Update - *Hearing* - BW Legal / Napier Parking

riskaverse111

Hi all, 

With the advice from the pinned thread on the forum, I've been defending a claim from Napier Parking, represented by BW legal, against a family friend. Briefly, they were visiting a castle as a family but there were issues with the ticket machine / just park app. As the kids had really wanted to see the castle grounds, my family friend was trying hard to find a way to pay - there are other friends who travelled with him who can verify the machine wasn't working and neither was the app (as it was close to closing time, the app didn't accept payment for a session less than an hour). They didn't leave the car park premises which demonstrates they were genuinely trying to find a way to park there (and so didn't just leave to explore the castle and come back).

We received a response to the defence yesterday. I called BW legal to see if they were willing to settle before the mediation which is tomorrow (for £50, i.e. 50% of the original FCN). They said even £100 would be too short as they'd incurred legal fees (£35 for issuing claim, debt collection etc). The total balance being pursued is £251.42. 

My question is whether we should continue and push forwards to the hearing or try to settle. I'm not 100% sure how things will play out at the hearing but my family friend said there are other people (witnesses) who can vouch that the ticket machine wasn't working that day. They had the defence since August and only posted a response a day before the mediation appointment.

Any advice / guidance is appreciated, many thanks in advance. 

LDast

riskaverse111 said:

Any advice / guidance is appreciated, many thanks in advance. 

Yes. Stop calling BW Legal. Why are you admitting liability by trying to "settle"? 

Grizebeck

Why would you even call them 

riskaverse111

@LDast @Grizebeck thanks both - I did advise my friend not to offer anything, we should just see it through etc, but I think they're a bit stressed out from BW legal. 

Will just proceed on to mediation/ hearing then - any further guidance/ advice is more than welcome please!

Grizebeck

Mediation you offer zero
Nothing else 

Coupon-mad

riskaverse111 said:

@LDast @Grizebeck thanks both - I did advise my friend not to offer anything, we should just see it through etc, but I think they're a bit stressed out from BW legal. 

Will just proceed on to mediation/ hearing then - any further guidance/ advice is more than welcome please!

There's already links to detailed guidance all about Mediation stage in the first 12 steps in the Template Defence thread.

Sounds to me like your friend should nominate YOU to attend the mediation call, if they are so scared/naive as to be wavering & phoning BW Legal. Can they be trusted to answer but ignore the pushy Mediator's attempts to lean on them to offer money, say "no" and put the phone down after 5 minutes?

If not, do it on their behalf.

riskaverse111

@Coupon-mad  I'll have a look as I must have missed this - fyi I have heavily referenced the info in that thread as we defended this claim, thank you very much for the time you've all spent on that! 

I told my friend to delegate authority so I'll be speaking with the mediator tomorrow. I will be much firmer in saying no in light of the advice above

Many thanks again

Johnersh

The point the mediator needs to discuss with the ppc is:

1. if the machine doesn’t issue tickets
2. the app is designed not to accept payments (notwithstanding that there is no signage precluding visits as short as 30 mins)

then they rendered it impossible to perform the P&D requirement of the contract (sign). evidence of that can and will be presented to the court. If the court accepts that, the ppc not only fail with their case, but the defendant will be entitled to their costs at £19 p/h. 

——-

The claimant needs to acknowledge that litigation risk. It’s no good them seeking £200 without doing so.  

The o/p can, of course serve multiple witness statements from all present who saw the machine was not working and the app restrictions. 

Grizebeck

Johnersh said:

The point the mediator needs to discuss with the ppc is:

1. if the machine doesn’t issue tickets
2. the app is designed not to accept payments (notwithstanding that there is no signage precluding visits as short as 30 mins)

then they rendered it impossible to perform the P&D requirement of the contract (sign). evidence of that can and will be presented to the court. If the court accepts that, the ppc not only fail with their case, but the defendant will be entitled to their costs at £19 p/h. 

——-

The claimant needs to acknowledge that litigation risk. It’s no good them seeking £200 without doing so.  

The o/p can, of course serve multiple witness statements from all present who saw the machine was not working and the app restrictions. 

Unlikely with the pay grade of staff at bw legal who deal with mediation 

fisherjim

I didn't think these "mediators" discuss anything except the money demanded by the claimant against any offer from the appellant, they have no interest / input into the facts of the incident at all?  

I see this is yet another car park with non conforming signage:

riskaverse111

Thanks all - I received a call from the mediator at work today. Explained the defendant wasn't willing to settle and that actually neither was BW legal. Mediator went on a spiel about how they were and were willing to accept £188 (£15.66 over 12 months) and that if we lost the court case, we may have to pay the other side upwards of £300. Again, I said no, we're not interested in settling. 

I did actually touch upon the points mentioned by @Johnersh and @fisherjim as the whole situation is really unfair but was just given the response BW legal gave me (deft. overstayed for 48 minutes, claimant said 10 minutes is the grace period, etc). 

Anyways, I'll read up on what's required next over the weekend although I suspect I have loads of time given the court backlog.