Gatwick Airport - Drop Off Parking Defence

KeithP

Why have you masked your name here in that image?...


...when any reader of that letter only has to glance upwards slightly to read your full name and address.

Fruitcake

qwertyoffice said:

Hi all,

I have received the attached letter from BW legal and it seems they are clocking on to defences submitted that are copied and pasted from your content provided! 

Would appreciate some advice on my next step.  Thank you

To quote at least one judge when the claimant whinged that a defendant had used the universally available internet reference source to create their defence, "So what?"

In any case you haven't just copied and pasted the defence template, have you?
You have read and re-read and researched each point raised until you understand them yourself such that you can argue those points in a court of law.
You haven't used anything in your defence that you don't understand, have you?

Attacking the person rather than their defence is a legal term referred to as an "argumentum ad hominem."

didgeridoooo

Ad hominem is almost giving them too much credit! I am pretty sure they can't spell it. 
The point of a defence is whether it's VALID or not, the source is irrelevant. It's like saying "you've got one of those Barrister defences". Yeah, so what? If it beats your pathetic attempt at litigation, it's good enough for me. 
Stinks of bitterness, maybe too many of these 'internet defences' are winning lately!! BW Legal, what a shower of ....

Coupon-mad

That letter is normal for BWLegal.

Desperate times for them.  Gravy train might be slowing down, thanks to consumer spanners in the works and people actually listening to us.

qwertyoffice

To quote at least one judge when the claimant whinged that a defendant had used the universally available internet reference source to create their defence, "So what?"

In any case you haven't just copied and pasted the defence template, have you?
You have read and re-read and researched each point raised until you understand them yourself such that you can argue those points in a court of law.
You haven't used anything in your defence that you don't understand, have you?

Attacking the person rather than their defence is a legal term referred to as an "argumentum ad hominem."

My defence is on this thread, I followed the instructions on this forum.

Can you advise on my next steps please?

Got to say, the amount of time involved in fighting these scammers it works out better to just pay them! 

KeithP

qwertyoffice said:

To quote at least one judge when the claimant whinged that a defendant had used the universally available internet reference source to create their defence, "So what?"

In any case you haven't just copied and pasted the defence template, have you?
You have read and re-read and researched each point raised until you understand them yourself such that you can argue those points in a court of law.
You haven't used anything in your defence that you don't understand, have you?

Attacking the person rather than their defence is a legal term referred to as an "argumentum ad hominem."

Got to say, the amount of time involved in fighting these scammers it works out better to just pay them! 

Got to say, please send me your name and address and I'll send you a claim for a few hundred pounds.  

Actually, no need to do that. I already have your full name and address - it is visible in @Fruitcake's most recent post on this thread.

Coupon-mad

Can you advise on my next steps please?

It's already set out in in the main resource: the NEWBIES thread. Everything is stated, step by step, with examples, under the RED capitals heading called something like:

IMPORTANT: KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN

fisherjim

qwertyoffice said:

Got to say, the amount of time involved in fighting these scammers it works out better to just pay them! 

And that is one of their scheming ways to get victims to pay up, why give them the satisfaction and cash!

Umkomaas

Got to say, the amount of time involved in fighting these scammers it works out better to just pay them! 

Possibly at the (reported in the BWL letter) £15 admin charge to settle. But you're where you're at, so keep fighting. £251 is obscenely greedy.

Coupon-mad

Those who paid PPCs indirectly (but actively by their stupid choice to just pay a scam) stopped the new law coming in to regulate the rogue industry.  

Those people paid for the two Judicial Reviews that caused the new statutory Code of Practice to stand temporarily withdrawn.  And those clueless people who paid up 'for an easy life' don't even realise what they did...

Paying a PPC is wrong on all levels due to what they do to people and how they currently operate on the edge of the law.