BW Legal - Any help very much appreciated...

didgeridoooo

Hmm. Sorry, I did miss the "or". I am reading in tiny font with very weak toner in my printer, but its certainly visible so I must clean my eyeballs. Thank you.

didgeridoooo

Would I be punished for alluding to the 'without prejudice' offer received from BWL in my WS or hearing? Is there ANY line which can be walked between no mention, and some mention, without quoting or exhibiting it of course?

DoaM

Not sure there's any need for it ... the other court judgments which have shown the £60 to be an Abuse of Process should be enough.

I'm not having a go, but we're now at 294 posts in this thread and we haven't even reached the hearing yet.

didgeridoooo

DoaM wrote: »

Not sure there's any need for it ...

What if you did think there was a need for it? I think you're probably right but I would include it if I could, it's only one sentence after all, and what it refers to is strong proof that in my specific claim they have admitted costs will be covered with a 'settlement' of just £100, when their claim is nearly 3x that. But aside from that debate, is it possible to do what I suggest without being sanctioned?

Coupon-mad

You slipped in the word judgement again. It has a meaning but NOT in a legal sense!

To me (and hopefully to your Judge) it's clear that your use of the CoA binding decision about ANPR/PDT machine car parks, trumps the higher but not relevant Beavis decision that was only about a specific free car park with very prominent and brief terms on signs and no ambiguity about the 'parking licence start time' on the PDT machine slip.

didgeridoooo

Oh damn it! I am trying to reprogram myself after 40+ years of repeating the same mistake!!

didgeridoooo

I have to deliver a huge package by 4PM Friday, and I won't finish it until tomorrow so I will be posting it special delivery next day (tomorow) and driving it to the court on Friday (a long journey).

KeithP

didgeridoooo wrote: »

Sorry to post again. I have to deliver a huge package by 4PM Friday, and I won't finish it until tomorrow so I will be posting it special delivery next day (tomorow) and driving it to the court on Friday (a long journey).

Check with the court beforehand. I think Friday is 'early closing day'.

Coupon-mad

will be posting it special delivery next day (tomorow)

Not to the parking firm or solicitor, you won't be paying for 'signed for' to them!

That just lets them refuse to sign and you end up with spending a fiver for proof of NON DELIVERY, or late delivery.

This is said on every thread...this is a Groundhog Day here!

NOT SPECIAL

NOT RECORDED.

didgeridoooo

Thanks CM, but that isn't said on every thread. What I have seen on most threads is that recorded / signed for isn't necessary. I have never seen this explanation as to why. I have a deadline of 4pm Friday, so I thought SD would be the only way to guarantee it reaches them, if they choose to refuse to sign then I get proof of "refused delivery", not failed delivery. I thought that was better than BWL lying (if I send standard 1st class) and saying it didn't arrive. But if proof of posting is every bit as strong as proof of using a next day noon service, I will certainly do that.

I am glad you commented, I hadn't even thought of the parking firm, only BWL. Oops! I just read the court papers and they state I must send to the Court and the Claimant, but don't mention anyone else. I have printed out 3 copies of everything (me plus court plus the other). I can print another copy but will take a while so if it's not essential I won't bother. Not trying to pick hairs, but the court paper tells me in clear print exactly what I "MUST" do, and with no mention of claimant's legal reps, can I do exactly as it says and let BWL get it off PPL?!

Thanks, oh and grateful if you can answer re DJ Grand's juDGment