BW Legal - HELP!

Groutledge90

Coupon-mad said:

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.

Thank you! I will look into these this morning ready and have them in case.. the reason I didn’t argue signage etc is because the carpark is a very far distance from where I live I couldn’t easily go back and take photos or check so I didn’t want to argue something I wasn’t sure about. I realize now I maybe should have and it was up to them to prove otherwise but I didn’t put it anywhere in my defence or witness statement so can’t use it now. 

I’m really bad at this lol I just don’t want them to get away with it so thought I’d give it a go at fighting with the view of if I have to pay I have to pay. 

D_P_Dance

You should only pay if a judge says so, which according to most here, is not very liklely.

Groutledge90

Just had my hearing and it wasn't half as bad as I was prepared for, thank you all for your help and encouragement and for helping me prepare.

The judge read from a section and explained to Napier that as I was the registered keeper and not put down as the 'driver' no contract was breached therefore, the £60 added on was not valid and capped it at £100 only as per my notice (apparently they can only charge you the maximum amount in the notice in these circumstances) - I'm sure there was more to explain but it went over my head LOL (Napier could not justify this either)

Then I got charged for the costs (£50 solicitor, £25 and £27 court fee) so I THINK its a total of £202 but they did not confirm the total amount I just got told to pay within 14 days. I checked on MCOL but think it might be too soon seeing as it just happened. 

Is there anywhere I can check the amount and where to pay it to? 

PS.. Also I did my witness statement on a Mac and this couldn't be opened so just an FYI for others if you didn't know already it must be on a word doc.

Redx

Sorry you lost but £200 ish is a typical loss in court , so about right

MCOL is not updated ever since they passed it to your local nominated court , so no point looking there , no point checking your court website either

Wait for the letter from our local county court ,  the judgment , then pay in full ASAP , to avoid any CCJ being Registered or recorded , Word doc or PDF are the usual suspects for statements

Payment is usually to the legal firm , or the claimant if no legal firm was used

Jenni_D

Groutledge90 said:

PS.. Also I did my witness statement on a Mac and this couldn't be opened so just an FYI for others if you didn't know already it must be on a word doc.

Macs can save to PDF just as easily as Windows machines can. And the advice is to file documentation in PDF format.   (Other than a draft order - which should be a Word doc - but that only really applies in set-aside cases or if you have a counter-claim).

ihatetrump

Groutledge90 said:

Just had my hearing and it wasn't half as bad as I was prepared for, thank you all for your help and encouragement and for helping me prepare.

The judge read from a section and explained to Napier that as I was the registered keeper and not put down as the 'driver' no contract was breached therefore, the £60 added on was not valid and capped it at £100 only as per my notice (apparently they can only charge you the maximum amount in the notice in these circumstances) - I'm sure there was more to explain but it went over my head LOL (Napier could not justify this either)

Then I got charged for the costs (£50 solicitor, £25 and £27 court fee) so I THINK its a total of £202 but they did not confirm the total amount I just got told to pay within 14 days. I checked on MCOL but think it might be too soon seeing as it just happened. 

Is there anywhere I can check the amount and where to pay it to? 

PS.. Also I did my witness statement on a Mac and this couldn't be opened so just an FYI for others if you didn't know already it must be on a word doc.

Sorry to hear the result of your hearing.

As a matter of interest, which Napier Car park was it? 

I have my own hearing next week (Napier/BWL) 


Umkomaas quoted back in May:

in the past full year (2019) Napier issued almost 39,000 parking tickets, but appeared at a court hearing in just 47 cases - 0.12% of all tickets got to court that year. So that fact doesn't put Napier in the highly litigious PPC category, but they do sue in some cases.

Guess, they're upping their game becoming much more litigiousCoupon-mad said:

PPCs are not upping their game.  They have generally become more litigious in 2020/21 due to losing money due to the pandemic.

Coupon-mad said:

PPCs are not upping their game.  They have generally become more litigious in 2020/21 due to losing money due to the pandemic.

 or @Groutledge90 & myself are just 2 of the unlucky 0.12% Hey ho....

patient_dream

A shame .... at least the scam fake was kicked out

Very little profit for the PPC or the legal.  

Coupon-mad

PPCs are not upping their game.  They have generally become more litigious in 2020/21 due to losing money due to the pandemic.

ihatetrump

Coupon-mad said:

PPCs are not upping their game.  They have generally become more litigious in 2020/21 due to losing money due to the pandemic.

Point well taken - post edited - becoming more litigious.

@Umkomaas - where do you get your statistics from? is there any way of me researching their case history?

Umkomaas

ihatetrump said:

Coupon-mad said:

PPCs are not upping their game.  They have generally become more litigious in 2020/21 due to losing money due to the pandemic.

Point well taken - post edited - becoming more litigious.

@Umkomaas - where do you get your statistics from? is there any way of me researching their case history?

It was from a link published by @ParkingMad in the following thread, but having tried to click on it, it no longer works. You could try a PM to her to see if she still has the file. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6095074/analysis-of-court-cases/p1