Phase 1: CCJ Removed. Phase 2: Claim Discontinued. Phase 3: Costs.

Harvez63

Morning @Coupon-mad, there was an entrance sign but it was very small and across a busy junction. The sign pointed to a terms and condition which at the time, there was only one, which is the one seen in the pic above. 

Coupon-mad

OK. Well you can make whatever points you like to demonstrate why the signs are inadequate to form a contract.

Harvez63

Thank you, this will be my main point. However id like to tear apart their own exhibits a bit, if I could try here and people give me an opinion of I'm putting forward the right arguments. 

The below are BWL exhibits. This page 11, showing "where the signs are located".



All their photos are date stamped (to be honest that looks like a cut and paste I could edit myself onto any photo).

My point however of this is just to further cast doubt on to the disappearing and reappearing signs and their attempt to mislead the courts, by use of their OWN evidence.

For example, 

PG21 below, disproves there was a sign on the left wall as per their markup above, and shows the small sign on the top of the car park, note no date stamp on these.



P16 below, that sign to the top of car parking isn't there if you look at the bottom photo, but this time its part of the photos time stamped. Note The red car AND covered motor bike, all move from the photo above. 



I believe photo P16 photo disproves their mark up is accurate. I believe PG21 photo ISN'T from the same period as the rest of the photos and is misleading the courts. 

Looking at the time stamps, the photos where all taken within a 2minute period, during that time both the red car, and bike under cover has all moved? 

I'll also throw in my earlier photos I posted from @Daman1985 case where they showed the exit sign reminder, but only showed it being there in 2016, then 2018. I dont believe they have evidence of it being there in 2017 (because it wasn't). 

Is the above a valid argument or waste of time? sorry I'm now learning what I can argue in court, and what I cant. Common sense on the above surely throws doubt on evidence submitted by the claimant who has to prove the signs where scattered around the site firstly ... before we even get into the argument of if they are readable. 

Please go easy on me, trying to keep momentum up. Also not sure if I should openly show stuff like this incase those cretins read and prepare against it?

Coupon-mad

That's a good argument.  Exactly what I'd say.

Castle

On P21, the trees behind the wall have all shred their leaves.

Harvez63

Can a case be thrown out for attempting to mislead the courts on a single exhibit? 

They do have photos from 2016 included within the pack, but they're time stamped and irrelevant to my case because they show some signs in Vets4Pets and I've already admitted I wasn't a customer 

Umkomaas

How much time are you anticipating the judge will give you to speak at the hearing?

Harvez63

I don’t have a clue it’s my first time …

Umkomaas

Harvez63 said:

I don’t have a clue it’s my first time …

You'll be lucky to get more than a few minutes, so you need to get the most important points you wish to make in strict priority order - strongest points. Make a crib sheet to keep you on track.

Harvez63

But proving they’re trying to mislead the courts is surely high up on my agenda and to make their evidence look unreliable? If I can prove it’s unreliable how can they possibly prove what signs where they’re on the day?

it also goes to their unreasonable behaviour, not to forget they got a CCJ against me, dropped it a day before the hearing and admitted fault, paid the order costs a week late, ignored the judges orders second time around on submitting info. 

You’re making out it’s fixed, I go in and a decision is already determined. If that is what it is, then fair enough I’ll stop now and just go in hope … 

BWL sent an offer of a 25% reduction today and even offered £30 a month instalments. I’m sure they will use this against me in court to make out like they’ve tried