to be regulated this year and questions were asked about the £60 add-on that is now £70, that has been alleged by some consumer groups to be a price-fix not a price cap?

The Chair of the Select Committee was urging the Government to consider proportionality as regards the cost of what should by any reasonable interpretation and expectation be one or two template letters ONLY, perhaps a 'final demand' then LBC (clearly £70 and 16 letters plus calls and texts is disproportionate for a simple parking charge case re £100).

Did you know that 16 letters is excessive and that the pre-action phase is NOT an excuse to 'run up' costs and the pre-action protocol says as much?

And that the Claimant parking firm, Napier, has NOT even incurred such costs because the aggressive DRAs attached to this industry act on a 'no win no fee' basis.

I am saying all the above because Excel v Wilkinson is not a silver bullet.  Do not rely on it alone if you know you've lost.  Have the above points about the Select Committee and the PAP requirements for proportionality up your sleeve.

If the rep starts asking for his or her fee then object because that only comes into play if a party has acted wholly unreasonably.

Defending a case based on not seeing conspicuous signs us not unreasonable.  Even running a 'hopeless' defence is not unreasonable if the party had (as you do) an honest belief that their case was arguable.