IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.
Excel BW again
Comments
-
claretmad62 wrote: »I'm not really sure if this sounds right, so any help would be appreciated. But I feel I must make some kind of complaint.
I write to you on behalf of my wife (the Defendant in this matter) as her appointed representative.
We were in receipt of your letter!to the Claimant!dated 13th March 2017, in which you requested the Claimant to serve further Particulars of Claim by 4pm on the 27th March 2017.
We have today received a copy of BW Legal response, the date shown on the letter is the 23rd March 2017. However, the letter is 8 working days beyond the date you requested and having spoken to a representative of Skipton Court this morning by phone, I am advised that the Court only received the letter yesterday.
Please excuse my inexperience in these matters, but I find this totally un-professional & lacking in any respect for yours or the Courts wishes.
Again, please accept my sincerest apologies if you believe I have spoken out of turn. But this seems to have been a continuing feature with the Claimant and there appointed Solicitor, in which they have continually chosen to ignore requests for information within a requested timescale.
Needs to be more assertive, and needs to be written by the Defendant, you can only become her representative when allowed to do so by the Judge at the hearing.
Dear Sir,
I am Mrs XXXX, the Defendant in this matter.
On 13 March, District Judge Wright issued Directions that the Claimant must file and serve further Particulars of Claim by 4pm on 27 March.
I received their statement today, 6 April, and I understand from a telephone call which my husband made to the Court office, that the Court received their copy yesterday.
This is completely unacceptable behaviour from a Claimant company which issues thousands of such claims annually, and who are represented by a professional firm of solicitors who should be familiar with Court procedures.
I would therefore ask that the Court takes due account of the Claimant's sloppy and unprofessional behaviour, and which demonstrates a blatant disregard for the honourable Judge's directions. The Court may now wish to impose sanctions against the Claimant, and should consider striking out the claim as disclosing no cause of action.
Yours etc.
I have been providing assistance, including Lay Representation at Court hearings (current score: won 57, lost 14), to defendants in parking cases for over 5 years. I have an LLB (Hons) degree, and have a Graduate Diploma in Civil Litigation from CILEx. However, any advice given on these forums by me is NOT formal legal advice, and I accept no liability for its accuracy.0 -
Brilliant bargpole...much appreciatedcm620
-
Ok, home now. Looked through BW documents....doesn't look to be anything there that is not generally brought up as supporting documents. I will scan at work tomorrow and put up. They have also resent the PCN,and a photo of a ticket machine, now this is where I need some guidance. The photo clearly shows £100 charge and £40 discounted, the PCN as you are aware is for £60 & £40. Am I now able to point this out to the judge, before the hearing...can I comment on their letter directly to the judge now ?cm620
-
claretmad62 wrote: »Ok, home now. Looked through BW documents....doesn't look to be anything there that is not generally brought up as supporting documents. I will scan at work tomorrow and put up. They have also resent the PCN,and a photo of a ticket machine, now this is where I need some guidance. The photo clearly shows £100 charge and £40 discounted, the PCN as you are aware is for £60 & £40. Am I now able to point this out to the judge, before the hearing...can I comment on their letter directly to the judge now ?
You shouldn't send anything to the court unless the DJ's order specifically said you should file a response.
Their statement (if not struck out) will now be considered by the DJ, to see whether they have established grounds to hold the keeper liable. We can comment on that when we see the document.
I have been providing assistance, including Lay Representation at Court hearings (current score: won 57, lost 14), to defendants in parking cases for over 5 years. I have an LLB (Hons) degree, and have a Graduate Diploma in Civil Litigation from CILEx. However, any advice given on these forums by me is NOT formal legal advice, and I accept no liability for its accuracy.0 -
Ok, just on with saving as pdfs and making into one document.cm620
-
cm620
-
claretmad62 wrote: »
Well that was an anti-climax. It's the same old sad and sorry bolleaux from BW Legal that we've seen many times before, and which is regularly rubbished by District Judges.
They say that the Registered Keeper and/or Driver breached the terms. Well which one was it?
They rely on Elliott v Loake, a criminal case in which the driver's identity was determined by forensic evidence. It has no relevance whatsoever to a civil case.
They also rely on CPS v AJH Films, a case in which it was determined that the employer could be held vicariously liable for the employee's actions. Since there is no employer/employee relationship here, that doesn't apply.
DJ Wright has seen these pathetic arguments before, and hopefully will treat them with the contempt they deserve.
I have been providing assistance, including Lay Representation at Court hearings (current score: won 57, lost 14), to defendants in parking cases for over 5 years. I have an LLB (Hons) degree, and have a Graduate Diploma in Civil Litigation from CILEx. However, any advice given on these forums by me is NOT formal legal advice, and I accept no liability for its accuracy.0 -
claretmad62 wrote: »
Same regurgitated Cr*p we see in every bwl WS. Has been distinguished and Dismissed by DJs all over the country.
In my second case judge S-R got annoyed when she read about EvL in the WS (by Anita Dile) saying she heard it many times and distinguished it. Jake Burgess had audacity to say 'i agree with you ma'am, i personally don't use it in my WS's'0 -
I read through it numerous times last night, and couldn't really believe that it was just another cut & paste attempt. In this one they actually mention the correct PCN value of £60.00. But all their figures must now be in-correct, as all BW Letter state £100.00 initial figure. I really hope she gives them so hammer over this....thanks to all for the feedback.cm620
-
They say that the Registered Keeper and/or Driver breached the terms. Well which one was it?
This is a (literally) unbelievable statement to make to the court.
On one hand they say it was either the RK OR the driver that breached the terms.... Err No! It can be ONLY the driver that was involved in any alleged 'beach'
On the other hand they say it was the RK AND the driver that breached the terms....
Hmmm, ok so they there are now TWO beaches are there? And the RK has somehow breached a contract that was only offered to the driver.
"Unbelievable, Geoff!"0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards