Jump to content

Cutty Sark

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Cutty Sark last won the day on July 17 2017

Cutty Sark had the most liked content!


51 Excellent
  1. Drat Token expired whatever that means. spent ages typing it all up too. To late tonight now. will do it in MS Word tomorrow then cut n paste it in. Feel the need to pass on what happened to anyone going through the same.
  2. Update 02.10.2017. Claim dismissed. Leave to appeal - permission refused. No costs requested. I will provide more details later this evening when I have more time. My comments may help others in a similar situation Many thanks to everyone for their assistance, it gave me the confidence to do this, so well done guys.
  3. Hi jcbkabs, Any chance you can supply the details of your win? My turn Monday. Cheers, Cutty Sark.
  4. Well done jcbkabs. As Ericsbrother said really, my case is on for 2nd Oct in the same court. As much detail as you can remember would help me out. I'd also like to know the name of the judge and how you applied for costs as I intend to do the same. I'm also going to raise the issue of the right of audience again as no doubt the bwl person will not be there and there are points in his witness statement that are just not true. Cutty Sark.
  5. Jcbkabs Best of luck for tomorrow. please let us know how you got on. Cutty Sark
  6. Hi Kaffee, My attempt at challenging the advocates right of audience did not go well as I was ill prepared. If you do a search on Google for 'rights of audience in car parking claims' you will come across the examples you need including: Excel v Hampson C0DP4W20 before DJ Dignan at Stockport. 20/02/2017 The parking pranksters site goes into it in some detail. My attempt was ruled out and the judge allowed the advocate representing BWLegal the right to audience. As for the claim against me: In my case, the judge wanted more time to consider my defense and rescheduled for a later date giving BWL a fortnight to submit their legal arguments and me a further fortnight to respond. BWL did not send me documents through the post but did e-mail me their submissions the evening before the deadline expired. They also wrote to the court (I don't know what the contents of their letter was) which resulted in another letter from the court warning me that unless I responded in the time scale set, the claimant could apply for a judgment against me. I had by this time responded to the court and BWL within the time limits set. So at this moment the claimant's solicitors and I have responded to the court and the new court hearing is set for a 3 hour session on 02 Oct 2017. As the solicitor sent me their submissions only by e-mail and subject to a copyright notice, this prevented me from popping it up on here for comment. This is probably another tactic of theirs. They mention a further court case in their submission but have not provided me a copy of it which I stated was contrary to the court's directions. In my responses to their submissions I noted several facts. Their letter of authority to issues claims on behalf of the landholder was dated 2014 whereas the alleged contravention was 2011. I disputed that any such agreement was in place in 2011 as they have not produced it. Their failure to respond to my CPR 31.14 request which they stated was not required because of a CPR 27 rule regarding small claims courts. I attached copies of my request sent to them and their reply both of which predated the allocation of the claim to the small claims track which I also attached. (A blatant attempt to misdirect in my opinion but I bit my tongue on mentioning it.) The fact that their signage was a computer generated image and not an actual photograph of what was in situ in 2011. The wording on their sign which stated that they could approach a court for an order for the registered keeper to disclose the driver details and the fact that I have never received any court order to do so. Also some nonsense about a failure to act reasonably what ever that means. The fact that the sign refers to other terms and conditions not displayed and is therefore an invitation to treat and does not form an agreement. They also tried to cast doubts on the 'qualifications' of the Parking prankster to make comment on the court rulings I quoted, to which I replied he does not need legal qualifications to report on the rulings of judges who are legally qualified. They also tried to make out that I have never denied being the driver when I wrote to them 6 days before they issued proceedings against me. (I have a copy of that letter and their reply for the court appearance.) They also try to hold me responsible for their fees as the driver of the vehicle was acting as my agent according to them. I have set out how this is not the case. So, we will see what happens on the 2nd October. by that time I will have familiarized myself with the court rulings of the cases I quoted and argue the points again if necessary. This is because they have tried to cast doubts on the cases I quoted from the Parking Pranksters website as being not actual official court reproductions. Wish me luck and good luck to you.
  7. Not really, the case is currently adjourned. Claimant has 14 days for legal submissions, then I get 14 days to reply. At least this time they don't seem able to send me their documents after the court's deadline and I get the chance to make propper defense before actually attending the hearing. I had doubts last time as I didnt know what to expect. This time they are allocating 3 hours instead of the original 1 hour.
  8. Rights of audience on the court day, is important! I screwed up there, but one thing is certain, their advocate wasn't expecting me to raise it as an issue. Check out parking pranksters web site for examples of a previous case where a successful challenge was made and an article referring to the issue in a legal trade magazine. Then instead of just taking these along, research the actual laws used in that successful case and take copies of those along to back you up and give you a lead. I will next time. When you get their WS pop their picture of the sign they claim was in situ up. If it's like the one in their WS in my case, it is NOT a photo, it's a computer image.
