2 separate letters from BW Legal - Britannia Parking

Le_Kirk

Well done, a brilliant win (despite the lack of costs awarded), a weight off your back.

beamerguy

Brilliant result and well done :beer:

"this court is now systematically strikes out claims for those costs"
and also said to rep to refer back to the instructors if they wanted to appeal this decision that
"this is the position its going continue to be adopted" ???

Judge then said that both claims have also £60 administrative cost which are not allowed

The courts are waking up to this scam from BWLegal and indeed the other legals who apply this scam.

With BWLegal, they must wake up and stop wasting their time

I have added this to page one of this thread
Abuse of Process ... District Judge tells BWLegal
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75929156#Comment_75929156

To help others facing this scam could you please tell us.
1: Which court
2: The name of the judge
3: The case number


I am sure coupon-mad will add this to her post #14 on the same thread

Umkomaas

Very well done, excellent result.

Rep started pointing to NTK ,explained it was provided to me, then started explaining car park with all photos that were attached as evidence.

It was really obvious that she wasn’t know what she was talking about and she wasn’t prepared at all.

Judge quickly picked that up and asked rep if she is prepared to answer to defendants objections within WS , silence… Judge asked if she was instructed how to answer to those points I raised, silence…

Judge explained that she needs to prove claimants case and prove why do I owe them money and she started again from scratch going through their own WS...

A great example of just how hapless, hopeless and ill-prepared some advocates can be, and a timely reminder to those who think that challenging an advocate's Right of Audience to dismiss them from the courtroom plays to the Defendant's advantage. Why clear the ball from an opponent's goal-line when they are about to score an own goal?

To my surprise , every time I wanted to say something ,Judge stopped me and was asking question to rep.

Many Judges are sharp cookies and if an advocate is dismissed on RoA grounds, those sharp questions will turn to the Defendant, the Judge covering the ground an advocate otherwise would handle.

A bit of surprise when Judge started from asking the rep what those claims are for...

She replied that both claims are for contractual cost ...
and then Judge said more less that:

"this court is now systematically strikes out claims for those costs"
and also said to rep to refer back to the instructors if they wanted to appeal this decision that
"this is the position its going continue to be adopted" ???

Judge then said that both claims have also £60 administrative cost which are not allowed

Rep asked if Judge could explain why these are not allowed

Judge started reading this "word for word":

"The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the defendant contracted to pay, This additional charge is not recoverable under the protection of freedoms act 2012, Schedule 4 not with reference to the judgement in parking eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover

Interesting if that is going to be that court's/Judge's future default position.

Could you give us the name of the court and of the Judge please?

What I have learnt?

Not wort supplying a long WS as my impression was that it wasn’t read at all.

A salutary reminder to those drafting out 5,000+ word WS and Skeleton Arguments, then asking regulars to pick them apart!

The_Deep

I won but I feel that I lost.

I think that this was a definite win. It probably cost the scammer several hundred pounds.

Judges are, for some reason, reluctant to come down hard on these scammers, perhaps they think that they have much bigger fish to fry.

Fruitcake

mixMZ wrote: »

I won, but I feel like I lost.
Both claims were dismissed .

No, no, and three times no!

You won twice, and in a second language. That's a triple win.

You may have only got a small amount of your costs back, but you got something. The parking scammers and their scamlicitors got nothing, AND it cost them money to lose.

You put a small dent in a big company. Well done. :T:T:T

Redx

Well done

Another one bites the dust !!

A win is a win , and the maximum you could possibly claim was approx £100 , plus you saved the cost of the charges plus legal costs as well , plus cost the claimant a lot in time and money

Even if no costs had been awarded it's still a win , plus some English speaking UK residents have more trouble with the process than you did

Gloat on your win

mixMZ

Thanks for all positive feedback...

Now when all emotions settled down I am not that disappointed as I was yesterday:)

It was completely new experience for me and I decided to go for it only as I am kind of person who likes challenges. I know what I did wrong and what I could do better, the disappointment was only that high as I knew these were the easiest possible cases defendant could deal with and therefore I set my expectations quite high and really wanted those scammers to be punished.

Anyway I hope at least that details below may be useful for others:

It was Southampton Court
Judge Giddins
claim numbers: F4DP5264 & F4DP5279

beamerguy

mixMZ wrote: »

:

It was Southampton Court
Judge Giddins
claim numbers: F4DP5264 & F4DP5279

Southampton court ??

The very place that BWLegal is appealing the ruling of DJ Taylor

And now Judge Giddins says "this court is now systematically striking out claims for those costs":T

It's going to be fun in November

The_Deep

It's going to be fun in November

Personally, I do not see how they could possibly prevail. Have they engaged Mrs Miller's Q.C.?

Snakes_Belly

Well done. I agree with you about the WS. They seem more interested in the defence.