BW Legal Application to have judge's struck out decision set aside - what happens next?

EdMan34

Firstly thanks to everyone's amazing spirit and advice on this forum which so far has enabled me to get a claim from Napier Parking / BW Legal struck out by a county court in June 2020. 

These rackets must be defeated.

Quick background:

• I used this defence and followed all the steps https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs#latest
  
• In June 2020 the claim was struck out without going to court "The claim is struck out as the Particulars of Claim disclose no reasonable grounds for bringing a claim" - As you can image that was a pretty sweet day after 18 months of threatening letters etc.
• Today I received from the court a pack which contained a copy of the application from BW Legal to have the Judge's order set aside and a Notice Of Hearing for it.  (Telephone conference hearing) - Deeply saddened and shocked by this.
  

Questions:

1. What happens next at the hearing?
   
2. Can I attend? (Telephone hearing)
   
3. What are the possible outcomes and what would happen if it is set aside?
   
4. Do I need to do anything?

Suggestion:

Would it be worth updating the steps in this post https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs#latest with what ever will happen next (hopefully the answers you will give me herein!)

I have searched the forums for the answers I'm looking for before posting this, but I assume most cases don't make it this far?!

Again thanks to all the advice and sprit this forum provides to the layman!

EDMan34

Redx

read this thread you missed

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6174939/abuse-of-process-bw-legal-win-appeal-against-strike-out/p1

Castle

The claim doesn't appear to have been struck out for "Abuse of process"; so what did BW Legal's application actually say?

Fruitcake

Castle said:

The claim doesn't appear to have been struck out for "Abuse of process"; so what did BW Legal's application actually say?

I suspect BW have been cranking the appeal handle for every case where abuse of process was mentioned even if that wasn't the reason for strikeout, or possibly even just for every case they lost.
I think they are trying to hint that one case won on appeal taints all the others decisions.

beamerguy

Don't be saddened ....... BWLegal have been beaten up by the courts for one reason .... they add unlawful charges.  

Which court did this happen ?
The appeal in Salisbury is actually "much ado about nothing" and the fake scam add-on of £60 was never mentioned

Right now there is only one way to go and that is a face to face hearing, no telephone, no video online because the judge made a decision and you will now assist the court in the decision.

BWLegal are about to throw a great deal of money, their clients money, in a feeble attempt to prove the courts are wrong.  That is never going to work and the Attorney General must now get involved to prevent this timewaster from wasting the courts time. BWLegal have become the new Wonga and we all know what happened to Wonga

nosferatu1001

Yeah, you can of course join to oppose the set aside. They've waited far too long, to my mind, to take this up - over a month is not acceptable. That would be one ground - why the delay
the other would be their grounds for set aside - you haven't told us what their application says. 

You should contact the court to get instructions on joining if you don't have them already. 

beamerguy

Fruitcake said:

Castle said:

The claim doesn't appear to have been struck out for "Abuse of process"; so what did BW Legal's application actually say?

I suspect BW have been cranking the appeal handle for every case where abuse of process was mentioned even if that wasn't the reason for strikeout, or possibly even just for every case they lost.
I think they are trying to hint that one case won on appeal taints all the others decisions.

Without doubt, they are taking on the Judiciary and BWLegal are far too small and incompetent to even stand a chance in hell ... Let them throw away their clients money, it's no skin off our noses

Snakes_Belly

Fruitcake said:

Castle said:

The claim doesn't appear to have been struck out for "Abuse of process"; so what did BW Legal's application actually say?

I suspect BW have been cranking the appeal handle for every case where abuse of process was mentioned even if that wasn't the reason for strikeout, or possibly even just for every case they lost.
I think they are trying to hint that one case won on appeal taints all the others decisions.

. Applying for set aside when the claim had no merit. Won't the Courts see this as vexatious? 

Fruitcake

Snakes_Belly said:

Fruitcake said:

Castle said:

The claim doesn't appear to have been struck out for "Abuse of process"; so what did BW Legal's application actually say?

I suspect BW have been cranking the appeal handle for every case where abuse of process was mentioned even if that wasn't the reason for strikeout, or possibly even just for every case they lost.
I think they are trying to hint that one case won on appeal taints all the others decisions.

. Applying for set aside when the claim had no merit. Won't the Courts see this as vexatious? 

I certainly hope so.

beamerguy

Snakes_Belly said:

Fruitcake said:

Castle said:

The claim doesn't appear to have been struck out for "Abuse of process"; so what did BW Legal's application actually say?

I suspect BW have been cranking the appeal handle for every case where abuse of process was mentioned even if that wasn't the reason for strikeout, or possibly even just for every case they lost.
I think they are trying to hint that one case won on appeal taints all the others decisions.

. Applying for set aside when the claim had no merit. Won't the Courts see this as vexatious? 

taking on the Judiciary to protect a scam and their own credibility which is already at rock bottom is a BIG ask 
Whoever runs the BWL outfit is not very clever, infact plain stupid because anyone can knock the Judiciary but ... don't expect to win, they are much smarter than a tin pot legal firm

Coupon-mad

You just need to read the thread about the Southampton case and copy what I said there. I talked about the POFA, the CRA 2016 and the Beavis case paras 98, 193 and 198.

and send a skeleton argument that also includes the wording from ParkingEye v Somerfield (High Court, endorsed by the Court of Appeal) that already covers the fact that £60 being added to a parking charge is unrecoverable. And append this (attached) copy of all the similar strike outs to show that Napier know that adding £60 is not recoverable and that they are just 'forum-shopping'.

Then attend the telecon, with or without a lay rep to speak for you.

Which court will it be at? Send me a pm and we'll see if someone can assist you.