BW Legal - Any help very much appreciated...

didgeridoooo

My Notice of Allocation was issued on 26 November. I am now preparing the WS and only have a few days. Trying to get my head back inside this stuff, it's so hard when life is so busy and we don't do this day in day out! Lots of re-reads of bookmarked threads to come! In mean time, I have a question about a letter I received.

On 10th December BWL sent me a letter which doesn't appear to be "official", it is just a letter to me based on the defence we submitted. It grated me pretty harshly so I put it to one side until now as I know the tactics are often designed to frustrate, and they work (on me!).


I won't bother with the full letter, it's complete rubbish for the most part. Such as:

"It is our client's position that they have fully complied with POFA and you have not provided any evidence to the contrary. You breached the terms and conditions as your ticket had expired. Therefore the PCN was issued correctly." - GRRRR! Yes, as if the ONLY obligation on correct service under POFA is "ticket expired". How ridiculous! Anyway... at the end of the letter I saw this:



Aside from the insulting and devious motive here, it was absolutely not a copy paste exercise. It was a rewrite of content found online, which makes it MINE. Uniquely MINE. I didn't just paste what I found here. I read and reworded any inclusions, and removed parts which were not relevant.

Should I respond to any of this letter in my WS? I don't know if the court will see this letter even, whether it forms part of proceedings or was just a pressure tactic prior to hearing. Any advice appreciated.


Sorry, there was one more item I wanted to mention. They pulled in the Beavis case. Should I address this in my witness statement, or just save comments for hearing? (I will look up responses to this as I know it is a common issue.) thanks

beamerguy

didgeridoooo

In the case I attended the other week with BWLegal, they had mentioned about copy and paste.
The judge asked the D who simply said, that of course he researched on the internet, the judge smiled and moved on until BWL were told case dismissed.

What BWLegal hate is the fact that there are many intelligent people on here and as you are at liberty to use freely what you read on here and that includes post # 14 by coupon-mad in the abuse of process thread .... that is factual and just as much as they quote cases, you are doing the same ... what they don't like is that most of the cases you can quote, BWLegal lost

Saying "copy and paste" is just a futile waste of time. In their words, what they are saying is nonsensical It reminds me of school kids boasting "my dad is bigger than your dad" ..... So unprofessional

They only quote the Beavis case because it refers to a figure that is acceptable but BWLegal completely fail to understand is the ruling by the Supreme Court ....
198. ''...The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme...''

So what was ruled is that the ticket price is all inclusive and simply does not provide for added fake charges such as the £60

BWLegal has completely failed to give their LEGAL AUTHORITY for the fake £60

At the case I attended, the rep sent by BWL was so inept that the judge said to him twice ..... "This is not going very well for you ... is it ?"

Umkomaas

Read this:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6093135/i-just-beat-bw-legal-in-court-heres-what-i-learned

didgeridoooo

beamerguy wrote: »

didgeridoooo

In the case I attended the other week with BWLegal, they had mentioned about copy and paste.
The judge asked the D who simply said, that of course he researched on the internet, the judge smiled and moved on until BWL were told case dismissed.

What BWLegal hate is the fact that there are many intelligent people on here and as you are at liberty to use freely what you read on here and that includes post # 14 by coupon-mad in the abuse of process thread .... that is factual and just as much as they quote cases, you are doing the same ... what they don't like is that most of the cases you can quote, BWLegal lost

Saying "copy and paste" is just a futile waste of time. In their words, what they are saying is nonsensical It reminds me of school kids boasting "my dad is bigger than your dad" ..... So unprofessional

They only quote the Beavis case because it refers to a figure that is acceptable but BWLegal completely fail to understand is the ruling by the Supreme Court ....
198. ''...The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme...''

So what was ruled is that the ticket price is all inclusive and simply does not provide for added fake charges such as the £60

BWLegal has completely failed to give their LEGAL AUTHORITY for the fake £60

At the case I attended, the rep sent by BWL was so inept that the judge said to him twice ..... "This is not going very well for you ... is it ?"

Thanks very much for that Beamer, really helped get my head back in gear here. It's horrible (unless it's just me and my psyche, which it could be) but confidence grows the more I read into this stuff, but a few weeks (or months) away and I 'feel' really down about it. Silly, I know, and totally irrational.


