UPDATE: I won at small claims court - At DQ stage with Gladstones on Behalf of Minster Baywatch

Castle

antwilliams said:

Just to let you know I defended this claim against me and won based on there being no evidence of an agreement between Minster Baywatch and the landowner. My defence was based on Bransby Wilson being the enforcement company but as the judge pointed out, they didn't even establish that, so there didn't appear to be anyone who had proved they had the legal standing to bring the case.

I was awarded £110 for loss of earnings and travel plus £100 for their unreasonble conduct

Sounds like a data breach.

Coupon-mad

UncleThomasCobley said:

Coupon-mad said:

Somewhere on the forum, we have a written judgment or order from another Judge, stating the same.  MB didn't offer the parking.  BW's name was on the sign.

Just adding this as a heads up for any newbie reading this one, to go find the other case with the written judgment, which can be used by every MB Defendant, as evidence.

Do you men this one?

27 June at 1:19AM

Don't think so? Can't see a written judgment?

antwilliams

There's a copy of Judge Spencer's ruling in my WS. As soon as I get the paperwork thorugh from my case, there will be another judgement. The slight difference is that in the case I cited, BW had an agreement with the landowner. In mine, they failed to demonstrate anyone having an agreement

antwilliams

Castle said:

antwilliams said:

Just to let you know I defended this claim against me and won based on there being no evidence of an agreement between Minster Baywatch and the landowner. My defence was based on Bransby Wilson being the enforcement company but as the judge pointed out, they didn't even establish that, so there didn't appear to be anyone who had proved they had the legal standing to bring the case.

I was awarded £110 for loss of earnings and travel plus £100 for their unreasonble conduct

Sounds like a data breach.

My thought exactly. I might contact the ICO

Coupon-mad

Your WS is great! And yes, I now see the written reasons by DJ Spencer were exhibited. Nicely done.

antwilliams

Coupon-mad said:

Your WS is great! And yes, I now see the written reasons by DJ Spencer were exhibited. Nicely done.

A little copy and paste from a template from the forums (just in case they didn't agree with my main defence) but mostly common sense. Ultimately they lost their own case by failing to provide evidence of an agreement with the landowner. My gut feel is that they knew they had little chance of winning, hence saying they weren't attending. As I said to the judge, they are using the courts as an intimidation tactic to get people to pay their extortionate invoices.

UncleThomasCobley

antwilliams said:

As I said to the judge, they are using the courts as an intimidation tactic to get people to pay their extortionate invoices.

That's exactly what DCB Legal do. However, they have the sense to discontinue when they realise the their "intimidation" hasn't worked.

patient_dream

UncleThomasCobley said:

antwilliams said:

As I said to the judge, they are using the courts as an intimidation tactic to get people to pay their extortionate invoices.

That's exactly what DCB Legal do. However, they have the sense to discontinue when they realise the their "intimidation" hasn't worked.

Yes, but I would not say DCBL has any sense as we, and the courts know that they use the courts as a scary debt collector

We do love the DCBL chicken out policy though and one that Gladstones should adopt to save them court spankings with daft claims

antwilliams

As the claimant didn't appear in court, the Judge said she'd give them 28 days from receiving the decision. I assume I will also get a copy. Any idea how long that takes to come out?