PPM BW legal court help

theeviltwin

He's suggesting the excessive amount of times I was charged was revenge because the sign near my bay was also vandalised.

I was so clueless that even though a lot seemed poor it took me too long to question them, the reason I asked for a refund in the end was because they were not answering half of my questions and I wasn't getting confidence or clarity, I also told them I did not want to settle and they told me they would prepare me for the mediation with the end to settle!
When I had enough and asked for a refund they called me a petulant child asking for a refund because the issue did not go away. This whole experience is surreal to me. I am way too clueless! I did not write back yet to ask for refund and other expenses with a new defence.

Contestor legal got back to me today and I sent all my information hoping they will take my case and help me.

During the mediation yesterday some things were said from the other side that I think can work in my favour, they have said that they have pictures of the inside of my car (which I knew) and some don't show the floor of the passenger seat but some do and the permit can not be seen. This is something I noticed at the time because they took pictures of the day there was some wrapping on the floor covering the permit (my belly was to big at this stage and whatever falls on the floor stayed on the floor).
Surely this malicious conduct must have some weight on the judge's decision as it does in criminal cases? As well as charging me day after day for straight days (or rather in the middle of the night when you most likely only have residents) before even issuing the first one?

I also said in my defence that in addition to the usually vandalised signage I also often had strangers parked in my parking bay during the day and nothing had changed so I had every reason to believe they were not in operation anymore, if ever, and did not worry about the permit so much. to which they said as a resident I should know... and as a company hired by the building shouldn't they know I have a permit then? Or is the "should know" one sided??
That argument I'm not afraid of as what I "should and should not know" can't for sure be for them to determine.

Coupon-mad

Might be useful.  See what their WS says in due course.

But first, see if CL will take it on and if they think an amended defence is required.

The only good thing about that defence is that it does cover 'unclear signs' that were so poorly maintained that it made residents believe these were old signs, and either way the purported 'contractual terms' couldn't be read.

See what CL say.  They might be able to run with that defence.  It is poor though.

theeviltwin

I did send this letter, that I put together with the help of a friend, to BW legal when they first contacted me which I thought was good but they rejected and fully ignored any of the points I raised. Their reply made me believe they didn't actually even read my letter.

Coupon-mad

Oh no. ChatGPT.  That's awful (sorry).

theeviltwin

You think so? There was no use of chat GPT (I believe). Can you help me understand what's wrong with it? Because I thought it was good and made all my points

Coupon-mad

That was certainly part-written by Chat GPT.  The giveaways are:

"I hope this letter finds you well" (such an unprofessional 'bot' start ...sorry).  No human with any life experience writes that.  It's a phrase that emanates from AI.  It seemed to start during COVID and young workers thought it was how to write emails (my sprogs in their twenties told me this suddenly started to be used by new workers fresh from college and it grated even with them!).  I don't understand why it caught on but then I'm getting on a bit!

'organization' and 'utilize' both spelt with a 'Z' (American spelling) instead of an 's' (English).

'parking lot' ( = another Americanism).  No such thing in this Country.  It's a car park.


Then the unnecessary use of silly long or unnecessarily complicated words, when simple English would read better:

'issuance' 

'esteemed'

'indeed'

'infractions'

'diligently'

'furthermore'

'Compounding the injustice'

'acquiesce'

'court of law' = court

'photographic evidence submitted by your enforcement team' = photos you provided.

'purportedly indicating the necessity of displaying the permit in a different manner was not apparent to me upon parking'

...such a mouthful to say! That could have been:

'Your signs are terrible and any t&cs hidden from view. No terms were seen when I parked'.

And at the end it's just a bland statement:

'Thankyou for your attention to this matter' which requires nothing from them, whereas a properly written complaint letter points the way forward:  what do you want them to do about it and by when (timebound).

Sorry - you did ask!

Tell your friend to stop using ChatGPT because recipients just laugh at it, which is what BW Legal will have done.

theeviltwin

I did and I truly appreciate your answer.
Although this could've also been (but it isn't) because english is not my first language and my first contact with english was american english, which I was mocked for having an american accent when moving to england

But what I was really interested in was why this isn't good, like my defense isn't good, so I can be better prepared.

So besides the speech, what points I should or shouldn't have put? (So I don't repeat these same mistakes going forward)

Gr1pr

Change your keyboard and spelling checker to UK English, which is better for you in legal dealings and official paperwork etc 

That way the words like Defence will be written correctly. ( No S ) , for example do not use bots, so no chat gpt ramblings 

Ensure that any defence is based on UK legal points and is addressing the alleged breaches etc, use UK laws, use the relevant UK Code of Practice, states why you have no liability, eventually your Witness statement bundle will include your own personal statement plus any Exhibits too, known as a bundle 

Never give them information or evidence, no admitting anything, sometimes less is more ( think of it as like using the USA 5th amendment. )

Coupon-mad

I think wait and see what CL say, because they might take it all on and might not even amend the defence.

Coupon-mad

theeviltwin said:

He's suggesting the excessive amount of times I was charged was revenge because the sign near my bay was also vandalised.

I was so clueless that even though a lot seemed poor it took me too long to question them, the reason I asked for a refund in the end was because they were not answering half of my questions and I wasn't getting confidence or clarity, I also told them I did not want to settle and they told me they would prepare me for the mediation with the end to settle!

When I had enough and asked for a refund they called me a petulant child asking for a refund because the issue did not go away. This whole experience is surreal to me. I am way too clueless! I did not write back yet to ask for refund and other expenses with a new defence.

Contestor legal got back to me today and I sent all my information hoping they will take my case and help me.

During the mediation yesterday some things were said from the other side that I think can work in my favour, they have said that they have pictures of the inside of my car (which I knew) and some don't show the floor of the passenger seat but some do and the permit can not be seen. This is something I noticed at the time because they took pictures of the day there was some wrapping on the floor covering the permit (my belly was to big at this stage and whatever falls on the floor stayed on the floor).

Surely this malicious conduct must have some weight on the judge's decision as it does in criminal cases?

As well as charging me day after day for straight days (or rather in the middle of the night when you most likely only have residents) before even issuing the first one?

I also said in my defence that in addition to the usually vandalised signage I also often had strangers parked in my parking bay during the day and nothing had changed so I had every reason to believe they were not in operation anymore, if ever, and did not worry about the permit so much. to which they said as a resident I should know... and as a company hired by the building shouldn't they know I have a permit then? Or is the "should know" one sided?

That argument I'm not afraid of as what I "should and should not know" can't for sure be for them to determine.

What happened in the end, please? Did Contestor Legal take your case on?