CCBC Claim Form PPS BW

beamerguy

I have seen many of these BWL responses and this one really bites for biscuit for nonsensical utter rubbish ????   VERY HIGHLY FLAWED and I would expect a judge to pull his/her hair out in total frustration for stupidity

"..it is apparent that a large amount of the information contained therein has simply been "copied and pastred" from an external source, we see on a regular basis. Large portions of your defence are nonsensical and,  in consideration of the circumstances of the individual matter, are entirely irrelevant."

Touché BWLegal much like all the copy and paste you send out and that really is nonsensical
REASON FOR SEARCHING is for answers because of the BWLegal added unlawful amount of £60 and the discovery that BWLegal are constantly having their cases struck out in court for abuse of process

Our client relies on the leading authroity of parking eye limited v beavis UKSC 67, where the Supreme Court held that PCN charges, like this charge, serve as a legitimate commercial interest. 

BUT BWLegal ... the Supreme Court clearly said the amount includes costs of operating, no mention or provision was made to add further amounts such as £60.  This is simply a very poor attempt to go behind the Supreme Courts ruling

.Signage..Consumer Rights Act 2015..
..even if the clause which enables the Claimant to seek debt recovery charges was void for unfairness, which is denied, the contract continues so far as practicable to have effect in every other respect..

A judge will not agree as the added £60 is unfair with no legal authority to do so.  

...double recovery..
..costs are entirely reasonable..are recoverable under the relevant parking code of practice. 
..paragraph 4(6) of schedule 4 protection of freedom act 2012. ... this does not prevent the parking operator from claiming debt recovery charges/contractual costs. 

The code of practice is irrelevant as it is not a legal authority and a motorist, just like the judge cannot be bound by them. The code is written by a members club, only for it's members.
When double recovery is referred to, it is the county court's own ruling that does not allow this and not a members club.  BWLegal are seriously being misled by the code of practice as such codes from the BPA and IPC go against the Supreme Court, POFA2012 and the ruling of the court regarding double recovery

The BWLegal letter still cannot confirm their legal authority to add £60 and this waffle should be shown the judge as their claim is unreliable.

Irrespective of the large volume of nonsensical content within your defence, given the same is endorsed by a statement of truth

That's a very good point, has BWLegal endorced their claim adding unlawful amounts as a statement of truth ..... of course they have and the judge should be made aware of this

Le_Kirk

...Your defence is no more than a copy and paste exercise to obscure legitimate proceedings for recovery of sums which are contractually owing..

..... and their response is more copy & paste rubbish that has been posted by others so many times.  Just because you have used a tried and trusted defence, albeit it was C&P'd doesn't make it irrelevant.  If what they are claiming is true NO ONE - even them - could ever use a defence or rebuttal of a defence that had been used before.  They are trying to put the frighteners on.  I wonder what a judge would make if it and his/her opinion is the only one that matters.

...You have tendered no evidence..

They should know that evidence comes later at Witness Statement stage!

beamerguy

Le_Kirk said:

...Your defence is no more than a copy and paste exercise to obscure legitimate proceedings for recovery of sums which are contractually owing..

..... and their response is more copy & paste rubbish that has been posted by others so many times.  Just because you have used a tried and trusted defence, albeit it was C&P'd doesn't make it irrelevant.  If what they are claiming is true NO ONE - even them - could ever use a defence or rebuttal of a defence that had been used before.  They are trying to put the frighteners on.  I wonder what a judge would make if it and his/her opinion is the only one that matters.

...You have tendered no evidence..

They should know that evidence comes later at Witness Statement stage!

It is now desperation times for BWLegal.
They have done to themselves irreparable damage and as time goes by, more and more courts will simply strike out their claims as a timewasting exercise

Coupon-mad

Please can we stop people posting that template reply as if it's new? 

Rather than typing that out into a reply here on a single thread (again...) it would have been quicker to search the forum for the word nonsensical and read about times we've demolished it...and learn.

beamerguy

Coupon-mad said:

Please can we stop people posting that BW Legal 'nonsensical' template reply as if it's new?  Rather than typing that rubbish into a reply here on a single thread (again...) it would have been quicker to search the forum for the word nonsensical and have a laugh reading how many times we've demolished it...

Spoilsport C-m, the forum needs a good laugh and BWLegal serves it up every time

barnstormerdog

So whats my next step. Do I need to counter argue all their comments or just supply evidence to support my defence? Thanks

Redx

barnstormerdog said:

So whats my next step. Do I need to counter argue all their comments or just supply evidence to support my defence? Thanks

Depends what stage you are at

Last week you told us your WS plus exhibits plus summary costs assessment is due by the 7th of August 2020 , so I would be concentrating on getting those done and submitted to your chosen court

Posting their nonsense has sidetracked your thread

beamerguy

barnstormerdog said:

So whats my next step. Do I need to counter argue all their comments or just supply evidence to support my defence? Thanks

On the 17th, my post basically gave you the answers.  It is up to you, you can reply to their rubbish letter pointing out how incompetent BWLegal are or wait to see what they do next.  Their letter is so nonsensical in itself that will probably make a judge break down in tears by laughing too much.

BWLegal have had their day with so many courts spanking them and they are in denial. The more questions they cannot answer such as the fake £60, the more they expose the scam to a judge
A paper chain of letters can be shown to the judge on the day.  As we see, courts are simply striking out the fake claims and BWLegal will suffer more than most. There are not many companies who delight in banging their head against a brick wall

Coupon-mad

See this is the problem with telling people to reply, querying the stupid added £60 the Claimant has slapped on top. 

Those posters then always think there is a 'next step' and that their replies are going to make a difference.  This is pointless unless new posters clearly understand that the point of replying is only to look better later in court.

barnstormerdog

I have been extremely busy at work as we run seasonal retreats for adults with autism and are suddenly inundated with people wanting to come on holidays. However I am putting some tie aside to get this WS done this week. Is there a good example you anyone can point me in the right direction of. The fine I had is for 2 tickets over a 48 hour period after my weekly ticket ran out. 48 hours is £7. The car park is at the rear of my house and that week I was packing away our retreat equipment as I also have a store in the car park. You can load on my street as it blocks the traffic. 
Thanks for any pointers.