County Court Claim Form, Britannia Parking / BW Legal

B789

You could submit a supplementary WS countering their WS or raise in court as a preliminary topic with:

I respectfully ask the learned Judge to look at the sparse/generic POC in this case and compare it to the sudden (different and accusatory) allegations in the Claimant's legal representative's witness statement.  I hope the court might agree with me that my alleged lack of intelligence was not pleaded; certainly not an embarrassing and unjustified accusation about my intelligence and ability to understand my own defence, no matter how I researched it, to which I take offence and which constitutes a personal attack and an unpleaded ambush defying any reasonable explanation.

Rothschild v Charmaine De Souza (2018] EWHC 1855 (Fam) is one of many cases which demonstrate the danger of including invective in witness statements; in a short closing remark, Mr Justice Mostyn stated that unjustified attacks in witness statements like this should affect costs.  It is not a third party, possibly intellectually malnourished, paralegal's place to suddenly attack me with bald assertions and hypocritically using their own template for their Witness Statement.

Further, I ask that the Judge might consider striking out all or part of the so-called witness statement of the para-legal who has most likely never been to the car park in question.  The person making these unpleaded and unevidenced allegations is not a true witness, nor are they even an employee of the Claimant.  The court requires the witness statements of the 'parties' and there is nothing from the Claimants themselves, who are also unlikely to attend the hearing.

The word "nonsensical" features a lot in Witness Statements written by employees of BW Legal Services Ltd... so much so that one might come to the conclusion that BW Legal Services Ltd are actually using a template - a process frowned upon by the Claimant in their very own paragraph 23. To use BWL's words once more... is this not "unreasonable behaviour"?

If the Claimant's Witness Statement is allowed to stand, and bears scrutiny at the hearing, naturally I believe that less weight should be given to it than to my own account.

qwertyoffice

Castle said:

Could you post a copy of the "letter of authority dated 7th November 2016" referred to in Para 2.1 of the WS between the PPC and John Holman & Sons please.

Sure, please see attached 

B789

That is not a letter of authority. It is a letter to someone requesting a letter of authority.

Anyway, a letter of authority is not a contract.

qwertyoffice

B789 said:

You could submit a supplementary WS countering their WS or raise in court as a preliminary topic with:

I respectfully ask the learned Judge to look at the sparse/generic POC in this case and compare it to the sudden (different and accusatory) allegations in the Claimant's legal representative's witness statement.  I hope the court might agree with me that my alleged lack of intelligence was not pleaded; certainly not an embarrassing and unjustified accusation about my intelligence and ability to understand my own defence, no matter how I researched it, to which I take offence and which constitutes a personal attack and an unpleaded ambush defying any reasonable explanation.

Rothschild v Charmaine De Souza (2018] EWHC 1855 (Fam) is one of many cases which demonstrate the danger of including invective in witness statements; in a short closing remark, Mr Justice Mostyn stated that unjustified attacks in witness statements like this should affect costs.  It is not a third party, possibly intellectually malnourished, paralegal's place to suddenly attack me with bald assertions and hypocritically using their own template for their Witness Statement.

Further, I ask that the Judge might consider striking out all or part of the so-called witness statement of the para-legal who has most likely never been to the car park in question.  The person making these unpleaded and unevidenced allegations is not a true witness, nor are they even an employee of the Claimant.  The court requires the witness statements of the 'parties' and there is nothing from the Claimants themselves, who are also unlikely to attend the hearing.

The word "nonsensical" features a lot in Witness Statements written by employees of BW Legal Services Ltd... so much so that one might come to the conclusion that BW Legal Services Ltd are actually using a template - a process frowned upon by the Claimant in their very own paragraph 23. To use BWL's words once more... is this not "unreasonable behaviour"?

If the Claimant's Witness Statement is allowed to stand, and bears scrutiny at the hearing, naturally I believe that less weight should be given to it than to my own account.

Thanks very much for this!  Here is my WS so far, should I include any of your statements above?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QTpb-JbP0C7Jhd_4EIt2xXcO3L5Gh-vg/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103589061903042250373&rtpof=true&sd=true

Castle

They are stating, (in the last paragraph), that a service contract dated 29 March 2010 is ongoing.

The problem is that neither Britannia Parking Services Ltd or Britannia Parking Group Ltd existed at this date; (both companies were not incorporated until August 2012-more than 2 years later).

(In further news, John Holman & Sons Ltd were incorporated in May 2014, some 4 years later).

Umkomaas

Castle said:

They are stating, (in the last paragraph), that a service contract dated 29 March 2010 is ongoing.

The problem is that neither Britannia Parking Services Ltd or Britannia Parking Group Ltd existed at this date; (both companies were not incorporated until August 2012-more than 2 years later).

(In further news, John Holman & Sons Ltd were incorporated in May 2014, some 4 years later).

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark!

B789

qwertyoffice said:

Thanks very much for this!  Here is my WS so far, should I include any of your statements above?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QTpb-JbP0C7Jhd_4EIt2xXcO3L5Gh-vg/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103589061903042250373&rtpof=true&sd=true

If you haven't yet submitted your WS then yes, you should include that in it. I thought that what you showed us was the claimant's supplementary WS.

You are with an advantage that you have a copy of the claimant's WS and so you can answer and pick apart their WS. Have you done that or have you just copied and pasted everything after your opening statement?

Here is a very obvious grammatical error:

"6. The claimant has admitted the PDT machine was out of order when I parked on their witness statement."

Why did you park on their WS? I thought you parked in a car park. Do you see?

1505grandad

Sorry can't resist:-

"As advices(sic) the section 9.3 of the BPA Approved Operators Scheme....."

Don't think there is a plural version of "advice"!

qwertyoffice

Thanks very much for all your help fighting this so far!

Here is my amended draft WS with the points from the recent posts added, will very much appreciate if someone can advise if it is ok to send or if any changes are needed as some of it does not even make sense to my illiterate mind!

I am aware I need to amend the paragraph numbers, thanks again.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WDFITv_VfDYe4ewpX18N5-XPZHqiIb11/edit?usp=drive_link&ouid=103589061903042250373&rtpof=true&sd=true

Le_Kirk

B789 said:

Here is a very obvious grammatical error:

"6. The claimant has admitted the PDT machine was out of order when I parked on their witness statement."

Why did you park on their WS? I thought you parked in a car park. Do you see?

Oh, don't you just love this English language of ours?