Yes, it's just like playground bullying as you say. I think it's a tit for tat, in direct response to my legitimately pointing out that they ARE "serial litigants" and they DO copy paste THEIR crap, often erroneously, which is different. I have various screw ups in my case where they made errors purely due to their copy/paste exercise. One of them I just remembered, and will run by the DJ as a first port of call.. namely how this all begun with a totally non-compliant (PD) LoC. I wrote to them and advised them how it was improperly served and thus was invalid. They replied saying (paraphrased): 'Oops, we will get you another one out if our client wants to proceed'. And they never did.

Our hearing is in Truro in a few weeks time. I have a couple of questions so far, in case anyone can answer:

1. Notice of Allocation states that Claimant must pay trial fee by a set date which is over a week ago. I had no notification that it was paid, but probably wouldn't get one. Just in case though, should I check with court that it was paid (to save me tens of hours of prepping for hearing) or just assume it was paid?

2. Lay Rep - I will be the lay rep for this claim which is against my wife. My research suggests I can just turn up, but if I should notify the court before hand or if I need ask permission to do so, could someone please shout.

Thanks again, very much

didgeridoooo

Thanks, I was hoping to find a few threads this evening to read about any recent successes v BWL. I will start with that one.

Le_Kirk

You just inform the usher when you arrive at court. Take guidance notes about lay reps and rights of audience in case anyone tries to object.

didgeridoooo

A while back someone posted on this thread: "The Claimant's evidence will not have been filed, and when they do they need to serve a copy on you."

I am not sure I have had that. I have quite a stack of papers here, I just flicked through and can't see anything from BWL which looks like a submission of any evidence. All I have is the usual pressure letters and one or two from CCBC about allocation etc.

I did get a letter from them during the letter-tennis we played a while back, and in there was a bundle of photos but those were in response to written requests for any such evidence. I don't think that constitues their submission of evidence to the court does it?

KeithP

The Claimant has the same target dates for filing (with the court) and serving (on the Defendant) their evidence.

You say you "only have a few days". Expect their Witness Statement and evidence to drop through your letterbox sometime during those 'few days'.

beamerguy

Trust me, it's no big deal. Respect for the judge is important and follow his/her lead

The Judge to start with explainS what will happen and then start with the claimant. Bear in mind that the judge has both witness statements so he is just waiting to hear what the claimant says. If the claimant goes OTT the judge will stop them.

Wait for the judge to speak to you and as everything is in your witness statement you know the answers
You call the judge SIR or MADAM and don't argue although there is nothing wrong by saying "Excuse me Sir, may I say"

If the judge asks about your statement, of course you researched the internet and that your statement is true

You and your wife are NOT criminals and both of you will go home safely ....... If you lost, doubtful, then you just pay up in the time period stated by the judge.

I appeared as a Mackenzie friend and I was grilled by the judge as to my motives ...... he asked me if I wanted to speak to which I said, only if asked Sir. I stayed in the knowledge that the D was fully aware of what to say, and he did a brilliant job ... case dismissed

As a lay rep, you do what Le_Kirk says.

You do this on the understanding that the courts are fully aware of BWLegal and even though the judge will not give you many clues, he or she will be aware.

When you can object is if BWL introduce something you don't know about from the exchange of witness statements. That would be classed as hi-jacking

Once you have booked in with the usher, the other party may attempt to talk to you. You decline this by simply saying you are in court to talk to the judge.

You asked earlier if you should reply to that nasty BWLegal letter
How can you reply to such rubbish ??? ... you don't

You want to read about other BWlegal failures. Apart from the abuse of process thread
Abuse of Process ... District Judge tells BWLegal
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

PLUS ....
BWLegal - the list of failures growing
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5672664/bwlegal-the-list-of-failures-growing

didgeridoooo

Thank you Beamer, I really appreciate the time you put into that. As does my wife who is really worrying about 'being in court'. I keep telling her this is civil, nobody is a criminal here, but I fear she will need to see it to believe it. I know it's going to be very informal and I am not worried about that side of it. But your words helped so thank you.



I will keep those points strongly in mind.