PPS / BW Legal Claim - Paid for parking, incorrect Vehicle Registration Number - WON

Coupon-mad

Chico_talent said:

Coupon-mad said:

I wouldn't be phoning BW Legal...stop doing that.

No problem, i can do that if that's the advice. How come?? Do they say one thing and do the other. 

Why ON EARTH would anyone pick up the phone to BW Legal, when you are on this forum and know them for who they are?  It seems like you thought they were normal solicitors with a customer service team.

Redx

The task of b w legal is to follow their clients instructions and obtain money from you plus their contractor fee

What on earth do you think that phoning them can achieve ?  No written evidence or anything , they may entrap you on the phone call , many reasons for not phoning them. Plus judges like a paper trail , exhibits , evidence , not hearsay

Chico_talent

Hi all, Another quick question.  Just making my bundle and was wondering whether or not i should be including correspondence between me and PPS/ BW Legal or do they include it in their pack??  The only reason i ask is that i refer to them for refusing to provide me some information requested in the pre-action stage.

Before you all jump in and say I'm doing this too early (I've just sent off the DQ). Im doing it as im deploying with the military in 3 weeks and my return could be in March, so im trying to do as much as i can before i go!!!  And from all of the other post, i can predict pretty much everything in their template WS.

Thanks in advance

Coupon-mad

I would include correspondence that occurred pre-court, yes, if you are making the point that the PPC failed to consider or supply some information to narrow the issues or resolve the dispute outside of court.  They might well not include those letters/emails.

Chico_talent

Hi all, ive just completed my court bundle.  It contains my WS as well as cost summary.  As suggested on here ive match all my paginated page numbers with the PDF page number for ease if the court is using the electronic version.  All QC is greatly appreated

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ex6xauobv6te6sx/ REDACTED Defendant Court Bundle .pdf?dl=0

Chico_talent

@Coupon-mad if you get a spare minute and could look over my court pack it would be greatly appreciated

Coupon-mad

Chico_talent said:

Hi all, Another quick question.  Just making my bundle and was wondering whether or not i should be including correspondence between me and PPS/ BW Legal or do they include it in their pack??  The only reason i ask is that i refer to them for refusing to provide me some information requested in the pre-action stage.

Before you all jump in and say I'm doing this too early (I've just sent off the DQ). Im doing it as im deploying with the military in 3 weeks and my return could be in March, so im trying to do as much as i can before i go!!!  And from all of the other post, i can predict pretty much everything in their template WS.

OK, I see why you are preparing this early.  Looks good, on a skim read except remove 'PPS' from the defence and WS headings because that's not the Claimant's company name; in fact they have the word 'Limited' after their name, surely?  Your documents must be spot on.

ParkingEye v Sharma and ParkingEye v Cargius are both old cases.  I wouldn't use them, personally.

Chico_talent

Ill check with the claim form.but i think your right that it is PPS limited. 

As for the 2 cases you suggested removing, they both deal with incorrect number plates so felt it would be good to use, but if you think they should be removed the i will trust your judgment and experience

Chico_talent

@Coupon-mad I don't think i mentioned parking eye vs sharma? I thought that you might be referring to excel vs mrs s [redacted] but ive just googled it and realized they are different cases. 

1505grandad

You are quoting/exhibiting the BPA CoP etc but claimant are IPC AoS members  -  which you have also stated.