CASE WON Student Accommodation with free parking

Trainerman

Well done @Mouse007. Very well played, great result and report. You have earned a few bevvies !

patient_dream

Congrats Mouse. BWLegal was left with more egg on their face, daft "rent by the hour" lady rep ??

I also saw this stupidity by a BWL rent by the hour joker regarding emails sent to BWL and he did not have a clue. Judge said, this is not going well for you, talking to the rep ???

Thinking about your WIN over the last few hours, was the judge that silly, with the usher smiling ?   That is not usual

I would say that that BWL were in for a spanking from the start and the judge acted out a drama WHY NOT, BWL just like all the other so called legals who are serial court timewasters

In your case, it was done and dusted, BWLegal walked the plank and got spanked. 
Just another  "only fools a horses" case

And the judge said your case should never have been brourt ?  When will the courts sanction these pseudos

Stay with us Mouse to help others

We know that BWL are avid readers of this forum, we can only hope they wake up that they are fighting for a money scam .... doubt it

Stay with us Mouse to help others fight this scam and legals who waste the courts time

Mouse007

Thanks all

It was your thorough preparation & evidence (including those emails) which won the day for you.

There is no doubt that thorough preparation & evidence is key. I had thrown everything into the WS and SA, Judge was not happy but agreed that there was one very good point in it, the rest was irrelevant. What the good point was he did not specifically say but I think it was that the Defendant didn't know he was required to display a permit. The Claimant's rep at this point tried to argue that once he had received the first ticket that he did then know and that therafter the other three should therefore stand. Excuse me? Primacy of contract? apparently that's just copied from the internet, no such thing. No what saved my son was the timeliine of events and showing he immediately (within an hour) and then again the next day tried to contact the agent to get a permit.

I recall making a comment on someone else’s thread about being “case ready”. I appreciate that for some this is difficult. I’m OK with difficult and technical stuff but few would have won against this judge however case ready they were. I think we were lucky. Judge Bingo as you say.

Thinking about your WIN over the last few hours, was the judge that silly, with the usher smiling ?   That is not usual

I think the usher smiling was at the obvious discomfort of the Claimant’s rep. While I saw it as a battle of nonsense between her and the Judge, she was clearly losing the “uphill struggle”.

The Claimant's rep tried to argue that outside my son's tenancy there was another set of rules for the parking. Hello? Forget the legal position, Judge only shot that down because no one had told Mr Mouse about those other rules. Nothing to do with some concept copied from the internet.

It had been obvious from the off that the Judge had made his mind up, albeit as we discovered for the wrong reasons. It was quite unnerving to hear some of his comments, is this going south?

I avoided arguing back against the more outrageous comments partly because we were still at the Claimant’s questioning stage (let’s see how this ends I thought to myself, our tern next).

Just as well because the Judge did not move to question the Defendant at all. There were some minor factual questions that my son did answer, but these were sequence of events not technical points, arising during the Clamant’s grilling. We had the facts and evidence in place and that was enough.

I was pleased with my son because while I did all the pulling together and drafting work - he did read it all, took time to understand it and knew what was going on. “Perhaps we should  offer her (The Claimant’s rep) some After Sun” he said as we walked out. Mouse junior did do well.

He might not have been able to prepare his Defence this time but I think he would have survived in Court without me against a different Judge. More importantly that’s another life skill passed on. If he ever has to do something like this for himself he now knows how to approach the task. Knowing where to start is often the most difficult bit.

and if you are reading this BW Legal, please please appeal. I would love to see you in Court again with a different Judge. We might get one who knows something about the law and that really would be fun wouldn’t it? You couldn't even win against this one.

B789

Congratulations Mr Mouse on winning the case, even if it was for different reasons than you expected. I've enjoyed following the saga and your instalments have been eagerly anticipated as you went along. Much better than most of the "box sets" you get on the TV these days.

I have a question for the experts regarding this case... Although the defendant has won, if there is what appears to be a blatant failure by the judge to either understand or allow a valid point of law such as the primacy of contract in this case, can a complaint be made against the judge? What better way of "educating" someone in such a position of authority regarding future cases?

Coupon-mad

No because he's not wrong.  Read my answer above; he was applying an oft-used point of contract law (the Buckingham Palace analogy).

Like HHJ Simpkiss (the Judge who - IMHO - made a mockery of Ms Wilshaw's case) this Judge simply had not understood that in fact, the KADOE and CoP require more.

That's not a point of law.  It's a point relying on a 'rule' that Judge might not have realised is even there or mandatory.

Seems he applied the Buckingham Palace legal argument and just didn't know the KADOE and CoP in that much detail (few Judges would!).

Also, he might have been persuaded by reading HHJ Simpkiss' mess of a judgment and believes it. And always applies the same wrong approach.  Appeal decisions are not binding but are persuasive and the Wilshaw case decision was a travesty in my view, but there are Judges who will have read it, not seen the issues and omissions and decided "well that's that question settled".

Primacy of contract is just a phrase.not a silver bullet.  Judge Bingo!!

pinkelephant12

Congratulations Mouse family!  I hope you celebrated in style.  It's always great to see justice being done, even if not quite the way you expected.  This thread is an excellent reminder to us all on the benefits of thorough research and preparation.  

Mouse007

A twist, no less.

Not so Clever Student Lets has been in touch about "rent arrears". -£40, yup that a minus £40 they are demanding we owe them a negative £40.

Now, I'm good, very good, at numbers - first year at university (engineering) required me to complete the first year course of a maths degree. The maths required here is key stage one at primary school. With 2 O levels (normal and advanced) and an A level in maths I think I might be ahead of this game. A subsequent 30 year career in accountancy has kept the numaracy skills alive. Clever Student Lets need a new accountant and I'm not available to idiots.

Response sent

"I acknowledge receipt of your important letter of communication regarding rental arrears.

Please find attached an important Subject Access Request from XXXXXXX  XXXX which you need to attend to first."

This being of course a prelude to my son's claim for derogation of grant and a demand for, let's say

all the rent paid - all £10,000 of it - BECAUSE THEY ...

Coupon-mad

...because it was an illegal HMO?  Just guessing!

My son & his housemates claimed a year's full rent bank last year for the property being an illegal HMO.  The landlady - who knew exactly what she was doing - was spitting feathers (obviously they'd moved out before they did it).  

Johnersh

I think some of the complaint about the DJ here are unfair. They're time pressed so often need to briskly take a case on to a conclusion.

Just one reason is enough to find for D so, although they could address them, there's no need to address complex legal points if, as here, there is sufficient information to challenge the basis for a contract being formed at all.

Nice that the DJs view accords with my own - it's an abuse of process to have a standing instruction to seek an appeal in all cases without having any regard for the merits. 

Mouse007

Johnersh said:

I think some of the complaint about the DJ here are unfair. They're time pressed so often need to briskly take a case on to a conclusion.

I don't, I think a judge should stick to being a judge. That is they should listen, consider what is presented and then introducing their own knowledge decide. A judge making prejudical and factually incorrect comments before we have even sat down sets a bad tone. It destabalised the case. This judge was bad, arroagant and utterly incompetent. "Parking Eye v Beavis established that PCN's were legal full stop" was crap, I should have replied "I refer you to para 99 of the Law Lords Judgement ...

Johnersh said:

Just one reason is enough to find for D so, although they could address them, there's no need to address complex legal points if, as here, there is sufficient information to challenge the basis for a contract being formed at all.

It always disturbs me when people try to avoid the "complex legal points". They should be met head on, dealt with, not avoided.