BW Legal and Britannia Parking

kernowkid007

Hi all,
just wanted to say a huge thank you again, to all of you who give your time to regularly post and guide many innocent motorists, could not have done this without you!

Summary of victory in court yesterday.

Arrived 30mins early as advised, (took a while to get through security!) Informed receptionist of our arrival and that I would be Lay Rep for my wife. After being told the other side hadn't arrived yet, we sat down nervously hoping they wouldn't. Our hopes were dashed shortly after by the claimants legal rep coming over asking to speak to my wife, I refused his offer and said we'd let the judge decide outcome. (Doesn't feel right that the usher or someone identifies the defendant to the Rep. I assume they must have because the waiting room was so busy and he came straight over to us). He got my back up from then on, wanting to know who I was and why my wife wasn't defending herself! I was also bemused as he wasn't the Rep named on BW Legal's WS, (apparently didn't matter when I asked the judge).

We were ushered in to court room early, just before 12. Sat down in front of deputy District Judge, (forgotten her name for now). We introduced ourselves and began with the claimants rep giving his side, lots of what seemed like pointless waffle and references to this being similar to Beavis case and how there were loads of signs up and how they were clear and in-line with CoP's.

Next came my turn to put our evidence and argument to the judge, I had prepared a few notes to prompt me on the 3 main points:
1. PPC's right to operate (agreement signed by land owner 8 days after 'parking fine'
2. Evidence I had of, change of signage, around the time of 'parking offence'
3. Abuse of process in relation to added 'costs.

Judge wasn't too concerned with my point number 1. merely stating she would have expected to see the actual contract between the PPC and land owner. 1-0 to the claimant it would seem. Legal Rep responded to this stating that , "as a motorist you should not be concerned with who operates the car park, just that you park and therefore agree to their terms." Again I felt my blood pressure rising but calmly replied that of course I am concerned with who operates the car park and whether they have the authority to operate, especially as they are now demanding £100's from my wife!

Moving on point No.2, the judge seemed much more interested in the evidence I had showing new signage. She quizzed Rep if he had evidence of exactly when signs were changed, his answer was that their photo evidence was dated 2 months before 'offence' and therefore must have been in situ on said date. Judge could see my point that we had evidence from Google street view showing new signage only a few months after 'offence'. 1=1 maybe?

I really had a battle with point no.3, Judge didn't seem to agree that the CRA 2015 was relevant. I'm sure she said something about signage being exempt from test of fairness. I tried to show they weren't and that the CMA was clear on that. I think if had understood all of this more I could have made it stick, although it was all there in my Supplementary WS. Similar story with Rep's argument on similarities with Beavis case, again I was a bit out of my depth here trying to show that the Beavis case also found that penalty of £85 were fair but no more.

Anyway after what seemed like ages, the Judge summed up and said she was dismissing the claim on the basis that, the claimant hadn't provided sufficient evidence of when the signs were changed. We felt so relieved that it was now all over. However this feeling was short lived when the Rep asked for the right to appeal. His grounds for appeal were that BW Legal hadn't had long enough with my WS, (they had it more than the required 14 days) and almost 3 years since the alleged 'offence'! The Judge refused their appeal saying something about their evidence and the claim being a small amount.

I think the whole process lasted about 45mins and we left with a small amount in costs, enough to cover travel and parking. The Judge would not allow £85 for leave as my wife is actually on Maternity Leave, I tried!

This whole saga has been a real eye opener, firstly because of how PPC's are allowed to get away with defrauding thousands of motorists of £100s and how they are clearly abusing the court system. But thanks to the great people on here, some of us get to fight them in court and win!!

Umkomaas

Well done and thanks for the comprehensive court report.

Redx

Another Britannia loss in court

Well done

Another one bites the dust !!

nosferatu1001

Well done!
No chance they will no formally apply - will cost them another £100 to be told off again
So the judge didnt thinik that a contract that didnt start until after the incident wasnt relevant? weird.

beamerguy

Great report and well done for getting another dodgy claim kicked out.

Btitannia should take more care and attention with the claims they pass to BWLegal and in turn BWLegal should take more care and attention

But BWLegal will continue to bring dodgy claims to court and they will continue to lose ......

A very sad duo ?

kernowkid007

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

Well done!
No chance they will no formally apply - will cost them another £100 to be told off again
So the judge didnt thinik that a contract that didnt start until after the incident wasnt relevant? weird.

The agreement letter stated it would start 4 months prior to parking claim, but wasn't actually signed and dated by the land owner until over a week after parking 'offence'.
I'm wondering if this was a new agreement due to T's and C's changing in relation to increased free parking time or whether they were just incredibly slow in getting agreement signed.
Either way the Judge didn't feel it mattered!

Coupon-mad

I'm sure she said something about signage being exempt from test of fairness.

Signs (consumer notices) are never exempt from the test of fairness.

Price clauses are, but ONLY if they are prominently and transparently displayed.

So, a 'price clause' hidden in wordy small print on a CONSUMER NOTICE is not exempt from the test of fairness in a million years!

The CRA 2015 says so, and so does the Guidance on that Act. Oh, and even the word 'indemnity' is objectionable in the CRA as it is not consumer friendly...

The Judge was wrong on this too:

I think the whole process lasted about 45mins and we left with a small amount in costs, enough to cover travel and parking. The Judge would not allow £85 for leave as my wife is actually on Maternity Leave, I tried!

That's classed in the CPRs as allowed, as it's ''loss of leave'' i.e. loss of the amenity and right that a lady on maternity leave enjoys to spend before birth or with the baby. They took a day/half day from your wife's rest leave.

Anyway, you WON, so well done! ANOTHER BRITANNIA ONE BITES THE DUST!

WHICH COURT?

kernowkid007

Coupon-mad wrote: »

The Judge was wrong on this too:
That's classed in the CPRs as allowed, as it's ''loss of leave'' i.e. loss of the amenity and right that a lady on maternity leave enjoys to spend before birth or with the baby. They took a day/half day from your wife's rest leave.

WHICH COURT?

I did say that she's lost time at home bringing up a new born, but didn't feel comfortable pushing for it.

It was at Birmingham county court.