BW Legal Claim Form Via County Court Business Centre please help?

Manjaik

Coupon-mad said:

Surely the Judge wanted evidence that you had (before litigation) made strenuous efforts to obtain a permit, not evidence that you've tried this week.  This makes no sense to me.

What exactly did the Judge order? Did you write it down?

I wrote down "as ordered on 26th April" what the judge said, please provide in an exhibits that I had communication with the parking company.

that is why I was thinking, well if PoC is not corretly filled, and my primacy of contract why there is a conversation about this.

Coupon-mad

Manjaik said:

Coupon-mad said:

Surely the Judge wanted evidence that you had (before litigation) made strenuous efforts to obtain a permit, not evidence that you've tried this week.  This makes no sense to me.

What exactly did the Judge order? Did you write it down?

Judge advised, could I please provide my efforts that I tried to get a permit. that is it.

As I thought.

That means all your efforts in the past.

You need to list by dates all the efforts you made to get a permit in the past, in 2023, as well as recently. Emails etc...  evidence!

The Judge wants to see that you made "reasonable endeavours" to comply (even though you presumably already had a right to park and nothing in your tenancy agreement or lease, about any parking charge risk or obligation to 'display a permit').

BUT YOU SHOULD BE ADDING THAT YOU THINK THE WITHHELD PERMIT IS ONLY PART OF THE STORY.

Surely the winning points are:

 -  any contract with the Clamant was void for impossibility because they withheld or delayed the permit;

- therefore a term requiring display of a permit that they failed (and continue to fail) to provide, is an unfair term in law (see s71 and s62(?) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 re the test of fairness);

- in any event, you made all reasonable endeavours to obtain a so-called 'permit' from this uninvited third party, even though you didn't need one because:

- your tenancy or lease already granted you a right or easement (an expectation) to park at your home and vehicular access the property, with no caveats re charges or permits;

- You had been living there at the property without issues, including the 'peaceful enjoyment' of a right to park, since 2020.  All of a sudden this onerous scheme was set up overnight (unwanted and unsolicited by residents) in 2023 and the Claimant proceeded to penalise residents in spades (multiple PCNs suffered by any motorist they could target).  Residents were clearly sitting ducks;

- the claimant was trying to offer, at worse (financially onerous) terms, something that you already had under a lease which cannot be interfered with by a third party trying to (in effect) alter it to your detriment;

- absent any 'consideration' (something of value) flowing between the parties, there were no elements of a contract;

- No 'relevant obligation' or contract existed to display a permit because the primacy of contract enjoyed by a resident with a lease takes precedence.

--------

Did you already put your lease in as evidence? 

You could add the transcript of PACE v Noor and/or Link v Parkinson if you can find them on the forum. They support the above. 

Manjaik

Coupon-mad said:

Manjaik said:

Coupon-mad said:

Surely the Judge wanted evidence that you had (before litigation) made strenuous efforts to obtain a permit, not evidence that you've tried this week.  This makes no sense to me.

What exactly did the Judge order? Did you write it down?

Judge advised, could I please provide my efforts that I tried to get a permit. that is it.

As I thought.

That means all your efforts in the past.

You need to list by dates all the efforts you made to get a permit in the past, in 2023, as well as recently. Emails etc...  evidence!

The Judge wants to see that you made "reasonable endeavours" to comply (even though you presumably already had a right to park and nothing in your tenancy agreement or lease, about any parking charge risk or obligation to 'display a permit').

BUT YOU SHOULD BE ADDING THAT YOU THINK THE WITHHELD PERMIT IS ONLY PART OF THE STORY.

Surely the winning points are:

 -  any contract with the Clamant was void for impossibility because they withheld or delayed the permit;

- therefore a term requiring display of a permit that they failed (and continue to fail) to provide, is an unfair term in law (see s71 and s62(?) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 re the test of fairness);

- in any event, you made all reasonable endeavours to obtain a so-called 'permit' from this uninvited third party, even though you didn't need one because:

- your tenancy or lease already granted you a right or easement (an expectation) to park at your home and vehicular access the property, with no caveats re charges or permits;

- You had been living there at the property without issues, including the 'peaceful enjoyment' of a right to park, since 2020.  All of a sudden this onerous scheme was set up overnight (unwanted and unsolicited by residents) in 2023 and the Claimant proceeded to penalise residents in spades (multiple PCNs suffered by any motorist they could target).  Residents were clearly sitting ducks;

- the claimant was trying to offer, at worse (financially onerous) terms, something that you already had under a lease which cannot be interfered with by a third party trying to (in effect) alter it to your detriment;

- absent any 'consideration' (something of value) flowing between the parties, there were no elements of a contract;

- No 'relevant obligation' or contract existed to display a permit because the primacy of contract enjoyed by a resident with a lease takes precedence.

--------

Did you already put your lease in as evidence? 

You could add the transcript of PACE v Noor and/or Link v Parkinson if you can find them on the forum. They support the above. 

I want to add these again as bullet points and will read the transcript and maybe add as well.
appreciate  

Coupon-mad

Yes, seize the chance to add that summary but as numbered paragraphs, not bullet points. Attach your evidence and PACE v Noor and/or Link v Parkinson.

One or both of those cases definitely has a transcript used & linked on this forum before. 

Manjaik

Good day,

Next Friday is second hearing regarding this Farce. 

In the request what Judge asked regarding my evidence that I have asked the parking permit from them I have sent.
( I have also requested parking permit via the online form as their email sugested, in email they said it will cost, which I though okay fine lets see if I can get a permit that  way) But it has been already 2-3 weeks, probably, and today I sent a form again, stating - this is my last request. - I wont bother anymore.

In response to my evidence - There was another - different BWlegal representative - I cannot find they paperwork, but in short they argue that I want to get permit for a different car.

However Why would any of that matter ?????

IF:

1)AST - my tenancy
2)yes I have different cars and now I have completely different car?!  so what?! O.o
3)They have actually delaying the permit, if I decide to play by their rules

So next Friday, I will be more active in defending my case infront of the judge, would like to argue that:

1)PoC still this issue has not been looked at
2)delaying the permit
3)my tenancy still does not state anything and predates them also....

Thoughts ? any thoughts I take good or bad!

Just tired to be fair ))))))

Coupon-mad

I think you are doing very well. Those are your main points. Hope you get a decent Judge who listens.

Don't forget to ask for your costs at the end.

  

Manjaik

Coupon-mad said:

I think you are doing very well. Those are your main points. Hope you get a decent Judge who listens.

Don't forget to ask for your costs at the end.

  

WE will see what happens, what killed me is when Representative from Claimant said:
" this management  is for the benefit of residents"  - where is the benefit ?!  
Currently there is only suffering. 

Manjaik

Case lost £1082 

Manjaik

Now they probably will, try claim for others.
No PoC no AST, helped on this case.
And Judge said that parking permit was asked after the tickets were issued so… 

Coupon-mad

Manjaik said:

Case lost £1082 

At that money, is it worth asking Jackson Yamba at Contestor Legal if he sees possible grounds for appeal? It's not something to do lightly but he's good, and a barrister.