SUCCESS! BW Legal for PPM

jd576

Letter sent as suggested and thread title updated

jd576

The letter about the trial bundle was sent both by Royal Mail and by email, since BW Legal has previously actively prevented my emails reaching them. 

In their trial bundle, they included a printout of my email containing my initial response to their letter of claim, proving that they receive these emails, or at least did receive them.

With respect to the email I just sent, I sent it to the email addresses listed on this email they included in the trial bundle, which includes their published disputeresolution@bwlegal.co.uk email address.

I received an undeliverable notice to all three emails. In this notice, it's 100% clear from the log messages copied into the undeliverable response that the reason my email was not delivered is because BW Legal have explicitly added my email address to a blocklist.

This is obstructionist and indicates that they simply wish to impose a burden by forcing all communications via snail mail.

At this stage of the game, with a hearing less than 14 days away, am I able to submit this undeliverable email as an addendum to my witness statement to demonstrate the degree to which this company acts in bad faith? Is it even worth doing so?

Coupon-mad

Did you try attaching your WS bundle to a reply to their email or did it come from 'NoReplyAt'?

jd576

Coupon-mad said:

Did you try attaching your WS bundle to a reply to their email or did it come from 'NoReplyAt'?

They've never emailed me. However, they did receive my email from last year, the initial response to their letter of claim, since they included a printout of this email in the trial bundle.

I submitted my WS by snail mail. That's done.

The email that bounced was the one telling the court that I do not agree to their trial bundle, since it is missing some evidence.

I sent this letter both by email and by Royal Mail. The BW Legal addresses all bounced - these are the same email addresses sent to in the email from me that they submitted in their own witness statement, all now blocked to me. 

I have proof of posting this letter, so that's not the issue.

It's just that this explicit blocking of the email address of someone they know they're pursuing is deliberately obstructionist. It's bully-boy tactics. Make-the-poor-sap-run-to-the-post-office-all-the-time schoolyard kind of bully boy stuff. And it shows them up to be far from reasonable. Hence why I asked if I could add an addendum to the WS, so the judge can see just how unreasonable their tactics are.

patient_dream

Your posts make interesting reading. 
I have seen these unreasonable antics from BWLEGAL .... 

First time, I was helping someone on here and joined him in court, He had asked BWL by enail about the fake £70 .... NO REPLY
He showed the judge the email and the judge asked the so called legal rep .. did he know about the email, he said NO 
As the claim included the £70 and BWL had failed to explain, the judge dismissed the claim and awarded £95 costs.

I helped another member on here with two claims from BWL totalling over £1300.
Again BWL ignored questions ... the judge was not impressed and called the parking companies a REGIME
Both cases were dismissed with costs awarded.

These legals who add fake amounts to claimsm should be investigated by the SRA and government especially what appears to be a cover up regarding VAT

Coupon-mad

jd576 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Did you try attaching your WS bundle to a reply to their email or did it come from 'NoReplyAt'?

They've never emailed me. However, they did receive my email from last year, the initial response to their letter of claim, since they included a printout of this email in the trial bundle.

I submitted my WS by snail mail. That's done.

The email that bounced was the one telling the court that I do not agree to their trial bundle, since it is missing some evidence.

I sent this letter both by email and by Royal Mail. The BW Legal addresses all bounced - these are the same email addresses sent to in the email from me that they submitted in their own witness statement, all now blocked to me. 

I have proof of posting this letter, so that's not the issue.

It's just that this explicit blocking of the email address of someone they know they're pursuing is deliberately obstructionist. It's bully-boy tactics. Make-the-poor-sap-run-to-the-post-office-all-the-time schoolyard kind of bully boy stuff. And it shows them up to be far from reasonable. Hence why I asked if I could add an addendum to the WS, so the judge can see just how unreasonable their tactics are.

I would raise that at the hearing when it comes to costs at the end. Paint it as part of a pattern of unreasonable conduct in this litigation.

I would not send addendum after addendum as the judge will not like it at all. You don't need this in a WS. You can just say it.

Le_Kirk

I used to recommend these email addresses but then the parking@ started failing.

parking@bwlegal.co.uk

customerinfo@bwlegal.co.uk

complaints@bwlegal.co.uk

disputeresolution@bwlegal.co.uk

jd576

Quick report back while it’s all still fresh in my mind. 

