BW Legal Court Claim - Defence Advice - UPDATE - WIN

sdrossy

Le_Kirk said:

Some of that defence would be better saved for the witness statement (WS) when you can add those delightful pictures of that wonderful (not) sign and tell the story.  Keep your defence short and precise just referring to lack of signage, which opens the door for your WS to tell the whole story later.  As there are paragraphs relating to signage in the standard defence template, make sure you are not duplicating them with what you say.

Hi Le-Kirk. Thanks for responding. Do you think I should leave out everything with regards to the childminder and just state that I stopped in the car park briefly twice in one day?

Thanks.

beamerguy

sdrossy said:

beamerguy said:

Do BWLegal really believe they can win with those signs ?  WHAT A JOKE.
This is the problem with these robo claimers, they don't have a clue.


£400 +  ?    Is that 4 tickets plus the normal fake rubbish they add on ?

The last picture does not indicate there are regulations on entry to the road,
The sign hidden by a tree branch on the left, indicates that the road on the left has restrictions
The tiny sign, the weathered sign on the wall is not fit for purpose

There is no ANPR so that means a walkabout goon or .... one of the residents in the row of houses where you park your car.   NPE could be offering commission

Please give a breakdown of the claim

The total is now £415.24. That's £120 x 2 for each parking ticked from NPE. £60 x 2 for BW Legal's "recovery costs" for each ticket. £35 court fee. £50 legal reps costs. £10.24 interest.

There are cameras in the car park. I don't think they're ANPR so I think they have a goon manning the cameras rather than a walkabout goon. I have timestamped photos from the cameras from my SAR request. They show me parking, dropping my child at the childminders and promptly leaving.

They cannot be £120 each .... the signs say £100 ?

As usual BWLegal are scamming you adding £60 per ticket, it's unlawful and a FAKE.

Have a good read about these fake add-ons and in particular the EXCEL v WILKINSON case which is second from the top
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6103933/abuse-of-process-thread-part-2/p1?new=1

ANPR can easily be seen because the cameras are mounted on poles and I cannot see any.
The goons are provided with phone cameras hence the dating stamping.
They also provide "the nosey neighbour" with these
https://www.parkingprotection.co.uk/parking-management/photo-park-it/

Taking pictures of you parking, dropping of your child and leaving can only be a hand held camera which they send the pictures to NPE ....... all commission based.

Apart from the signs being terrible which a judge would be happy to spank BWLegal for bringing such rubbish to court.   Couple that with the fake £60 add-ons, BWL would be stupid to continue.
You could even win costs against them

sdrossy

beamerguy said:

sdrossy said:

beamerguy said:

Do BWLegal really believe they can win with those signs ?  WHAT A JOKE.
This is the problem with these robo claimers, they don't have a clue.


£400 +  ?    Is that 4 tickets plus the normal fake rubbish they add on ?

The last picture does not indicate there are regulations on entry to the road,
The sign hidden by a tree branch on the left, indicates that the road on the left has restrictions
The tiny sign, the weathered sign on the wall is not fit for purpose

There is no ANPR so that means a walkabout goon or .... one of the residents in the row of houses where you park your car.   NPE could be offering commission

Please give a breakdown of the claim

The total is now £415.24. That's £120 x 2 for each parking ticked from NPE. £60 x 2 for BW Legal's "recovery costs" for each ticket. £35 court fee. £50 legal reps costs. £10.24 interest.

There are cameras in the car park. I don't think they're ANPR so I think they have a goon manning the cameras rather than a walkabout goon. I have timestamped photos from the cameras from my SAR request. They show me parking, dropping my child at the childminders and promptly leaving.

They cannot be £120 each .... the signs say £100 ?

As usual BWLegal are scamming you adding £60 per ticket, it's unlawful and a FAKE.

Have a good read about these fake add-ons and in particular the EXCEL v WILKINSON case which is second from the top


ANPR can easily be seen because the cameras are mounted on poles and I cannot see any.
The goons are provided with phone cameras hence the dating stamping.
They also provide "the nosey neighbour" with these


Taking pictures of you parking, dropping of your child and leaving can only be a hand held camera which they send the pictures to NPE ....... all commission based.

