Claim form from BWLegal

Coupon-mad

I told you, the 'landowner authority' bit:

 insofar as the point about 'no landowner authority' is concerned, and redaction of contracts, because this is a car park that Napier own?  It is glaring by its absence from your WS and a standard thing we usually put a PPC to proof about, with an unredacted contract.  

I even mentioned about it being 'unredacted'...that is in a section you've cut out for no reason.

I also saw nothing like his Index of evidence and nothing like his costs schedule.  

You are meant to be copying his example IN FULL and just changing the facts and plonking in your facts instead, at the start, and creating your own INDEX of evidence like his, and your own costs assessment, that looks a bit like his example.

BWScammer

Even though this is the contract as sent in their witness statement?

Coupon-mad

That looks OK but surely in view of what you said about 'where they can operate', the map it talks about is vital to check?

BWScammer

Im extremely confused, I think I have copied everything you've asked, but I'm not sure it even makes sense anymore. I have spent 8 hours for the past 3 days and feel broken. I appreciate any help and any feedback is welcome. 

BWScammer

Thanks - They have provided a map within their WS, but highlighted the area my car was parked, not the main shopping centre which i have highlighted.

Coupon-mad

Oh I see what you mean - separate car parks. 

You were in a permit only area but had no idea, and this is not the shopping centre car park.  Also, that map can't be the one annexed to the landowner authority, so I would be saying that in your WS.   The 'map' they have shown appears to be a mock-up made by Napier using Google Earth, where a person has added blobs to the shopping centre car park and another, permit holders separate car park, yet there is nothing to show any landowner authority to operate that permit holder car park.

I think you need to take a break - it is the weekend so come back to this on Sunday and adapt the landowner authority section to explain the above.

I was confused because I think I read you refer to 'not seeing any PDT machines'(?) in your WS,  but this isn't a PDT machine car park, it's permit holders only.  My impression was your WS is almost there, but doesn't make it clear enough from the start, that this is not the shopping centre car park referred to in the supposed landowner agreement and that the C has withheld the map that is referred to, and mocked up one themselves that bears no relation to the shopping car park.

BWScammer

Yes, exactly, I was surprised when I saw their map, its no better than mine really. 
I think I will, Im work tomorrow, so that will be a welcome break from doing this  
Thanks for your help. 

Timeouts

I agree with coupon-mad ... take a break and reflect.   Apart from your defence, you have two major things in your favour ....... BWLegal adding fakery and they send "rent by the hour" legals to court who have been seen time and time again to be useless

Castle

The contract states that their client is Dewsbury Car Parks Ltd" (co no 08915561) but their filed accounts at Companies House shows that they don't own any land.

BWScammer

Castle said:

The contract states that their client is Dewsbury Car Parks Ltd" (co no 08915561) but their filed accounts at Companies House shows that they don't own any land.

What does this mean? It’s a fake contract pretending to be the land owner..