BW Legal - Any help very much appreciated...

didgeridoooo

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Surely it didn't have two 'e's in judgment? In the legal sense it's spelt with one:

You need to copy a witness statement that mentions the NCP 0 taxman 1 case (search the forum and use that Court of appeal transcript as an evidence exhibit, that the parking contract begins when the money is paid and the button pressed for the ticket, not before). I recall a couple of people using that really well before.

Thanks so much CM. I have never heard of this, and surprisingly as I have often raised the question (which I thought was valid) that parking contract can't be "initiated merely by dint of driving in an entrance" (as worded in my defence). However I was reliably and strongly informed that this has been challenged in the highest court of the land and lost. I was still going to argue it because, well, cos I am a bit of a !!!!!! like that and it stands to reason as a valid argument whether it's been "beaten" once or not! I will go and get myself acquainted with that forthwith ma'am

Brief update: I received the toilet paper "Without Prejudice" offer from BWL, annoying by EMAIL yesterday, and by letter today. I am 99% sure I emailed them way back when citing the DPR and GDPR and FIRMLY instructing them to REMOVE my email address from their systems, and never EVER contact me again in any way other than in writing. I will confirm this, and may add that to WS (and complaint to ICO of course). These lowlifes really don't give a flying 5hit about law, rights, privacy or anything else. They just do whatever works. Well hopefully it not only fail against us, but will fail dismally, and I will allow myself PLENTY of gloating time and perhaps even a counterclaim for no reason other than giving them toilet paper to wipe their snotty noses with for a change.

The 'WP offer' actually surprises me. It's for the meagre 'loss-incurring' sum of £100. HA HA HA. But what about all those 'costs' they have incurred? Are they deliberately trying to run their business into the ground? Of course, it can't be that they are lying scumbags about their 'costs' can it.

"the amount you will need to pay in order to satisfy our client's claim is the sum of £100 (which is inclusive of interest and our client's costs and fees.)" - !!!!!!?! Shame this is Without Prejudice! Surely that's a lovely bit of PROOF of their LYING in their claim about said costs and fees, if £100 covers it all?!) I am tempted to unleash my gutter-tongue behind a 'without prejudice' letter of my own, but I won't. They aren't worth it and I doubt I could phrase my true feelings inside mono-syllabic prose anyway.

So for £100 I can close this down. How tempting. Ha. After all this work? I wouldn't settle for £1.50 with free tickets to Vegas and Bully's Special Prize thrown in. I would genuinenly rather go to court and LOSE now, than bend over at this stage. Just the experience will be worth £200 if I lose (which is my best guess of worst outcome). Not that I am expecting to lose, far from it, although their £100 offer suggests they kinda think they might! And forgetting how we have been treated by them, the way they treating our bloody court system is an utter disgrace. Using a formal system run at great cost to the tax-payer, purely on a speculative basis, when the hell are they going to put an end to this commercialised abuse of process?

Well, that's released enough frustration to quash an urges to respond to Brains-Witheld Lice.

One serious question I have - is it ok to use a highlighter pen and/or post-it notes to mark relevant passages within exhibits I take to court (my own copy only)?

Umkomaas

I would genuinenly rather go to court and LOSE now, than bend over at this stage.

I can see this being discontinued before you even get your chance.

One serious question I have - is it ok to use a highlighter pen and/or post-it notes to mark relevant passages within exhibits I take to court (my own copy only)?

My serious question - do you really need advice on that?

didgeridoooo

Umkomaas wrote: »

I can see this being discontinued before you even get your chance.

Can't believe my gut reaction to that, but the truth is, that horrifies me! I really mean I would rather go along and lose now just to prepare me for future claims! I have earned my day in court now, and a dicontinuance would guarantee my issuing of a counter-claim, if I can do that.

Umkomaas wrote: »

My serious question - do you really need advice on that?

Doh, sorry! I meant the copy I send to court and BWL, I said my copy only, I meant their copy. For instance to draw Judge's attention to certain wording in POFA or CRA or whatever.

didgeridoooo

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Surely it didn't have two 'e's in judgment? In the legal sense it's spelt with one:
You need to copy a witness statement that mentions the NCP 0 taxman 1 case (search the forum and use that Court of appeal transcript as an evidence exhibit, that the parking contract begins when the money is paid and the button pressed for the ticket, not before). I recall a couple of people using that really well before.

I found this witness statement you wrote, I will include the excellent wording you wrote in that WS under the "Binding case law against this Claimant" heading. I have searched for transcript and think I found it here. Excellent, I really wanted to go after this point and didn't dwell on it much in my defence but would like to in a hearing. Thanks so much for the help.
Edit: NPC v HMRC Judgement Transcript - Printable version (for future reference)

Umkomaas

didgeridoooo wrote: »

Can't believe my gut reaction to that, but the truth is, that horrifies me! I really mean I would rather go along and lose now just to prepare me for future claims! I have earned my day in court now, and a dicontinuance would guarantee my issuing of a counter-claim, if I can do that.

You will have no influence on whether they discontinue. Counter-claims can only be taken out (and paid for) when submitting your Defence.

If you mean suing separately, on what grounds?

didgeridoooo

Umkomaas wrote: »

You will have no influence on whether they discontinue. Counter-claims can only be taken out (and paid for) when submitting your Defence.

If you mean suing separately, on what grounds?

Understood thank you.

Regarding grounds - I wouldn't presume to know exactly what legal grounds I'd need, but I would certainly investigate if there are any, along the lines of vexatious tactics/extortion/harassment/knowingly issuing an inflated claim with no realistic prospect of success (or intent to carry through) - whatever I could find which might apply, if anything does at all.

Umkomaas

issuing a claim with no realistic prospect of success

That cuts both ways.

Harassment-style claims have a very high bar to clear.

didgeridoooo

Ha ha, point taken, and well-made

In all honesty if the only avenue was the 'harassment' style case I wouldn't waste my time. But I am no lawyer (bet that surprises you huh. ) - I merely state my motivation, not the means with which to use it. I was hopeful there might be some sort of legal recourse to serve them a dish of their own tripe, although I suspect with more merit.

Failing that, I could always just send them a gift-wrapped selection of choice farmyard souvenirs as a token of my gratitude for the chance to learn, plenty of 'stuff' lying around here.

didgeridoooo

I am reading POFA Sch.4 again

Conditions that MUST be met:

The second condition is that the creditor...

6(1)(a) has given a notice to driver in accordance with para 7, followed by a NTK in accordance with para8.

I know it's late in the day, but I don't recall getting any NTD, it was ANPR so we only got the NTK. Unless a NTK can serve as both?

KeithP

didgeridoooo wrote: »

I know it's late in the day, but I don't recall getting any NTD, it was ANPR so we only got the NTK. Unless a NTK can serve as both?

At ANPR sites no-one gets a Notice to Driver.

Either you have stumbled upon a get-out clause that no-one has seen before, or you are reading the POFA wrongly.

This is the whole of that condition that you have selectively quoted from:

6(1) The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)—

(a) has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8; or

(b) has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9.

Why have you chosen to ignore 6(1)(b) entirely, and the word 'or' on the end of 6(1)(a)?