LOC from BW Legal - advice requested

jd576

jd576 said:

• Perhaps most importantly, the claimant is now apparently claiming that I did not park in the bays belonging to the medical centre. This is a falsehood and something they've never asserted previously. They cannot prove that their ANPR camera functioned correctly. This appears to be the key part of their defence against the argument of primacy of contract. They're asserting something that is not true and for which they cannot supply any proof. What is the best way to counter this falsehood?
• The photographic evidence and schematic they have supplied as evidence appears to show an ANPR (?) camera installed where there is no camera installed. Looking at my own photos, there is a camera installed (whether it's an ANPR camera I don't know) in a different place, much higher. I will shortly go to the site to take more photos to verify this.

Update: I just visited the site and took a large number of additional photos. I understand why, if functional, their ANPR camera did not capture me in the bay I parked in. 

Due to the parking bay I parked in and the manner in which I entered and exited the area containing the bays and the bay itself, at no point was either my front or rear vehicle registration plate presented to the ANPR camera while the car was within the field of view of the camera. Only the passenger side of the vehicle was visible to the camera whilst in its field of view. 

Johnersh

Where's the photo of your car that they supplied? Surely that's your answer to the location of the camera and whether there's a full plate reading. Absent that, they've not got a lot...

jd576

Johnersh said:

Where's the photo of your car that they supplied? Surely that's your answer to the location of the camera and whether there's a full plate reading. Absent that, they've not got a lot...

There is no photo. There is a single bit of ANPR evidence, which is an entirely black photo with only a license plate visible. The only other thing visible in the photo are the faint LED strips in my headlights (it was at night). The claimant has no photos of me parked anywhere. 

The location of the camera in the photo above is one of the ANPR camera and the one they assert did not capture me. This is in their own witness statement evidence, where they clearly indicate the camera and its field of view, which is the same as you see in this photo.

Also, their evidence is wrong. They submitted an annotated photo showing the position of the ANPR camera between the first and second floor windows at a height of 4 metres. It is in fact installed above the second floor windows as you can see, next to the waste water pipe at a height of 6 metres. Hence my earlier confusion. Very sloppy of them to submit such poor "evidence".

Coupon-mad

Sounds like you have it all covered.

That's a great visual graphic you've created today, which shows that the numberplate would not have been captured by that extra camera.

I have convincing photos.

Make sure you include the metadata of your photos, so they are accepted as evidence. Any video will have to be posted snail mail on a USB stick unless you can work out a way to link it via a durable medium that the Claimant snd judge will click on. I'd do both.

jd576

Thanks. I need to submit the WS to this court by snail mail it seems - defence was submitted by email to CNBC of course.

Any advice on the Claimant' s disparagement of me (template defence, that I don't understand anything)? Should I respond or just ignore it?

Any input on their skeleton argument attached to the end of their witness statement?

Coupon-mad

You never submit a WS by snail mail.

That costs too much and isn't necessary except for a USB if submitting a video.

To find how to counter that wording just search the forum for their sentence. We've been there, done that hundreds of times here. Copy!

jd576

Coupon-mad said:

You never submit a WS by snail mail.

On no document that this court has supplied has there been an email address to which to submit documents. Only a physical / postal address. The N157 directs parties to submit documents "to the court offices"

Coupon-mad

Yep we know. That doesn't mean you can't.

jd576

I filed my WS by snail mail with the court and sent it to the Claimant since I needed to include the USB key - impossible to send by email due to the size of the video files.

Today a "trial bundle" was delivered from BW Legal, curious since my understanding is that it's not required in the small claims track. If they've sent it to the court now as well, it's been filed early (not more than 7 days prior says PD 39.5).

This trial bundle includes the defence, both witness statements, their "skeleton argument" (which appears to be a template argument ironically) as well as other correspondence between the parties. It crucially lacks the digital evidence I supplied wherein the video is a smoking gun for wildly improper signage. 

Should I be writing to the court to note (and object to) the fact that their filed trial bundle excludes the digital evidence from my WS?

Coupon-mad

Email BW Legal and cc the local court (or cc the other way round) and point out that the trial bundle is NOT agreed by you because they have omitted the video which was filed and served by post to both the court and BW Legal, with the witness statement that they have clearly received.

State that you will bring a laptop to the hearing to ensure the video can be played if the judge requires but you wanted the judge to see this email to alert them to the inexplicable omission by this Claimant, of the video evidence that they clearly received.

Do not email the CNBC at Northampton as they are not involved. The CNBC were just a gateway months ago

Please also edit your out of date thread title, to state the solicitors and the parking firm and 'hearing August 2025'.