Link Parking/BW Legal beaten in court.

keypulse

(continued)

The following 8 photographs were taken by me on a subsequent visit to the site (14 October 2019). These are shown on Page 18 to Page 22 of this evidence bundle. These photographs show that The Claimant had decided to install additional signage since my last visit on 22 January 2019.

• 7a A new sign has been installed by The Claimant sometime since the 22 January 2019. It is marked here and on the site plan as “G”, in orange. (Sign “A” is still in place, but has been turned approximately 135º clockwise to face east; still practically invisible to a passing motorist driving north. Compare to Photograph 07; this sign was not there on 22 January 2019.

• 7b Sign “G” from a distance of approximately 80 centimetres. The style of this new sign is different to the old ones, and now specifies the “additional cost of £60”, where the old signs did not.

• 11a Sign “A” taken facing south (the direction one would be driving as they leave the site). Vehicles can still be seen parked on the site, despite the new signs stating “NO PARKING FOR ANY VEHCILE IN THIS AREA” (whereas the old signs state “ NO PARKING IN THIS AREA FOR ANY VEHCILE”).

• 18a The bins have been removed. New signage has been installed by The Claimant along the river bank wall, interspersed with their existing old signs.

• 23a Further east along the river bank, all bins and skips now cleared. The Claimant's signage here is at least now visible, if still inadequate (small size, tiny print).

• 32a Two of the new signs have been installed by The Claimant in the area in which I had parked my vehicle on 22 January 2019. These are marked here in orange (and on the site plan) as “H” and “I”. Compare to photograph 32; these signs were not there on 22 January 2019.

• 33a Location of sign “H”, compare to photograph 33 to see this sign was not installed on 22 January.

• 18a I returned for a final visit to The Paintworks to measure the signs and print installed by The Claimant. This photographs shows sign “C” in relation to sign “X”. The Claimant's

  sign is of the exact same size as the “Deep Water” sign (600mm high by 450mm wide) and uses the same colour scheme (white background with yellow and black graphics and fonts). The majority of the “contract” wording on the claimant's signage is in a font of just under 10mm (1 centimetre) in height. The Claimant's new signs are of the same size, colours and font sizes as the old ones, but the wording has been altered slightly.

keypulse

Redx said:

keypulse said:

Big day tomorrow then, I'd half expected BW to have discontinued before now.

I have my own documents in one binder and have BW's bundle in another along with all the correspondence they and Link have bombarded me with over the past year or so. I'll get to court in good time.

There are quite a few things I feel I should pick through in their witness statement, not least the fact it's been signed by someone who has never been to the site and who will not be attending court either. Should I make a skeleton to address these, or can I just go through my notes?

Your notes are your skeleton , your skeleton is your notes

They are both your aide memoire

Sorry @Redx I missed this in a flurry of copy-pasting. Do I need to hand my notes/skeleton to the judge beforehand?

Coupon-mad

No you don't.  As long as you have a crib sheet you can follow, you can use it.

Take a wage slip to prove your loss of salary or loss of leave, and have your costs schedule ready.

Get to court half an hour early at least, to get through security and then sign in with the Usher, and go to the loo and grab some water, and read your notes.  There is no 'offer' granting a licence to park on the signs is there, they ban parking somewhere (Lord knows where)!

Have you got the CRA 2015 Schedule 2 to hand out about the added false £60, or is it already filed & served as evidence ?

keypulse

Coupon-mad said:

Have you got the CRA 2015 Schedule 2 to hand out about the added false £60, or is it already filed & served as evidence ?

I added this https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75937581#Comment_75937581 as a supplementary witness statement (thanks!). Yes, I fixed the paragraph numbering for mine

Coupon-mad said:

go to the loo and grab some water

I was really hoping they'd have a drinking water dispenser or vending machine, but if needs must...

Coupon-mad

Haha, I hope they are civilised!  Well spotted.

keypulse

Just got out of court. I am over the moon... I won! Link Parking to pay me £414.50 within 2 weeks.

More details and I'll thank you all properly when I get home later.

beamerguy

keypulse said:

Just got out of court. I am over the moon... I won! Link Parking to pay me £414.50 within 2 weeks.

More details and I'll thank you all properly when I get home later.

WELL DONE, Yet another BWLegal case goes belly up.
What a costly experience for Link parking ... oh dear
Can you please tell us which court, the name of the judge within you report
thanks, well done

D_P_Dance

Excellent news, ell done.

Was that  compensation for unreasonable behavioutr  If so please share your argument.

nosferatu1001

£400+ must be unreasonable
PLEASE give us a full detail, but a break first to recover is wise!

keypulse

I don't know where to start, I'm a bit frazzled from having less than 4 hours sleep last night (stress or excitement).
I'll answer questions before trying to put some kind of report together.

beamerguy said:

keypulse said:

Just got out of court. I am over the moon... I won! Link Parking to pay me £414.50 within 2 weeks.

More details and I'll thank you all properly when I get home later.

WELL DONE, Yet another BWLegal case goes belly up.
What a costly experience for Link parking ... oh dear
Can you please tell us which court, the name of the judge within you report
thanks, well done

My case was heard today at Bath Law Courts, case # FZDP8Z2J by District Judge Payne, a thoroughly fair and reasonable judge. I think I'd still have liked him if the case had gone the other way.

D_P_Dance said:

Excellent news, ell done.

Was that  compensation for unreasonable behavioutr  If so please share your argument.

Yes, it was. My argument was that I'd taken many clear photographs to show Link's signage was inadequate. I'd offered to make these available at the time I appealed but the appeal was rejected and the offer ignored. DJ Payne agreed with me that if they'd only asked to see my evidence a long time ago, they might not have pursued a claim. He also agreed that the fact they had added signage since the date they ticketed me shows they were aware the signage wasn't adequate.

From my WS (site formatting breaks paragraph numbering)

1. 8.1  I contend that The Claimant has behaved unreasonably in bringing this case against me to the court. Their actions and the actions of BW Legal have brought me considerable vexation and distress. As a litigant-in-person I have had to learn relevant law from the ground up and spent a considerable time (I estimate as much as 60 hours) researching case law online, revisiting the site (also costing fuel), processing and printing evidence and preparing my defence and this witness statement. I have no intention of claiming for each and every one of the hours I have spent on this, but will be asking for a consideration to cover 16 hours of my time as detailed in my costs schedule.

2. 8.2  The Claimant was made aware I contested their charge and had taken many photographs to prove any case they brought against me would fail on signage alone. They refused to acknowledge this.

3. 8.3  The Claimant has, since 22 January 2019, installed new signage at The Paintworks, including at the entrance to that area they manage. This shows they were fully aware their signage was woefully inadequate and decided to take steps to address this. However they still pressed forward with their case against me.

nosferatu1001 said:

£400+ must be unreasonable
PLEASE give us a full detail, but a break first to recover is wise!

I will do this as best I can over the evening.