Britannia Parking Ltd (BWLegal) - County Court Claim

Le_Kirk

Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:

The defendant quotes from the case referred to: -
''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process.

This is to ensure that the judge sees you are quoting from a previous case rather than issuing an order/instruction to the judge/court.

yettoexist

Le_Kirk wrote: »

This is to ensure that the judge sees you are quoting from a previous case rather than issuing an order/instruction to the judge/court.

Great spot! This has been amended in defence. Thanks, Le_Kirk!

yettoexist

I received the standard auto-response/acknowledgement when I submitted my Defence to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk a day before the deadline (approx. 15:45 06/08/19)

I assume CCBC have a backlog when updating MCOL? I'll try and chase them up via phone next week!

yettoexist

Just to update this thread from a while ago.

The defendant has received a Notice of Small Claim to say that the hearing will take place on 22nd January 2020 @ 14:00.

The defendant has left this on the back burner for longer than they should have but they have received the claimants Witness Statement, via email yesterday afternoon. They were waiting to see if before drafting their own WS but it seems like they have left sending it until the last minute on purpose.

The claimants WS does seem quite comprehensive and the defendant does not think that their content will be near the length. The WS doesn't seem to acknowledge the Abuse of Process from the defendant's defence, but it seems that is on purpose as well.

The defendant is starting their WS to hopefully meet the 14 day stipulation using advice from other threads.

Is it worth sharing reacted information from BWLegal's WS?

yettoexist

Also it seems they are using the argument that the driver was selected from the dropdown box on their website when initially appealing. I assume it would be pointless to refute that?

waamo

yettoexist wrote: »

Also it seems they are using the argument that the driver was selected from the dropdown box on their website when initially appealing. I assume it would be pointless to refute that?

There is nothing wrong with pointing out this is a default option but if the defendant was the driver it's difficult to deny it.

yettoexist

waamo wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with pointing out this is a default option but if the defendant was the driver it's difficult to deny it.

I did think as much, thanks for your comment though.

Here's a redacted version on the claimant's WS if anyone would like a gander of what BWLegal are responding to my Defence with.

ttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1592FADpYhWSeEzdXeQKEyDAfwWgnzXOf

(add the usual h to the link)

It is noted that the way the defendant usually leaves the carpark that there is no sign (it's a vehicle exit) so it is entirely possible that the defendant would not see a sign apart from when driving into the carpark. Minor observation.

nosferatu1001

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1592FADpYhWSeEzdXeQKEyDAfwWgnzXOf

I wont follow google drive links, ever.

Leaving isnt important, it is entry that matters. There must be some sign on the way in.

I presume you actually HAVE 14 days as a deadline? And your WS needs to be with them TODAY
So youre going to have to
- serve on the Claimant
- file with the court
by 4pm today.

Hand deliver to court. dont do it any other way.
See if claimant will accept email. they wont, but send it by email ANYWAY AND IN ADDITION serve it by post, getting free proof of posting.
Youve messed up, dont mess up further.

yettoexist

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1592FADpYhWSeEzdXeQKEyDAfwWgnzXOf

I wont follow google drive links, ever.

Leaving isnt important, it is entry that matters. There must be some sign on the way in.

I presume you actually HAVE 14 days as a deadline? And your WS needs to be with them TODAY
So youre going to have to
- serve on the Claimant
- file with the court
by 4pm today.

Hand deliver to court. dont do it any other way.
See if claimant will accept email. they wont, but send it by email ANYWAY AND IN ADDITION serve it by post, getting free proof of posting.
Youve messed up, dont mess up further.

Okay, thanks for your advice.

Dropbox link if prefered

ttps://www.dropbox.com/s/qkbmfxt6yjwfynf/20200107140035725_Redacted.pdf?dl=0

This can all be done today, I received the claimant's WS via email and they accepted the DQ via email as well. I will send via post as a backup, just in case.

nosferatu1001

Nope, its more I dont follow links to sites. You cannot see what you are opening first.

You getting THEIR WS by email is technicall a breach unless you agreed to it> its in the CPRs that email MUST NOT be used unless permission is granted. But it does mean you can use the same method and state it must be acceptable to them - good for the goose being good for the gander, basically.

Rememebr its not just a simnple document, its all the associated evidence.
Nicely printed, filed and divided for the court - make it easy on them.