CCBC Claim Form PPS BW

Coupon-mad

Hang on, stop flailing about this.

The facts:
1.  You received the email with the Claimant's WS, late.  Your email record proves it  - have you sent it in a reply yesterday, like I told you to?  It is a fact that you received it at 4.40pm (too late) and you believe that it will be worth the Judge checking when they also received the email, being the time that it was filed.  It appears that the Claimant may have prepared an email before 4pm but did not file and serve it until almost an hour later and are desperate for the court not to inspect or scrutinise the times on the emails - INSIST.  

Someone can't send emails at 3.57pm that somehow 'swirl around in a black hole' and arrive 40 minutes later, unless they got the email address wrong or their system crashed or something like that.  The court MUST look at the time they received theirs and if it matches the time you got yours...well, ask what the Judge makes of it...!

2.   You have not doctored the findings in the Britannia v Crosby case.  At the time of that judgment in November 2019, the internet forum which hosted it, quite properly redacted the second defendant's name to give him anonymity, given he was only a 'spectator' in the case and not the assisted Defendant My Crosby (and Mr Crosby's case was never appealed and that judgment stands).

3.  The C knows your research included using MSE forum, so it is perfectly proper for you to have appended the supplied redacted version of the Crosby judgment which protected Mr Semark-Jullien's name, given he was a stranger to the forum and lay rep.  There was no alteration done and the Defendant had no idea that this Claimant had appealed the non-defended case where insufficient facts were before the court and the appeal Judge apparently decided that a strike-out was 'draconian'.  Given  there has been no strike-out in this case, the Semark-Jullien case is moot and does not assist the C, because HHJ Parkes did not make a finding one way or the other about the illegality of the model that double-counts the cost of sending the standard letters (that the Beavis case said had to be already within the parking charge itself, to justify its level).

4.  The template defence was just part of your research - you can explain this!  I am not putting words into your mouth but clearly the fact that the template defence just needed some facts added, doesn't mean you didn't spend hours worrying, fretting and Googling before you found MSE and also carried out other searches including reading the Beavis case, the Southampton Crosby case, etc.  And you will have spent loads of time reading the papers as they arrived, and thinking about your witness statement, as well as the time spent when you first got the claim in the post. This takes hours of time to handle for a litigant in person and in a recent case (OPS v Jack Neil, in the Sunday Times this week) a Judge assessed the time spent at 60 hours, for a LiP.

5.  Have para 419 of the High Court decision by HHJ Hegarty in ParkingEye v Somerfield to hand to show that DJ Grand's findings about the added sum being unrecoverable...were right all along.  The para 419 is quoted in the new template defence and the WS example in the NEWBIES thread.

6.  There are no grounds whatsoever to strike out a defence that is no more a 'template' than the Claimant's own statements and where the defence clearly has merit and has been listed for a hearing by Judges who were satisfied with it.

The strike out request smacks of desperation and the times on the emails seem to be the reason why they want to deflect attention.  Bring the attention RIGHT BACK to the real times of the emails.

barnstormerdog

beamerguy said:

The simple fact is that BWL ARE SCARED stiff of this forum, they proved that a few months ago with nonsensical rubbish on their web site

Your answer to their claim about MSE

" As the parking charge was £100, I could not understand why they added a further £60. So, you researched to internet for an answer. it was reading the MSE site that I discovered that BWL apply this extra charge yet fail to explain why and I now ask the court why ?
I would suggest the it is BWLegal who are being disingenuous by misleading myself and the court regarding an extra charge they have no reasonable answer for"

And.. if they say they are allowed to because the code of practice says so, they are again misleading the court because the code of practice is only applicable to the parking operator and forms no contract with the motorist
=============================================================

I trust you understand how misleading this is which is contrary to the Beavis case, POFA2012 and the courts own ruling about Double recovery

Also, any mention of the BWLegal appeal in Salisbury will also be misleading as the appeal judge did not give licence to add the £60.  

The charge they refer to is actually £100 here's the break down:
The claim is for the sum of £180 being monies due from the Defendant to the Claimant in respect of multiple PCNs issued between 13/10/2017 and 14/10/2017, full detail of which have been delivered to the Defendant. The terms of the PCN's allowed the defendant 28 days from issue to pay, which D failed to do. 
D has failed to settle their outstanding liability.
The Claim also includes Statutory Interest pursuant on section 69 of the county courts act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum a daily from 13/10/17 to 26/02/2020 = £36.66 The claimant also claims £100.00 contractual costs to the PCN terms. 
Amount claimed £314.00
Court Fee £35
Legal Rep £50
Total £399.66 

Le_Kirk

Not that old chestnut "the Internet defence" again.  When will they learn?  If it were true that anything found on-line (be it a template or facts from other court case via transcripts) is inadmissible then NOTHING could ever be used again as all the words have been used before!  As @Coupon-mad writes, it sounds like desperation and twisting the facts of the strike-outs to suit themselves.

barnstormerdog

Thanks @Coupon-mad I have replied to their email with the help of your points. Not heard back yet. I also included @beamerguy 's counter to their MSE claim. 

beamerguy

barnstormerdog said:

Thanks @Coupon-mad I have replied to their email with the help of your points. Not heard back yet. I also included @beamerguy 's counter to their MSE claim. 

BWLegal have gone as far as they can go and they have been spanked for their trouble.
They hate this site because we tell the truth whilst they keep faking it.
Clearly VCS/EXCEL dumped them because they kept losing and it's still happening.

They are a terrible company on a mission to prove they are right ..... that is the saddest thing about BWL, they never will, and now they have competition trying the prove they are right ..... who are dafter still ? 

BWL have still to wake up to the smell of coffee, I think it's a long way off

barnstormerdog

So @Coupon-mad was correct again.. The email was created at 15:58 but delivered at 16:40. 
(2:58 is GMT so 3:58pm BST)
Not sure if I am reading this right but looks like some serious misleading going on by BWLegal as they showed a photo with 15:58 on claiming that was when it was sent (see below). Their sent box perhaps shows a different story. 
I assume I should send the above to the Judge to show I wasn't the one misleading. 

Castle

The one you are showing is timed at 15.57 and is addressed to the court!

barnstormerdog

heres the one to me

Castle

So they typed out all of your email, attached two files, signed it and sent it all within one minute; that's impressive!

barnstormerdog

yeah, I thought that too, what's going on?