Defence help BW legal

1505grandad

Para 2 - "and returned to back to the gym within 15 minutes." - lose "to" after "returned".

Para 3 - surely this in, para 1, negates POFA - "it was then noticed that headphones had been forgotten, meaning the Defendant left straight away to collect them from home, and returned to back to the gym within 15 minutes."

as it indicates D as driver.

Para 4 - should read - "it will still lead to a charge - not "fine".

Para 6 - not sure you can state that the Gym is the landowner and also mention a lease.

lime561

I am currently at witness statement stage - need to submit by Monday. I have largely focused on the abuse of process avenue (mostly adapted from CouponMad's threads & sucesses) in the hope it will be stuck out as its being heard at Southampton county court by Judge Brown. Any further advice/ amendments would be appreciated

1. The defendant was a paying member of Easy Gym, Shirley from 5th May 2014 – 2nd December 2014

2. All members of Easy gym Southampton were entitled to 2 hours free parking, providing the number plate was registered at the ANPR machine, which had been completed.

3. The facts are that the vehicle, registration xxxxxx, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on 26th August 2014, in a marked bay at Easy Gym Southampton. As soon as the defendant’s details were registered with the ANPR machine upon entering the gym, it was then noticed that headphones had been forgotten, meaning the defendant left straight away to collect them from home, and returned back to the gym within 15 minutes. The vehicle details were therefore re-entered and use of the gym commenced. This situation is wholly reasonable and it is denied that any ‘misuse’ of the carpark has occurred.

4. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. In addition to the original PCN penalty, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported added 'costs' of £60, which the Defendant submits have not actually been incurred by the Claimant. 


4.1. These have been described as a 'BW Legal costs' (in the pre-action exchange of letters) and/or a 'debt recovery charge'. This additional charge was not part of any terms on signage and cannot be added, as it was never expended by the claimant. Suddenly in the Particulars there is also a second add-on for purported 'Estimated solicitors costs & court fees’ on top of the vague £60, artificially hiking the sum to £271.74. This amounts to more than double recovery and is a clear example of the claimant being vague and disingenuous.


4.2. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs. In Bagri v BW Legal LTD the claimant made a point of stating that they processed 'millions' of claims with an admin team (and only a handful of solicitors). The Defendant therefore avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste PPS robo-claims on the balance of probabilities.
5. Based on these facts the Defendant does not believe being charged £271.74 is justifiable or legal and I therefore invite the court to dismiss this claim in its entirety.

Coupon-mad

I have largely focused on the abuse of process avenue (mostly adapted from CouponMad's threads & sucesses) in the hope it will be stuck out as its being heard at Southampton county court by Judge Brown.

Jolly good!

Change 'the defendant' to ''I'' in your WS. This is your entire narrative in your own words so unlike the defence, you say ''I'' and ''me''.

However that WS is far too short and you need to add more meat to the bones, and evidence - what evidence are you enclosing?

As it is Premier Park, also attach and refer to the decision at Warwick in December 2019, where DJ Josephs began to summarily strike out more than one parking claim, using exactly the same rationale as was used in the Southampton application hearing heard by District Judge Grand on 11th November.

The PREMIER PARK Warwick judgment is in jon8838's thread. Attach that Order.

And so is it reasonable to say that both this Claimant and their legal representatives can be in no doubt that they cannot continue to file parking claims with falsely added £60 costs which taint the entire claim, as already tested in front of a competent Judge at Southampton, where BW Legal's barrister failed to overturn summary strike outs.

Also attach your costs schedule and like in other examples all over the forum (search and learn!) include a section setting out the many hours you have spent in replying to letters, researching the law and handling the unfamiliar court letters, as explained in this article:

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/benchmarks/costs-and-litigants-in-person/5038419.article

The Litigants in Person (Costs and Expenses) Act 1975 (as amended) (the act) gives the LiP the right to recover '… sums in respect of any work done, and any expenses and losses incurred, by the litigant in or in connection with the proceedings to which the order relates'.

A LiP seeking to claim costs may present a claim calculated in one of two ways:

(a) An hourly rate to reflect actual financial loss, or
(b) where unable or unwilling to establish actual loss, on a fixed hourly charge.
The hourly charge is [STRIKE]currently £18[/STRIKE] * per hour, [STRIKE]increased from £9.25 per hour on 1 October 2011.[/STRIKE]

In respect of either category, the maximum the LiP can recover for time is two-thirds of the amount that would have been allowed if legally represented. This limit does not apply to disbursements.

In respect of financial loss, it is for the LiP to establish by evidence and on the balance of probability that a financial loss has been suffered. Furthermore, the LiP must go on to show what that loss actually is.

...the LiP must nevertheless go on to show that he would have been gainfully employed and, more importantly, how much he would have earned. It is the amount lost that gives rise to the claim for financial loss. In practice, it is often on this last limb that LiPs fail.''



* Now £19 per hour unless you can show with evidence that you lost more than this because, for example, the time taken took you away from paid work at a higher hourly rate that you can evidence.

nosferatu1001

C-M - youve missed that this needs submitting by MONDAY
Given the course of ordinary post, it needed to be posted YESTERDAY already

OP - you were last seen in october and you've come back with NO TIME left for us to look at this. Entirely unhelpful, but mostly to you - as its your claim, now ours.

You MUST file and serve with the court AND the claimant your completed bundle. IF you have been emailing them, and theyve been accepting it, you MAY get away with an email MONDAY of all the docs, but beware that under th CPRs you are supposed to get explicit permission to serve using email.

C-M - I get thtis is useful, however how does that help with overcoming costs on small claims track?

lime561

Just received a letter today - claim discontinued!!! Thanks everyone for your help. ))))))