County Court Defence Help Please

dollydoodar

@Coupon-mad can i send you my evidence pdf file in a private message please as it has all my details in it? i would like to know if it looks good. i lost the FG numbers when i converted it to pdf so i'm off to ask aunty google how to fix it. nearly done and by the skin of my teeth which is not like me at all...

Coupon-mad

Yes that's fine, I am doing a hearing tomorrow though...so can't look till the afternoon.  But you can email your bundle any tome of day!

Your point about SPAG looks fine. 

Remove ALL mention of BW Legal!  CEL don't use a solicitor because they have the famous ex-Wonga man heading their in-house 'legal brains' (LOL!):
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/scott-wilson-88ab3a20

Your WS says that your appealed in Jan 2018 - surely it was Jan 2015 of this parking event was from Christmas 2014?  I read that dat  your first post I think.  Or was the event at Christmas 2017, in which case you'd have to remove the paragraph about the BPA CoP banning 'PCNs to Blue Badge Holders' because by 2017 the BPA (in its infinite 'wisdom') had been persuaded by their paying members to remove that protection.

i just need to sort out the struck out cases evidence and check if it's all under 25mb when combined. i feel as though it would be a lot easier for the judge if it were all conatined in one pdf as then he could search for relevant pieces. do you agree?

I agree, and here is a PDF with the Willesden case and all the strike outs in one PDF - it's one I did earlier for a hearing.  It contains all the good strike outs from recent months in cluding the Southampton approved judgment.

dollydoodar

Coupon-mad said:

Yes that's fine, I am doing a hearing tomorrow though...so can't look till the afternoon.  But you can email your bundle any tome of day!

Your point about SPAG looks fine. 

Remove ALL mention of BW Legal!  CEL don't use a solicitor because they have the famous ex-Wonga man heading their in-house 'legal brains' (LOL!):
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/scott-wilson-88ab3a20

Your WS says that your appealed in Jan 2018 - surely it was Jan 2015 of this parking event was from Christmas 2014?  I read that dat  your first post I think.  Or was the event at Christmas 2017, in which case you'd have to remove the paragraph about the BPA CoP banning 'PCNs to Blue Badge Holders' because by 2017 the BPA (in its infinite 'wisdom') had been persuaded by their paying members to remove that protection.

i just need to sort out the struck out cases evidence and check if it's all under 25mb when combined. i feel as though it would be a lot easier for the judge if it were all conatined in one pdf as then he could search for relevant pieces. do you agree?

I agree, and here is a PDF with the Willesden case and all the strike outs in one PDF - it's one I did earlier for a hearing.  It contains all the good strike outs from recent months in cluding the Southampton approved judgment.

thank you.
it was definitely 2017... would you mind being more specific about which bits i need to remove. can't find anything about banning blue badges when i search the document. and all mention of bw legal? shall i delete all the paras containing bw legal? 

dollydoodar

@Coupon-mad
do you mean para 13 for the pcn ban part? if so, i have already changed it. when i looked at the BPA for my year, it didn't have anything pertaining to what you had written for Littlewade's so i changed it to suit mine. that's why i couldn't find it in my WS. i hope i've done it correctly. please let me know...still not sure what to do about the bw legal bits and would really appreciate some help with that please...

nosferatu1001

You dont delete BW legal
You change to CEL and check it makes sense still. For example, as BW Legal are NOT a PPC they are solicitors, they would not be the claimant - so you might need to change the sentence to still make sense. 
The 2014 Code of Practice stated that they MUST NOT ticket blue badge holders
By 2017 this was removed, because it meant ANPR car parks couldnt be used. Not that they should be of course, theyre fundamentaly flawed. 

dollydoodar

thank you, that's a great help. i shall do that now and post it up for scrutiny...

dollydoodar

i have altered the first few sentences. hope it reads well. now i am feeling like adding information about CEL's struck out cases? would that be best/possible? thanks...

29. The Claimant has no excuse for filing a claim where £82 has been added. They have received adverse Orders from the courts in recent months and failed to appeal even when a judgment went against them, when they applied to set aside a series of parking claims that were summarily struck out for abuse of process; specifically, for adding a false sum to a parking charge - as in my case:

(i) (dd14) - Premier Park claim struck out by Warwick County Court - (no appeal).

(ii) (dd16) - multiple parking charge cases struck out by Southampton County Court - BW Legal tried and failed in an application in late 2019 to set aside the 'strike-out' Orders and this exhibit shows the Approved Judgment and reasoning of District Judge Grand.  

30. BW Legal chose not to appeal, and given that their first duty is to the Court, continuing with more parking claims in other court areas and still adding £60 to every one of them, is an abuse of process and surely a matter for the courts to raise as a concern for the Solicitors' Regulation Authority to investigate, if the court has that power and inclination. If this Claim proceeds to trial, the representative sent by BW Legal for Premier Park will be questioned about this duplicity in view of both companies already knowing that their claims are exaggerated and unrecoverable.

30.1 Further, at Skipton County court on 27.2.2020 - an area where Judges are also summarily striking out every parking charge case where £60 has been falsely added - Excel Parking Services failed to overturn six strike-out orders, in a mirror image application hearing just like the one BW Legal lost in Southampton. They were refused leave to appeal, the application to set aside was dismissed and the Claimant was found to have behaved unreasonably. Costs of £331.10 were awarded to a lead Defendant in claim no F3QZ38JK (one of the six) because the District Judge Fay Wright held that the Dammerman test was met by the conduct of the parking firm (dd15)

nosferatu1001

So 29 doesnt make sense- think about it

In those cases BW Legal represented those different PPCs
So you instead need CEL strike outs instead. 
30 would then be CEl not appealing aganist either the add on or the entire claim being struck out / claim lost (they are different things - a strike uot is without the court hearing the claim, a lost claim is lost at a hearing)
31 may not apply

This isnt meant to be tricky - youre saying "this add on has not been allowed, and the claimant knws this due to..." 
Make it work for you, in your specific case. Obviously where a C is represented then you can use cases that *representative* was at and lost, but that isnt the case here. You can use direct cases, and then point out where claims were similar and were struck out elsewhere as support. 

Coupon-mad

breaches of the UTCCRs as applied at the time,

As it was 2017, unlike in Littewadie's case, the UTCCRs didn't apply - instead, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 did in your case. 

 So remove 'UTCCRs as applied at the time' and replace with the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Also remove all mention of the UTCCRs in 27 and 28 and the heading above it.  The CRA 2015 applied to your case, in 2017.

There aren't any known CEL strike outs. 

Just download and use this one that has all the strikeouts from the private parking industry AOS members, of which CEL is one.  But if course where you are talking about the Southampton case, you must say ''30. BW Legal chose not to appeal'' because in THAT case, it was BW Legal.

How do people find abuse of process hard to grasp?  It simply means:

THEY CAN'T ADD SUMS ON TOP OF A PARKING CHARGE...BECAUSE THE PARKING CHARGE MUST ALREADY INCLUDE ALL OPERATIONAL COSTS.

That's all you need to know, and if asked why, say DJ Grand at Southampton covers it all and refer the Judge to that case!  He says it best.  It involves the Beavis case paras 98,193 and 198 and the POFA, and the CRA 2015 but he covers all that in the judgment, which is in this attachment of all the best strike outs.

dollydoodar

i shall alter it now and repost.
i understand what abuse of process means but i am far from being able to write about it 
thank god for you and the other knowledgable people on here