Britannia/BW Legal Is it too late? PCN Portswood

nosferatu1001

Brilliant!
Can you tell us how it went on, which court and judge, the claim number, and whether you got your costs?

FineForWhat

I had Judge Taylor at the Southampton County Court Claim No: F6DP042N

Basically, he wasn’t happy with Britannia at all. He ruled out the claim on the basis that there wasn’t enough evidence to show a contract existing between Britannia and CBRE. The “contract” that they presented was just approval to obtain information from the DVLA, and on that basis he said he has no choice but to rule out the claim. He also said even if there was evidence of a contract existing, he would of ruled out the claim as an abuse of process due to the unexplained added £60. With that being said, he wasn’t very happy with my defence other than point 8 and he said I was very fortunate!

I was only in the court room for around 10 minutes and barely said anything

MistyZ

Well done! :beer:

I originally came to this forum due to a PCN from the same car park. There have been quite a few posters caught out there since then and I don't think any have lost. You had to take it all the way though - brilliant job!

Mahershalalhashbaz

MistyZ wrote: »

Well done! :beer:

I originally came to this forum due to a PCN from the same car park. There have been quite a few posters caught out there since then and I don't think any have lost. You had to take it all the way though - brilliant job!

This car park was my Introduction also to the murky world of private parking companies. Yes, a very good success rate is being reported for those challenging the penalty charge, with just the one case that I have noticed where the charge was upheld:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76167407#Comment_76167407

This was before the same judge, so complete success cannot be guaranteed.

MistyZ

Mahershalalhashbaz wrote: »

This was before the same judge, so complete success cannot be guaranteed.

This is very true. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. I wasn't around when you posted about your success - well done you as well:j

beamerguy

FineForWhat wrote: »

I had Judge Taylor at the Southampton County Court Claim No: F6DP042N

Basically, he wasn’t happy with Britannia at all. He ruled out the claim on the basis that there wasn’t enough evidence to show a contract existing between Britannia and CBRE. The “contract” that they presented was just approval to obtain information from the DVLA, and on that basis he said he has no choice but to rule out the claim. He also said even if there was evidence of a contract existing, he would of ruled out the claim as an abuse of process due to the unexplained added £60. With that being said, he wasn’t very happy with my defence other than point 8 and he said I was very fortunate!

I was only in the court room for around 10 minutes and barely said anything

Well done for beating this lot, BWLegal/Britannia SPANKED in court again.

What is interesting is BWLegal appealed against Judge Taylor for kicking them out for Abuse of Process and that appeal is due to be heard in November. Clearly, this has not budged the court because Judge Taylor said to you ...
he would of ruled out the claim as an abuse of process due to the unexplained added £60.

One must assume that the judges in Southampton have been discussing the appeal and ABUSE OF PROCESS and they are still prepared to strike out cases because of this.

What will November bring ??

This has been added to:-
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

POST # 150

BrownTrout

Well done on your win, no matter how close it was!

Le_Kirk

Well done, a) on winning and b) for another case before Judge Taylor at Southampton - one more instance for beamerguy to add to his Abuse of Process thread. However, I hope he didn't say would of, I hope he said would have and you either misheard him or misspelled it. Doesn't detract from your win though.

He also said even if there was evidence of a contract existing, he would of ruled out the claim as an abuse of process due to the unexplained added £60.

Coupon-mad

Woohoo, ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST! :T