Should I just pay? (BW Legal - Intent to Proceed after defence submitted)

Le_Kirk

Alfie_79 said:

Le_Kirk said:

Alfie_79 said:

So, the facts are that you won, then BWL ...............

I have done nothing I'm ashamed to say. I'm sorry I stopped responding to your emails..............

First thing to do is to check the paperwork to see when you should have submitted your WS etc.  Then go from there.

This isn't the first time it's got to this stage so all the WS and supporting evidence was already submitted. This is happening because, after the judge struck it out for abuse of process power, they appealed and got another court date.

That's fine then, so long as you haven't received further instructions. Is it going to be a F2F or video/telephone hearing.  If not F2F they sometime issue new instructions to send a "bundle" to the court.

beamerguy

So members, as this is an appeal, will the original WS still stand ?

Uptown_Boy

beamerguy said:

So members, as this is an appeal, will the original WS still stand ?

That's why the OP is being told to carefully check the court orders received. I guess people here can advise opinions, but only the OP's court orders give the facts.

beamerguy

Uptown_Boy said:

beamerguy said:

So members, as this is an appeal, will the original WS still stand ?

That's why the OP is being told to carefully check the court orders received. I guess people here can advise opinions, but only the OP's court orders give the facts.

But, that's what we are trying to find out ^^^

Coupon-mad

Uptown_Boy said:

nosferatu1001 said:

Have tiny fully complied with every order from the court? Can you prove it?

?? Are you using a mobile device with autocorrect going bonkers?

Good point though ... the OP should read again all court orders received to ensure that all requirements have been met. One such requirement is possibly about a combined bundle, whereby the Claimant is likely liable for submitting this to the court and copying to the Defendant. (If this is the case then the OP will need to carefully check the combined bundle to ensure it has all their defence/WS included, and that it has not been doctored in any way - such as printing and scanning photos/images to degrade their quality).

Are you a previous poster?   I've noticed the stuff you write shows you've handled court cases, yet you've only made a few posts.

Coupon-mad

Alfie_79 said:

Le_Kirk said:

Alfie_79 said:

So, the facts are that you won, then BWL appealed because they got the hump because it was struck out for Abuse of process and we did not get the chance to show the court that the Britannia pictures they sent as evidence were doctored  Those pictures are shown on this thread

We also know that the doctored pictures hide the true entity of Britannia for the pub.
So, what have you done with only 10 days left ??????? this is serious

I have done nothing I'm ashamed to say. I'm sorry I stopped responding to your emails. Life kinda got in the way I did actually have to go to hospital to ensure I would be alive to see this day in court (long story). But yeah, its slipped my mind and only occurred to me the other day that this was coming around soon. Dug out the paperwork and was horrified to find it was happening on the 14th. I'm not sure there was much required of me but I could have done something to deal with this earlier. 

First thing to do is to check the paperwork to see when you should have submitted your WS etc.  Then go from there.

This isn't the first time it's got to this stage so all the WS and supporting evidence was already submitted. This is happening because, after the judge struck it out for abuse of power, they appealed and got another court date.

It is NOT called abuse of power and the coining of the phrase has set us back because people think it's a magic word/phrase and a defence to the PCN, which it isn't, as such.

The latest court order will tell you what is expected of you and that might involve electronic submission of all your papers and the defence (as well as giving the court your phone number) by x date.

KeithP

This is an appeal by the Claimant against a strike out.

Is the Defendant actually obliged to do anything? Surely it is just a discussion between the Claimant and the Court?

Of course the Defendant would be wise to attend and object to the appeal, but... 

beamerguy

KeithP said:

This is an appeal by the Claimant against a strike out.

Is the Defendant actually obliged to do anything? Surely it is just a discussion between the Claimant and the Court?

Of course the Defendant would be wise to attend and object to the appeal, but... 

I agree. He has already submitted the WS in the previous case as have BWL who showed the doctored picture .    ......... no other order is in place. 
Therefore is his first WS applicable.. BWLegal have already been told about the doctored picture which they ignored.  The case was struck out with no hearing

Coupon-mad

Ah OK, so the important thing for the OP to get their head around is to tell the appeal Judge about HHJ Hegarty's words in para 419 of ParkingEye v Somerfield (High Court stage) and to show them to the appeal court, so that the Judge doesn't make a stupid mistake and say something daft about the £60 add-on, even if they reset the case to a hearing, which they probably will when the PPC waves Britannia v Semark-Jullien.

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/4023.html

Put in a skeleton argument early next week that gives the Judge that transcript (NOT SEMARK JULLIEN!) and says:

Even if the case is reset for a hearing (if the appeal court doesn't think that the local Judges have seen enough evidence, time and again, of this abuse every week by parking firms inflating their claims by £60 or £70 and getting the majority of consumers to cave in and pay a double sum long before most cases get anywhere near a hearing) then at the very least, the Defendant wishes the appeal Judge to know that the High Court has covered this exact point.  HHJ Hegarty at 419 says that adding £60 is effectively double recovery, unjustified inflation of the quantum and unrecoverable.

And that this case is why ParkingEye v Beavis a couple of years later was only about £85, because ParkingEye had dropped the unrecoverable sum by then.  But parking firms are pretending that this never happened and are layering on fake costs that have never been paid for any kind of 'recovery', and this is something that the MHCLG's lawyers are actively considering as a result of the new Code of Practice draft, flowing from the Private Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019. Public comments and evidence from interested parties that came into the BSI and MHCLG during October and it is clear that most courts are not allowing the false double recovery attempt, knowing as they do that a parking charge must include the costs and profit of the operation (Beavis case says so at 98, 100, 193 and 198). It's part of the justification for the Beavis £85 escaping being struck out as a penalty. 

The 'debt demand' letters are the very business model of a private parking operation, therefore parking firms can't add costs for the demands, again, on top.  

beamerguy

Alfie_79 .... are you reading the post above from Coupon-mad ?

You know how to contact me