BW Legal - Any help very much appreciated...

didgeridoooo

Thank you very much CM. That makes a lot of sense. If the erroneous one wasn't signed, it shouldn't 'count' anyway, especially if another one comes in dated and signed. This is what I will do for BWL and possibly court too. While I work on that it turns out my wife is in Truro today with the children. She has the corrected page of WS and the 3 Exhibits printed off with her. She will pop to the court later. They should get my folder/bundle in post by 1pm and IF they will allow she can just replace the one bad page in WS, add Exhibits, and sign/date the WS. I spoke to the court yesterday and the lady in civil dept was really nice and helpful, so fingers crossed this will be allowed. If not, I will be ready to fire the email with replacement WS (signed and dated before she left this morning). It would be nice for the court not to have to print any part of my bundle off, it is all in a nice hard folder with tabs etc

BWL will get emailed copy just as you suggest. Now I am off to sit at the back of the class with a Dunce cap on. LiP Costs - Excellent info there thank you again

didgeridoooo

Spoke to court and they said it's fine for her to come in and correct/sign it at the desk once post arrives.

didgeridoooo

WS arrived from BWL. They have no shame!

'It appears the defence has been cut and pasted from websites relating to parking whose aim is to assist motorists on contesting PCNs, as witnessed by the claimant's solicitors on a regular basis. Large portions of the defence are therefore nonsensical and irrelevant to the claim'

'This is unacceptable as the defendant has endorsed it with a statement of truth whilst clearly not being within the defendant's own knowledge.'

All together now...... BWAA HAAA AHAAA HAAAA

Ad hominem anyone?!!

Le_Kirk

didgeridoooo wrote: »

'It appears the defence has been cut and pasted from websites relating to parking whose aim is to assist motorists on contesting PCNs, as witnessed by the claimant's solicitors on a regular basis. Large portions of the defence are therefore nonsensical and irrelevant to the claim'

'This is unacceptable as the defendant has endorsed it with a statement of truth whilst clearly not being within the defendant's own knowledge.'

It appears their letter has been copied and pasted from the letter they sent to ……….. well, any number of defendants recently!

beamerguy

didgeridoooo wrote: »

WS arrived from BWL. They have no shame!

'It appears the defence has been cut and pasted from websites relating to parking whose aim is to assist motorists on contesting PCNs, as witnessed by the claimant's solicitors on a regular basis. Large portions of the defence are therefore nonsensical and irrelevant to the claim'

'This is unacceptable as the defendant has endorsed it with a statement of truth whilst clearly not being within the defendant's own knowledge.'

All together now...... BWAA HAAA AHAAA HAAAA

Ad hominem anyone?!!

We don't know who at BWLegal writes this rubbish but it is BWLegal who are nonsensical

At the BWLegal case I attended, the judge asked the D about this and was given the answer "I researched the internet Sir", the judge simply smiled and moved on the next nonsensical statement by BWLegal...... BWLEGAL LOST and had to pay £100

In a nutshell the courts are not interested in childish comments

didgeridoooo

"It appears their letter has been copied and pasted from the letter they sent to ……….. well, any number of defendants recently!" - He he, yes exactly. I am not sure whether I should read it. Seriously. I have done enough, and reading it just makes me add a load of points to a draft skeleton which I am sure will never get time to be worked through. However I did note their WS refers to the Defendant as "he" and "his". I know we are told gender is a social construct these days, but my wife clearly chooses to be identified as "Mrs ...". Who's got the cookie cutter now?! Pots and kettles.

I was tempted to amend my WS (I still have an hour or so!) with: "They admit regularly reading a consumer right’s forum to study defences being prepared by litigants in person with no legal training. Whilst this is not against the law, it appears to show a further element of bad faith. Despite this they still continually lose in court against those “untrained” people submitting alleged “template defences” they "clearly" know nothing about. Building from a template is not the same as copying and pasting. However their own WS shows clear evidence of being a templated document. 68.2 “parking HIS vehicle”."

"In a nutshell the courts are not interested in childish comments" - Amen to that, I shall resist responding to them I think.

beamerguy

Take no notice of this rubbish, it does not deserve a reply.

If the judge asks the question, you know what to say.

The case can only rest on their claim and your defence and NOT their add on trite comments which are nonsensical

Sooner or later such comments will have a judge in fits of laughter as he awards costs against them

yettoexist

I got the same spiel in the WS from BWLegal in my case, and they still lost on the day with a DJ who cut all the waffle out and focused on the facts, evidence and laws. Their WS consisted of 64 paragraphs!

Hopefully, your Judge will use the same approach.

beamerguy

yettoexist wrote: »

I got the same spiel in the WS from BWLegal in my case, and they still lost on the day with a DJ who cut all the waffle out and focused on the facts, evidence and laws. Their WS consisted of 64 paragraphs!

Hopefully, your Judge will use the same approach.

And that is what it really is ....... WAFFLE

didgeridoooo

yettoexist wrote: »

Their WS consisted of 64 paragraphs!

Pah, I was blessed with 70, some of them even make sense after typos are accounted for