New MCOL N1 court claim filed by BW Legal re Parking Fine by Napier Parking in 2018

nosferatu1001

The part admission was rejected, presumably because it wasnt signed and did not come from the defendant, as a guess. 
I dont see how it could affect anything. 

Coupon-mad

It was not your Dad's place to tick boxes on YOUR claim/defence forms like that, and as YOU are the Defendant, I agree with nosferatu1001.

disrepair

Thanks for the advice!
I'll keep this thread posted whenever either CCBC, BW or Napier decide to rear their ugly heads.

Coupon-mad

Well you are at the normal stages now, in that your defence has been filed and everything else is already explained in the NEWBIES THREAD 2nd post under the red heading 'IMPORTANT - KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN'.

The CCBC are soon out of it, once you pass DQ stage.  Please no posts asking about that basic form as it's already covered in the sticky.

disrepair

What a shocker, I finally got a reply to my email asking about the legitimacy of their 60 quid added cost and that they drop the case, and they seem to have completely ignored the entire contents to say "but we agreed with someone over the telephone for 100". 

Replied and told them basically no thanks I haven't agreed to anything, and also to answer the questions about the charges and if they'll drop their BS to save me the trouble.

I'm looking at filling out the DQ N180 form, and had a question. The defendant in question for all this is my Mum, and she wouldn't be able to adequately defend the claim on her own, so I will be going with her. Her English isn't the best, so I was just wondering if - if this goes to court, will I be allowed to basically speak on her behalf for pretty much everything and present the defence for her? Furthermore, am I right to assume that I would be classed as a witness, so for D3 I pick "2" witnesses?

Many thanks, all.

Redx

you cannot be a lay rep AND a witness , its one or the other

yes if it goes to a face to face hearing you can assist, as lay rep, so not as a witness

as for the DQ, just put the maximum number of witnesses who MAY be there, so say 4 or 3 or 2 even if less actually turn up, its only for the size of room etc , no biggie

Coupon-mad

She just needs to tick one witness (herself).

You are not a witness.

You are going to be her lay rep like on every thread talking about the Lay Representatives Rights of Audience Order 1999. Search the forum, this is asked all the time.  A lay rep needs no permission in advance of the hearing; it is her right as long as she attends.

D_P_Dance

 ... about the legitimacy of their 60 quid added cost ...  they seem to have completely ignored the entire contents

They do not want to admit that this is unlawful, ask them again.  Warn them that failure to address this important point will be brought to the attention of the court and to the SRA.

https://www.sra.org.uk/

beamerguy

disrepair said:

What a shocker, I finally got a reply to my email asking about the legitimacy of their 60 quid added cost and that they drop the case, and they seem to have completely ignored the entire contents to say "but we agreed with someone over the telephone for 100". 

Here is the clue ....... you asked them to substantiate the £60 and they failed but they still claim it which makes their claim unreliable. Your letter is for the judge to see and ask the same question.  BWL will send a "rent by the hour legal" who will be clueless and will not have an answer, other than the nonsensical rubbish that BWL spit out all the time.  Their failure to reply will put them on track for another spanking

disrepair

D_P_Dance said:

They do not want to admit that this is unlawful, ask them again. 

beamerguy said:

Here is the clue ....... you asked them to substantiate the £60 and they failed but they still claim it which makes their claim unreliable. Your letter is for the judge to see and ask the same question.  

Surprisingly enough, I got a response from the lad at BW. What isn't surprising is how it's contents are utter BS.

I attach to this email a copy of the signage that was in situ on the date of the contravention, as it was photographed by the parking attendant whilst observing your vehicle. You will note on its base that it states “non-payment will result in additional charges of up to £60 which will be added to the value of the charge and for which the driver will be liable on an indemnity basis.” This is a contractual term clearly outlined on the signage.

I am unsure on what basis you have alleged that “claims of this sort are regularly struck out” as our client would not proceed on such claims. Our Client is satisfied as to their prospects of success, and therefore will not be discontinuing their proceedings against you. For the avoidance of doubt, our client shall not pay any costs to you unless ordered to do so by the Court.

We therefore look forward to hearing from you as to how you intend to settle the outstanding balance.

What a joke... Should I humour him with a reply, attaching a few of the cases like Britannia vs Crosby, or save it for court?