bwlegal and premier park exceeding maximum stay period

Coupon-mad

You should make sure you have ParkingEye v Somerfield in a WS - this is also in the example WS in the NEWBIES thread, already.

FAIR.DEAL

Hi, 
I have until 5th December to prepare my bundle.  I've read other thread and I am a bit confused now and worried.  What do I need to do now?! e-mail old WS + old supplementary WS + new supplementary WS or just e-mail one new WS.
Court's direction as follow:
''It is essential that an appropriate ebundle and a paper bundle (for the sole use of the judge) is prepared to enable a remote hearing to take place. The bundle should be prepared on the basis that the Judge may have no previous knowledge of the case and may not have access to the court file.  It should be emailed to xxxx@justice.gov.uk at least 48hrs ahead of the hearing and clearly state in the email subject ebundle with the time and date of the hearing and case number.''

Has anyone defended these kind of claims and won? Can somebody very kindly refer me to them please?

Coupon-mad

Errrrmmmm, we win 99% of the time.  Reports of wins every week and the NEWBIES thread tells you how to find them.

FAIR.DEAL

Coupon-mad said:

Errrrmmmm, we win 99% of the time.  Reports of wins every week and the NEWBIES thread tells you how to find them.

I am so grateful to you all, I know you helped people win here including me. I meant in regard to semark-jullian case. 

Redx

That case has been discussed to death on here recently

The fact is that the judge must consider the case and decide on all parts of it , including double recovery or abuse of process

It's no longer an automatic strike out

FAIR.DEAL

Understood, my plan is to submit my old WS + new supplementary WS, I don't know if I have to send my defence too?

Were_Doomed

If it's an electronic court bundle for the hearing then include your defence too.

beamerguy

Redx said:

It's no longer an automatic strike out

Agreed but do we really feel that most judges accept this when they still see these dodgy legals plying their trade with fake add-ons ?   Are we not seeing cases being thrown out for other reasons such as signs and contracts ....... showing there are more ways to skin a cat.

BWLegal created this with their appeal and I might say created severe damage to the whole of the parking industry with their disciple legals falling into the trap as misled followers

FAIR.DEAL

Hi, 
In my original WS, I have mentioned parkingEye v Somerfield and Beavis case paragraph 98,193 and 198.  Is there anything else I could mention in my new supplementary WS as my reply to their las evidence of Semark-Jullian apart from this section

Whilst it is known that another case that was struck out on the same basis was appealed to Salisbury Court (the Semark-Jullien case), the parking industry did not get any finding one way or the other about the illegality of adding the same costs twice. The Appeal Judge merely pointed out that he felt that insufficient information was known about the Semark-Jullien facts of the case (the Defendant had not engaged with the process and no evidence was in play, unlike in the Crosby case) and so the Judge listed it for a hearing and felt that case (alone) should not have been summarily struck out due to a lack of any facts and evidence.

Le_Kirk

That is the latest advice (looks familiar) and can be found in the latest defence template and//or WS template.  Also you could search the forum for Semark-Jullien.