LBC received from BW Legal

Castle

According to Para 3(c) of the "contract", Armtrac Security Services can only sue for trespass; no mention of breach of contract!.

Coupon-mad

Yep, spotted that...! 

I need to liaise with @beamerguy as there is tons for this crib sheet.

I assume the OP has emailed everything to BW now, as well as to court.

beamerguy

Coupon-mad said:

Yep, spotted that...! 

I need to liaise with @beamerguy as there is tons for this crib sheet.

I assume the OP has emailed everything to BW now, as well as to court.

Hi, an email has been sent to BWLegal. I will send you a copy
Is it OK for the OP to contact you direct

Fruitcake

The photos of the ticket on the dashboard clearly show a unique serial number that can obviously be traced by the scammers to a paid transaction, so the Ts andsCs on the sign regarding the display of a ticket have been met.

In paras 6 and 10 of the paralegal's WS, he says he was instructed that the contract and the signs were in place at the time of the alleged event. In other words it is hearsay and outwith the paralegal's knowledge.

I'm sure beamerguy and C-m will give you advice about the Britannia vs Semark-Julian appeal referred to in paras 43-45 so I'll leave it to them.

Para 53 refers to para 34 above, which is nothing to do with para 53. (It should have referred to para 43, not 34).

Para 72 refers to the actions of a train conductor inspecting a ticket, but in that situation the conductor would check both sides of the ticket.

The images of signs are blurred. The only clear image of a sign is actually a stock image. There is no proof that sign was actually installed at the site on the date of the alleged event.

The blue tarriff sign says at point 7 that infringement of the rules will result in a (very blurry) £100 *something*.
Immediately underneath, at point 8, the sign says, (blurry) R C P Ltd, or more likely S C P Ltd which I think the man on the Clapham omnibus would take to mean Stennack Car Park Ltd.
This is confusing to a motorist as it implies that the car park is managed by SCP Ltd, not by Armtrac/KBT.

The time on the pay machine is nearly three minutes different to the timestamp on the photo. I wonder what else is unreliable about the scammer's equipment.

The timestamps on the bulk of the photos are either from 2015 and 2017. There is no proof that most of them were still there in 2019. The entrance sign appears to be on the inside of the wall where a driver would not see it until they were leaving.

The site plan aerial view has a hand written key that has not been signed or dated. It is not referenced in the contract. There is no proof the nomenclature or the position of the signs is accurate for the date of the alleged event. There is not even any proof that the aerial view is actually of the car park in question.

beamerguy

The case is being held in Bristol (Avon)
Bearing in mind that the BWL appeal was Salisbury, does that Circuit Judge cover Avon

on.wheels

Thanks for all the input so far, this is all fantastic.

Coupon-mad said:

I'd like to assist with this OP's crib sheet and collaborate with you, as there is so much to say.

Thanks so much for your offer to help.

Coupon-mad said:

I assume the OP has emailed everything to BW now, as well as to court.

Yes, I hand delivered the bundle to the court yesterday and emailed a copy to BW.

beamerguy said:
Hi, an email has been sent to BWLegal.

Indeed an email has been sent to BW.

Castle said:

According to Para 3(c) of the "contract", Armtrac Security Services can only sue for trespass; no mention of breach of contract!.

This sounds very promising!

Fruitcake said:

The photos of the ticket on the dashboard clearly show a unique serial number that can obviously be traced by the scammers to a paid transaction, so the Ts andsCs on the sign regarding the display of a ticket have been met.

I actually said this in my initial appeal to them and also my defence and WS. They said that number is the ticket roll number.

Fruitcake said:

The blue tarriff sign says at point 7 that infringement of the rules will result in a (very blurry) £100 *something*.

I've mentioned this to them too, as far as I can see none of those 'rules' have been infringed either.

Fruitcake said:

The entrance sign appears to be on the inside of the wall where a driver would not see it until they were leaving.

There are 2 entrance signs, neither of which are visible from the driver's position entering the car park. I mentioned this in my WS and included photos of the signs from Google streetview. The view of the first sign is blocked by a car parked within a marked bay and the second is positioned so low and on the left that you cannot see it from the driver's position in a vehicle.

Fruitcake said:

There is no proof the nomenclature or the position of the signs is accurate for the date of the alleged event.

As mentioned above, there are actually TWO "blue P signs" at/near the entrance and I have included a photo of each in my WS. Their aerial map only shows ONE at the entrance. They have also included multiple photos of the sign that isn't on their map. Surely this proves the map is inaccurate?

I will find time soon to re-read all of your comments and will post on any further findings. Thanks again.

on.wheels

I've just noticed that during my appeal to the IAS (I know), the Claimant added and referred to a hand drawn map of a different car park. Does this add further proof to the inaccuracy of the map/layout in their WS? Is it possible to refer to this appeal during the hearing?

nosferatu1001

It is possible to refer, of course, but what relevance would it have to a court claim?  If they submit the same wrong map its something...

on.wheels

I was just thinking of more ways to suggest the map they provided in their WS cannot be seen as accurate - as a) the handwritten key is not signed or dated, b) there is no proof the sign positions were accurate on the date of the alleged event, c) there is a sign in their photos that isn't shown on the map and d) there is no evidence this is even a map of the correct car park - it is not titled and I have also been provided by the Claimant with a map of a different car park altogether.

nosferatu1001

Yes, but not in the court claim, in POPLA
The two are different and one doesnt really impact the other. 
Surely d) is trivial - prove it is or isnt the same with your OWN evidence!