BW Legal - Any help very much appreciated...

Coupon-mad

It has photos of signs from July 2015 and these show the entrance signs were present then.

Does Google Streetview, with date changed to 2015 using the little arrow, agree?

Coupon-mad

I am actually resigned to the fact I will probably end up paying this (at court, not before)

I don't seem to have much of a leg to stand on.

These two things conflict. Not being able to hold a keeper liable is a solid defence:

They royally cocked up POFA,

we are defending as keeper here to invoke POFA.

waamo

Have you seen this? https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal&highlight=abuse+of+process

Coupon-mad

Good spots! You will love it when you get to WS/evidence stage.

I am considering writing to BWL with a cease and desist. This is now going to court, so NO more to be said, so stop with the BS "call us to discuss" and other crap.

Has anyone ever done that?

No because both parties must seek to resolve the dispute...so you have to play nicely in comms that might end up in front of the Judge.

KeithP

Don't forget that the last sentence of the Particulars of Claim says...



£126 + £60 = £186

Coupon-mad

I notice the hardcopy forms ask all sorts of personal info like income, expenditure, debts, children etc etc. Just out of curiosity, why do they ask that?

Because the PAP is not designed for parking cases. We need a new PAP for parking firms.

Small claims is intended for REAL DEBTS like a builder suing for non-payment of works done, or a consumer suing for, say, their money back from a car dealer, when sold a cut&shut vehicle. In those cases it makes perfect sense for the D to answer if they defending in full, or making a partial admission and fill out the income stuff the court procedure feeds the parties to use.

It's just that the small claims track has been hijacked by a rogue industry where the last thing a D should do is hand info to them and certainly not their income and writing about whether they can afford to pay the 'debt' or not.

Just checking, you are doing the AOS as if you were your wife, in her name, her MCOL account, yes?

didgeridoooo

KP - So it does!
It's worded terribly, that first total should be £100 Plus interest and costs, or £186 including interest costs.
Maybe that's why they waited 4 years, the interest i mean!

didgeridoooo

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Because small claims is not designed for parking scams.

Small claims is intended for REAL DEBTS like a builder suing for non-payment of works done, or a consumer suing for, say, their money back from a car dealer, when sold a cut&shut vehicle. In those cases it makes perfect sense for the D to answer if they defending in full, or making a partial admission and fill out the income stuff the court procedure feeds the parties to use.

It's just that the small claims track has been hijacked by a scam industry where the last thing a D should do is hand info about anything to the scammers and certainly not their income and writing about whether they can afford to pay the 'debt' or not.

Just checking, you are doing the AOS as if you were your wife, in her name, her MCOL account, yes?

I see, thanks CM. Yes I will fill her details for AOS, but when it comes to the filing of the defence my question above will probably be relevant, as I intend to go and club them to death without her.

Umkomaas

Just curious, would this really be a CCJ if I lost? I thought not?

Yes - everyone who loses gets a CCJ (County Court Judgment) against them. It's what the losing party then does as to how a CCJ might impact.

Pay the judgment by the deadline set, the CCJ is expunged from their records as if nothing had happened.

Fail to pay it by the deadline set, then the defendant opens up the prospect of six years of major credit grief.

All within the control of the defendant.

Redx

Welcome to our world, which is not Narnia

You will learn a lot by the end of your saga and the blinkers will fall, then righteous indignation will follow, then revenge is a dish best served cold

Hopefully the bill by Sir Greg Knight will put a stop to this madness when the new mandatory CoP starts later this year

The CCJ happens at the end of the hearing, prompt payment in full is required to get it nullified

Unless it is heard on papers, the defendant MUST attend