  9. EB Thank you. You are quite correct, I was ill prepared for the right of audience issue. It is definately worth raising though, had I done a propper job I might have been able to cut them off at the pass. Though I did take a copy of a law society article and a court report of a successful challenge, I didn't take copy of the relevant laws to refer to. I was also nervous as this was my first court appearance. Frankly, my performance sucked. I will be better prepared for round 2 as I now know what to expect. As ever, thanks for your valuable input.
  10. Update 12/07/2017 Case Postponed. Attended court today, 09.30 for 10.00 appointment. 09.45 Claimants representative arrived and asked if I wanted to meet briefly before the hearing. I said ‘no thanks’ 10.00 called into court. Judge asked me the identity of the two people I had brought along for moral support then introduced the case. I asked if this was the correct point in the proceedings to challenge the right of audience of the BWL rep. Judge asked me on what basis, so I said ‘as far as I could understand the rep had to be either an employee of Excel or BWL or a registered solicitor.’ The rep replied that he was from ELMS and was a CLIE. The judge indicated I could ask another question so I asked if the rep had been involved in setting up the claim. He answered Yes. The judge then ruled he had a right of audience so I abandoned that tack. The judge then bowled me a googly and asked ‘where was my statement?’ Confused, I wondered what he was talking about and he said ‘it was in the court directions to provide a statement.’ I thought I had missed something important until my son pointed to my witness bundle and said it had already been submitted to me. The judge then picked up the copy I had mailed to the court and read the front page. He said ‘you have referred to several cases in here, do you have supporting documentation?’ I replied ‘yes, they are attached to the statement’ and he spent a further minute or two reading one of them. (I had supplied several blogs debunking Elliot v Loake and CPS v AJH Films from the Parking Pranksters website) He asked if I had a copy of the claimants bundle and I replied ‘yes but it arrived a day after the courts deadline so I have not had the opportunity yet to rebut the details within. He asked the rep if he had a copy of my bundle and he replied ‘Yes.’ The judge then said ‘this is going to be a complicated case needing more time than the hour allocated in this session, it will need at least 3 hours to sift through, so I will adjourn to a later date. The claimant will have 14 days to respond with legal submission and then the defendant will have a further 14 days to respond to that. We thanked the judge and left the court. The rep did not leave with us. So, the saga continues. I was so looking forward to seeing an end to all this. It’s been almost 6 years now!
  11. Thank you EB I spotted the 2014 contract as well. Plus as per one of my previous posts ESS GEE holdings either didn't exist or didn't hold the land in 2011. I will have to recheck that. I been beavering away at this all day but I'm no computer expert. But I'm getting there (slowly). Eventually I have managed to get a redacted copy of their witness statement all into a single word document. At the moment I am downloading a trial version of Adobe to convert it to pdf for you guys to take a look. As soon as its done Ill post it up, trouble is I only have an old laptop running an old copy of word so it doesn't save as pdf. Many thanks again for your time and effort. Here's the WS at last. Also ignore my ramblings about the land holder, what I thought was them registering the land in 2016 was actually them registering a charge on the land with RBS for a mortgage or some such. But they are trying to circumnavigate my request for sight of the agreement that allows them to issue charges on behalf of the land holder as you will see in the WS. Another point is where they state I never denied driving therefore I've admitted I was the driver. A load of tosh again. I wrote to them on 3rd March stating I wasn't the driver and they replied to me on 13th March stating that I had ample opportunity to disclose same. BWLWS REDACTED.pdf
  12. Good morning, Can anyone recommend a PDF redactor tool for me to use please so that I can upload the claimants WS?
  13. Sorry this is taking me a long time, Still learning how to drive my scanner Here are the pictures of the signage claimed to be in existance 2011 plus the current ones I took last week. They have supplied other photos of the site but when I compress them as suggested the file actually grows to 6.9 meg. These photos are of the other signs on display claimed Nov 2011, plus a map of where they are located. I could split them into two separate files if you want, that should bring them both down below 3 meg. I am still working on the rest of their WS. Do you want me to hide BWLEGALS reps name? Ebbw Vale the Walk claimed nov 2011 signage.pdf Ebbw Vale the Walk (current).pdf
  14. Update 05.07.2017. Received bwlegal witness statement and bundle through the post today. A day later than specified by the court. Had a quick read through and they still seem to be relying on Elliot v Loake and CPS v AJH films to make the keeper liable? Also mentions Parking Eye v Beavis to enforce their claim as being reasonable and Chaplair v Kumari about contractual entitlement Other things they provide are some very poor quality photographs of the car where you can only just make out the registration, photographs of The signage on the site from 2011? They also state that as I didnt disclose the driver details I am liable for the pcn. There's a copy of an agreement between the landholder and Excel (dated 2014) which I take as a response to my CPR request More work to do by the look of it, especially with only a week to go.
  • Create New...