Received Directions Questionnaire - what next?

samsepi0l

KeithP said:

I would suggest that the private land starts where the arch over the roadway is.
That seems to be in line with the change in colour of the tarmac pavement on each side too.

I've not looked back through the thread, but do we know exactly where this is?

136 Portswood Rd, Portswood, Southampton SO17 2NH - Portswood Shopping Car Park
Wasn't sure whether to omit that piece of information, but as you're asking, I imagine its not a problem

KeithP

Ah... @Coupon-mad knows all about that car park. Mr Crosby parked there.

Look at this lengthy thread:
forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6006850/bw-legal-portswood-car-park-southampton/p1

Coupon-mad

So Portswood (the Crosby case location and I suspect the Semark-Jullien location but I'm not 100% sure) has a camera on a shop filming people on the public highway?!  Get proof from the Council, a map of what is adopted public highway, not a phone conversation.

Castle

I checked out this website and that suggested that only half, (approx 20 metres), of the road leading to the car park is public:-
https://www.southampton.gov.uk/whereilive/mapsouthampton.aspx?

samsepi0l

And now I await the councils response via email for evidence 

Just received BW Legals directions questionnaire.
Now I'm no lawyer, but their representative has put 0 under "How many witnesses, including yourself, will give evidence on your behalf at the hearing?". They've also not filled out the Hearing Venue field.

So you guys aren't sending anyone by your own admission, right...

Redx

Just ignore their DQ and file it , nobody from b w legal will attend but the claimant may pay for a rent a lawyer to attend

Do not read too much into their DQ , as long as your DQ has gone to b w legal and the CCBC , await letters from your nominated court

nosferatu1001

samsepi0l said:

And now I await the councils response via email for evidence 

Just received BW Legals directions questionnaire.
Now I'm no lawyer, but their representative has put 0 under "How many witnesses, including yourself, will give evidence on your behalf at the hearing?". They've also not filled out the Hearing Venue field.

So you guys aren't sending anyone by your own admission, right...

A legal rep is not a witness, but can obviously present their case. 0 witnesses is obviously correct. They don't care about venue b3csie it will be at your choice of location.  

samsepi0l

nosferatu1001 said:

samsepi0l said:

And now I await the councils response via email for evidence 

Just received BW Legals directions questionnaire.
Now I'm no lawyer, but their representative has put 0 under "How many witnesses, including yourself, will give evidence on your behalf at the hearing?". They've also not filled out the Hearing Venue field.

So you guys aren't sending anyone by your own admission, right...

A legal rep is not a witness, but can obviously present their case. 0 witnesses is obviously correct. They don't care about venue b3csie it will be at your choice of location.  

Ah. Well, I know nothing about legal proceedings so. Either way it seems like theres a good amount of points to raise when it gets to it, and if this thing about the public road is correct, well, I can't imagine that would sit well with the judge 

nosferatu1001

None of those points are from the DQ 

your defence raises the arguments, your WS then fills in the facts and evidence that supports your argument s. That's the correct way to structure this. 

If it's a public road, shame you didn't find out.  A counterclaim for harassment, breach of DPA etc would be an easy win. 

samsepi0l

Well, according to the TRO the part of the road that the cameras are on are public. So this should be an easy win.