BW Legal Court Claim

1xvp1

Small update - I've received the defence to counterclaim from BW Legal, and also a notice of proposed allocation to the small claims track, so now I've served by N180 form to both BW Legal and the court via email.

I did not use the CNBC email and served it directly to the suggested court (Medway), is this the correct course of action, given the counterclaim?

Coupon-mad

Yes that is correct for a CC case.

Show us some excerpts from the Defence to Counterclaim. Who wrote it, a BW Legal paralegal or an employee of the Claimant?

1xvp1

Coupon-mad said:

Yes that is correct for a CC case.

Show us some excerpts from the Defence to Counterclaim. Who wrote it, a BW Legal paralegal or an employee of the Claimant?

The response came from BW legal. The defence is as follows. As a reminder, this is the second money claim against me for parking in my own spot at my leasehold flat on 30 April '24, the first two PCNs came for 4 and 8 April of the same year and are being pursued by Gladstones.

Coupon-mad

Well that's a useful crib sheet for what to say and attach as evidence in your WS section, to support the CC (in due course).!

Car1980

"But we put up a sign" and "we're not going to respond to anything else because it's too technical for the Claimant to understand" is amusingly flimsy.

1xvp1

Coupon-mad said:

Well that's a useful crib sheet for what to say and attach as evidence in your WS section, to support the CC (in due course).!

How do you mean sorry? What do I attach to the evidence from this response? Just trying to work out how to approach this (and similarly, in my other thread).

1xvp1

Just returned from the hearing which took about an hour. My defence was partially successful and the counterclaim was rejected. Claimant requested £280 (£100 PCN + £70 costs + rest some fixed costs), Judge rejected £70 and told me to pay £212.

My lease mentions a right to park in the parking space "subject to rules and regulations", and the judge reasoned that the contract between the housing association and UKCPM is such a regulation, and therefore I do not have an unfettered right to park, and so the claim was upheld.

Claimaint on the spot wanted to seek costs for the attendance of the representative on the basis that I acted unreasonably but the Judge rejected that.

Honestly, I was going there anticipating losing, so I'm not too upset, at least I drank enough of their blood and it was proboably more expensive for them to litigate than the costs they sought.

It was my first time in court and I now realise I was not as prepared as I should've been, but I doubt it would have made any difference.

Coupon-mad

Oh well. Chalk this one down to the fact that we play 'Judge Bingo' when cases go to hearings because it is subjective and down to human interpretation of your lease.

But you own 100% of the flat and your specific parking space comes with the lease, so I would NOT have expected to lose.

Plenty of other judges would have decided that these were not 'reasonable regulations for the good of residents'. Clearly this regime targets residents and UKCPM make no money otherwise. It works like a protection racket and that's not 'reasonable' at your own home.

I would NEVER live somewhere infested by a parking firm. Would not have even viewed the place. Horrific & unnecessary blighting of your peaceful enjoyment, and the presence of these firms can of course blight flat sales too, affecting property value and offers, if half of prospective buyers won't touch it with a bargepole and won't even view it.

At least he didn't allow the fake £70 'fee' and at least our advice in the NEWBIES thread is proved correct: worst case scenario = £212.

Did you do a decent WS and evidence bundle last month? You didn't ask us for guidance on that stage when it was due per the Hearing Order directions.

If you didn't submit any WS and evidence that explains the loss (the judge only had theirs to go on, and nothing to support your counterclaim).

1xvp1

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81867035#Comment_81867035

Yes, I submitted the WS with evidence confirming my lease rights. I did not want to rely on the forum to write it, though. The Judge recognised that my original defence was full of what they called "boilerplate" defences.

Again, I probably could've argued my position better had I been to a court before; however, in this case, I wasn't even sure what to expect. I did not prepare any statements to read out, unlike the claimant's rep, I was kind of hoping to say as little as possible and let the papers do the talking, but alas, that was not a correct position. I'm also not a native English speaker, so I was not as talkative when allowed to speak, even if decently articulate.

I still have another hearing coming up in April for the first claim, and I can't really use the primacy of lease reasoning anymore, I suspect, but I could still rely on the cause of action estoppel, as the Judge hinted.

Car1980

I would NEVER live somewhere infested by a parking firm. Would not have even viewed the place. Horrific & unnecessary blighting of your peaceful enjoyment, and the presence of these firms can of course blight flat sales too, affecting property value and offers, if half of prospective buyers won't touch it with a bargepole and won't even view it.

I agree. Back in the day the management company wanted to bring them on site afterwards though. I made the life of the CEO of the management company (Urban Bubble) very difficult and he changed his tune 😉