Britannia/BW Legal court claim defense for comment

James__

Cheers Rachity,


Sorry to say I think you may be a bit off the mark with this one, I know it says 'current byelaws, whilst relevant, are inadequate for the traffic using the Harbour.'


I think 'Traffic' may mean a specific kind of traffic? And 'Harbour' meaning specifically the actual harbour. As in... 'to regulate ships within their harbour, or entering or leaving their harbour. They may relate to the movement, mooring and unmooring, equipment and manning of ships'.


Sadly, I left my luxury yacht at home that day

James__

Oh p.s. My Defense came up as registered on the MCOL website yesterday. Very promptly after being submitted as per KeithP's instructions.

Coupon-mad

I think 'Traffic' may mean a specific kind of traffic? And 'Harbour' meaning specifically the actual harbour.

No, and no.

Harbour byelaws cover the entire area in the map usually appended.

James__

Hi Coupon.


Those are direct quotes from the document linked from Rachity... just sayin'

Coupon-mad

That's a draft and 'consultation document'.

Not actual current byelaws or a Harbour map, unless I missed it?

James__

Agreed.


But what's the upshot?


I/we can make some claim that antiquated bylaws have been identified as being in practice in the area and what?.. are the bedrock of codes of practice and have been taken advantage of by parking operators to undermine consumer rights? Or something like that? Sounds a bit tenuous?

James__

OK, Letter from the court dated 1st April. Short letter, here are the key points.



- Acknowledges Defense.


- Copy sent to Claimant.


- Claimant may contact direct to attempt resolution. In that occurrence, if no resolution can be made informally, claimant must then contact the court that they wish to proceed.



- Claimant has 28 days to contact the court or claim will be 'stayed'


- Claimant then would have to apply to a judge for stay to be lifted.


We'll see where we go!

James__

latest -



Letter from BW saying the client wishes to push the claim.


Letter from the county court with a DQ - 'Direct Questionnaire'. 'Proposed allocation to the small claims track', very prominent is an offered way to seek mediation.

Umkomaas

James__ wrote: »

latest -



Letter from BW saying the client wishes to push the claim.


Letter from the county court with a DQ - 'Direct Questionnaire'. 'Proposed allocation to the small claims track', very prominent is an offered way to seek mediation.

Standard part of the process. The NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2 covers precisely how to deal with your DQ. Legally qualified regular contributor bargepole has gone to great lengths to ensure defendants don't trip over at this important juncture.

James__

Oh p.s. I had a phone conversation with one of the directors of the owning company (this after they appear to have forwarded my first email of complaint against Britannias behavior to Britannia and then ignored my return e-mail asking why they would do this... they had not made themselves aware of this when I spoke to them).



They came off as annoyed I would contact them, I like to think I remained very calm and talked them through why I was phoning them. Namely that I am surprised at them sending my complaint to the people I was complaining about and that I think their operator is being very excessive. Their comment was that they take no interest in how their clients behave and made no attempt to apologise for sharing my (I consider confidential) information with Britannia. All in all I was pretty unimpressed, though I do think that through the persons prejudiced annoyance they did listen to me.


What do people think about getting a local newspaper to report on these things?