Abuse of Process ... District Judge tells BWLegal

beamerguy

10th Jan 2020

BWLEGAL LOST IN READING AND OXFORD

BOTH BRITANNIA CASES

READING COUNTY COURT
JUDGE BISHOP
CASE NUMBER F1DP7C25
READ WHAT HAPPENED
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76706987#Comment_76706987

OXFORD COUNTY COURT
Full info to follow ...
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76705543#Comment_76705543

didgeridoooo

Thanks for those two links Beamer.

In this post, Coupon-Sane talks about a Supplementary Witness Statement. This is the first time I have heard this phrase. I am continuing to study the forum, but so far I can't find the basis for this term at all. Is this a new thing? I thought you could only submit one WS (per witness). Am I right in thinking this supplementary one is a second WS in the same name, but only relating to the issue of Abuse of Process/double recovery? It's a very long piece of writing (and excellent by the way!), is it current best practice to use this in addition to normal WS in 2020?

henrik777

didgeridoooo wrote: »

Thanks for those two links Beamer.

In this post, Coupon-Sane talks about a Supplementary Witness Statement. This is the first time I have heard this phrase. I am continuing to study the forum, but so far I can't find the basis for this term at all. Is this a new thing? I thought you could only submit one WS (per witness). Am I right in thinking this supplementary one is a second WS in the same name, but only relating to the issue of Abuse of Process/double recovery? It's a very long piece of writing (and excellent by the way!), is it current best practice to use this in addition to normal WS in 2020?

If something is supplementary it's basically in addition to.

For example a second job would provide supplementary income (being in addition to your income from your main job).


Great care should be taken with additional witness statements as if you contradict the earlier witness statement your credibility suffers. Witness credibility is often the difference between winning and losing.

Obviously in this case it's unlikely.

didgeridoooo

Thanks Henrik. Yes I wasn't confused by the word supplementary, just by the fact I had never heard of submitting two WS's. Is this recommended practice now in order to attack the double recovery/abusive £60+ etc?


Basically why I am asking is because I am struggling with keeping everything brief to make the Judge's life easier but this adds another huge mass of text for him/her to read before a hearing so I am a bit hesitant.

Le_Kirk

Read the CEC16 and the basher52 threads where Coupon-mad (I like your play on her name) explains it.

beamerguy

This is now in POST# 1 OF THIS THREAD .....

IS THIS PLAIN STUPIDITY OR COMPLETE INCOMPETENCE ?
On friday 10th January, BWLegal/Britannia presented two cases, one in Reading and the other in Oxford.
The themes were the same whereby BWLegal claimed on behalf of Britannia Parking Group Ltd but the contract to operate on the site was signed by Britannia Parking Services Ltd. This is a separate entity with it's own company number as seen here ..

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/RHPBpZJHOsN21zDn5VXHggkxTLo/appointments

BWLegal submitted a claim from the wrong entity and duly signed this as a statement of truth ???
In the Reading case, in their witness statement, BWLegal provided a copy of the contract with the landowner which stated Britannia Parking Services Ltd. The NTK showed Britannia Parking Group Ltd

Both judges fully understood this and both claims were dismissed

OXFORD CASE PST # 87
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76747116#Comment_76747116

READING CASE POST # 49
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6008854/britania-parking-pcn-bournemouth&highlight=icicle&page=3

The BPA can also be called into question. They are supposed to monitor their members sites. CLEARLY THIS IS NOT TRUE

didgeridoooo

didgeridoooo wrote: »

Thanks LeKirk - I will find those and read them fully before I send my WS in.

I have read both threads front to back. I am not at all sure why I was advised to read the basher52 thread, worried I missed something (but I read every word). The CEC16 thread was superb though, thanks.

Velocifero

Coupon-mad wrote: »

<b>DEFENCES</b><br />
EXCEPT IN PARKINGEYE CASES, people can use bargepole's concise defence then add <u>your own facts</u> as point #2, then as #3, something about the non-prominent signage, then as #4, something about 'no proprietary interest/landowner authority', then continue as below for the rest...

This might as well be in Chinese.
I am completely unable to comprehend what this means. I have spent hours looking for "bargepole's concise defence" and got no where. I've used the advanced search to only search bargepole's posts and used every combination of words like "defence, concise, etc" and I can not find a post with a defence they have written.

I don't understand what it means by points #2,#3,#4. Is it points in the defence? I assume so but its not exactly clear.

I don't understand the "continue as below" either as it relates to a witness statement, not a defence.

Does Abuse of Process only go in the witness statement and not the defence?

I've taught myself how to build computers and program in several languages but this post? Not a clue, can't wrap my head around it.

BlueBumblebee

Update from my communications with the SRA regarding BW Legal
Re: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76346514#Comment_76346514 and https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76346313#Comment_76346313



I've just had an email from the SRA confirming that they are still investigating BW Legal after my complaint to them back in the summer, and it's specifically the claims struck out for Abuse of Process that remain under investigation.


They don't have anything else to say at this point, just letting me know they're still looking into it, and they'll get in touch again when they have any further updates. But still... progress is being made!

didgeridoooo

Don't know if you have your own thread or not (?) but a few replies:

Chinese - the code (<b> or <u>)) is html for text formatting (bold or underline). You can ignore that. It reads DEFENCES (in bold with formatting).

Bargepole's concise defence - I think this is the link you need. It takes a while to become good with the search function, but it's worth plugging away as you can find specific things you need on a whim then. People won't generally post links (like I did) because they would never have time to read and respond if they were finding and linking for every person who asks.

# just denotes numbering. So #1, #2 simply refers to number 1 and number 2 in a list of points.

"continue as below" - Basically it just means USE the information/points below, and you can use it in your defence or WS. I am past D stage, at WS stage, so as this is new info, I had to append it to my WS. In future claims, I will include it in Defence so my WS can be back to what it should be, facts/circumstances. That's my understanding anyway. These points are excellent defence points, I dont think they are ideally placed in a WS unless (like me) you have no choice as the Defence has already been filed.

Abuse of Process can go anywhere, but Defence is the best place (in my view), although reference to it in a WS I think is fine. It depends if you have bigger and better arguments to talk about. If you don't have much to defend on, the importance of the AoP issue grows. If you have loads of defence points which could all win it for you, AoP becomes (again in my view) more of an extra argument. It definitely needs mentioning somewhere though, so as a minimum in your defence. (Especially in light of recent events.) It all depends on each particular case.

"program in several languages" - Oh, haha. Why was I just explaining html to you? Maybe that's not what you were referring to! I am sure you know what # means too!

Summary of that post - Except in ParkingEye cases, use Bargepole's concise defence as a template, adding your own facts wherever necessary and relevant.