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

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad said:

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.

Weird, at 4.18 pm I had quoted the OP and edited his use of "power" to "process" but, when @Coupon-mad quoted it, it had reverted to "power"!

Snakes_Belly

When I went to court as many of the regulars are aware I lost my case but with very little cost to myself and large costs to the Claimant. The Claimant's representative asked for permission to appeal and the judge gave the Claimant and myself permission to appeal.  I had no intention of appealing but I would have responded in robust terms had the Claimant done so.  

I did look into what I would have to do if they did appeal. You become the respondent and have various options. You can agree with the decision, agree with the decision but for different reasons, or disagree with the decision.

In my case I would have gone for the option of agreeing in part but adding more points which had not been fully covered. I would have gone for the option of agreeing with the decision but with further points for consideration. 

The PPC did not appeal so I did not have to go through the process. 

The respondent may have already decided which way to respond. 

Uptown_Boy

Le_Kirk said:

Weird, at 4.18 pm I had quoted the OP and edited his use of "power" to "process" but, when @Coupon-mad quoted it, it had reverted to "power"!

Your edit possibly only applies to your quoting of the OP's post. I get the impression that this board format retrieves the original posts (from the database) within a quote rather than what anyone else may have edited.

Alfie_79

beamerguy said:

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

You know how to contact me

I have read and understood the above. I will get something drafted and d=sent across either later today or early tomorrow. I'm optimistic of a positive outcome. 
Can someone clarify for me one thing though. Is their appeal simply based on the implication that the judge, or anyone for that matter, cannot assume what someone "knows" at any given time? I'm probably over simplifying it but isn't their whole case based on the accusation that I knowingly refused to abide by the parking restrictions put in place at this location? Maybe I watch too much tv but in my mind their appeal makes their original accusation a contradiction?

beamerguy

Probably but never forget the doctored picture and the entity
Plus your letter asking them about this which they ignored AND .... the fake add-on of £60

Their appeal is based on the struck out for abuse of process where there was no hearing

Snakes_Belly

Is the OP now in the process of responding to this appeal? 

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad said:

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.  

Yes, just repeating the advice above.

This is NOT about putting in a WS or a defence then.

Alfie_79

Just rereading everything before this happens at lunchtime. If anyone has any last minute advice or tips for what to expect I'd greatly appreciate it!

Le_Kirk

Be calm, be respectful, don't talk over the judge, have a pen and paper handy for notes, have a script (bullet points) of items you want to cover.  Good luck!

Umkomaas

Have a final note on your crib sheet:

COSTS