I attended a hearing today. The case was postponed. No new date given yet, but after the end of September.

That’s probably a good thing. I chose a local district court, yet the hearing took place at the Royal Courts of Justice in Central London. It turns out that my case was assigned to something known as the “Blitz Courts”, basically an overflow court that hears small claims cases during summer and Easter holidays.

The Judges assigned to these Blitz Courts were part-time Deputy District Judges. The Judge to who my case was initially assigned recused themselves due to a “conflict of interest” I was told - curious, since the conflict was definitely not related to me. 

My case was then assigned to another part-time Deputy District Judge and the hearing took place within ten to fifteen minutes of the change of court.

At the start of the hearing, it became clear that the Judge had not received a copy of my witness statement and thus had not reviewed any of my evidence. 

The Judge had scanned the claimant’s witness statement and immediately seized on “whether or not I registered on the terminal” as being the crux of the matter. Of course, BW Legal’s representative jumped on this and eagerly agreed, since that would sidestep all my arguments quite neatly.

I told the Judge that there are numerous issues to deal with before even getting to this question, such as non-compliant particulars of claim and a real question as to whether or not or not a contract had been or even could have been validly formed (primacy of lease agreement, signage failures, incorrect witness statement evidence from the claimant’s witness, etc.), pointing to some case law. I said to the Judge that I believe that my witness statement needs to be reviewed first before coming to any conclusion as to the substantive issues.

During the short hearing, when I mentioned a couple of relevant cases, the rep from the other side noted to the judge that “since this is a litigant in person, he can’t be expected to know this, but if he wants to rely on case law, then he should have submitted an authority bundle”. I now plan to submit such an authority bundle, but curious to know if others have done so in other cases or have been chided for not doing so?

It seems that the Judge concurred that my witness statement needed to be reviewed and postponed the case.  I handed the Judge a paper copy of my Defence and Witness statement and a USB with an electronic copy of the witness statement and the video evidence and this has been added to the court file. I've had repeated issues in this case of the court not receiving documents (CNBC failed to send my Defence to the County Court as well and I needed to email a copy directly to the court some months back after they sent me a request to do so).

I’m likely, I think, to get a new judge and it won’t be held in these “Blitz Courts”, since they only run during the Easter and August vacations. Given today’s experience, that’s a good thing I think. Both of the deputy district judges to whom my case was assigned practice in completely different areas in their day jobs.. 

There was also some back and forth between the judge and the BW Legal rep about costs and how he was going to demand his costs on top of what they’re claiming should I lose.

The judge replied something to the effect that if I win then I get to claim the day off work, etc. This somewhat flies in the face of the comments I’ve seen here where I understand that there would need to be unreasonable conduct from one of the parties for supplemental costs to be awarded to the other, unless I am mistaken?

Coupon-mad

You would (with most judges) get to claim your days off work x 2 if you win (because you have no choice, you didn't choose to litigate and your costs are not disproportionate) but if THEY win, they can't claim their rep's costs unless the judge is deluded.

Those are high and disproportionate costs that they chose to incur, way above the value of this small claim. Such costs only come into play if you act wholly unreasonably, such as not turn up...

So make sure you immediately review your work, travel & family commitments for the next SIX MONTHS now and email your local court and the other side with your unavailable days or weeks. Keep that updated.

It sounds like you dodged a bullet today.

Well done for being heard and not letting the deputy judge get led down one rabbit hole by the sneaky rep. A nervous person without a handle on their case and spooked by the imposing venue might have been sucked right in today.

BTW you don't have to submit an 'authorities bundle'. You are allowed to rely on case law and anything goes in small claims. However you might want to submit one a week before your next hearing.

This was damn rude but so typical:

"During the short hearing, when I mentioned a couple of relevant cases, the rep from the other side noted to the judge that “since this is a litigant in person, he can’t be expected to know this, but if he wants to rely on case law, then he should have submitted an authority bundle”. I now plan to submit such an authority bundle,"

ChirpyChicken

He recused himself probably because of his professional relationship with the claimant