Apart from the signs being terrible which a judge would be happy to spank BWLegal for bringing such rubbish to court.   Couple that with the fake £60 add-ons, BWL would be stupid to continue.
You could even win costs against them

Thanks again for responding with that info. Apologies, my math was wrong, it is £100 per ticket. 

I think these poles circled in my image below are cameras:



This is a one of the images sent to me in my SAR. They seemed to have a 360 view of me entering and exiting the car park which led me to believe those poles are cameras:



Thanks.

Le_Kirk

sdrossy said:

Le_Kirk said:

Some of that defence would be better saved for the witness statement (WS) when you can add those delightful pictures of that wonderful (not) sign and tell the story.  Keep your defence short and precise just referring to lack of signage, which opens the door for your WS to tell the whole story later.  As there are paragraphs relating to signage in the standard defence template, make sure you are not duplicating them with what you say.

Hi Le-Kirk. Thanks for responding. Do you think I should leave out everything with regards to the childminder and just state that I stopped in the car park briefly twice in one day?

Thanks.

Have a look at some other threads where posters have put short defences that have won cases.  It is only necessary to set the scene for the judge because he/she won't know the story or the car park.  You can put that you were dropping off/picking up a child at child minder because that sets the scene but you don't need chapter and verse on it.

beamerguy

That is a CCTV camera ... ANPR are fixed

I will let others comment on that ?

They rely on a sign that is not legible or compliant

Fruitcake

I would love to see the scammer's original version of that sign so the metadata can be inspected. The closeup almost looks like it has been photo-shopped as the white on mauve section has lines and corner marks around its perimeter.

Coupon-mad

Yes they've tracked you by CCTV and given no grace period for you to find and read a sign or find out whether you need a permit and where to get it.

Redx

Sdrossy , contact the person in this thread as they have managing agent details

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6260854/disabled-parking-in-car-park

Might be useful

trevorbbrown

sdrossy please contact me asap please ive  the landlords details and im willing to help you in everything if you want  me to 

sdrossy

Le_Kirk said:

sdrossy said:

Le_Kirk said:

Some of that defence would be better saved for the witness statement (WS) when you can add those delightful pictures of that wonderful (not) sign and tell the story.  Keep your defence short and precise just referring to lack of signage, which opens the door for your WS to tell the whole story later.  As there are paragraphs relating to signage in the standard defence template, make sure you are not duplicating them with what you say.

Hi Le-Kirk. Thanks for responding. Do you think I should leave out everything with regards to the childminder and just state that I stopped in the car park briefly twice in one day?

Thanks.

Have a look at some other threads where posters have put short defences that have won cases.  It is only necessary to set the scene for the judge because he/she won't know the story or the car park.  You can put that you were dropping off/picking up a child at child minder because that sets the scene but you don't need chapter and verse on it.

Hi Le_Kirk, 

I'm finishing prepping my defence ready for sending this week. I have cut it down a bit. Should i cut it down any more than this? I've highlighted some points in bold that I'm not sure if it's worth removing. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

3.      On 27/07/2020 the Defendant employed the services of Appletree Childminding to care for his child so he and his partner could attend their jobs as frontline workers at The Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital. Appletree Childminding are based at a property within St. Augustine’s Gate, directly adjacent to the St Augustine’s Gate Car Park and therefore has a shared entrance from Waterloo Road. As there was no parking available directly outside the property of Appletree Childminding the Defendant parked in a nearby bay in the car park. The Defendant did not see any clearly legible signs that stated the car park was for patrons of the nearby shops only. Due to the lack of clear signage is was assumed that the Defendant could stop briefly to drop his child at the childminders. The Defendant stopped in the car park at 08:17 and departed at 08:19. The Defendant returned in the afternoon of the same day to collect his child. Again, the Defendant had to enter the main entrance of the car park and stopped in a nearby parking bay due to lack of parking in front of the residence of Appletree Childminding. The Defendant parked in the same bay at 17:30 and departed at 17:32.