Jump to content

The jbw group limited and medway council result

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4465 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then


Please click the "Report " link


at the bottom of one of the posts.


If you want to post a new story then


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

At a recent hearing jbw and medway council have been told that they must Pay money they collected between themselves from the sale of a vehicle back to the owner of the vehicle. I asissted the person doing this along with a army of legal eagles. Although I did not personally attend the hearing the result is gobsmacking. How ever i am currently waiting for this person to forward me a copy of the judgement/order. I will post further but only on reciept of this. Also the claimant is planning to open a website and upload documents (start to finish) so that anybody in the same prediciment can use them. This will again only happen once the actual order comes through. I know Caggers who have had a run in with the wallerites will say well done but you will need to actually read why the judge has decided and on what grounds.

So whats cooking today ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations, perhaps Mr Waller will now start to toe the line of the law rather than just individual bits which suit him and his business....




:lol::lol: Toe the line?????? I don't think any of them know how to do that... They like terrorising people and think its ok to do so..


Well It's not and this forum is showing them so:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Persons in court were :


Mr Jamie waller Chair person of the jbw group Joint Co defendant

Miss Helen ugent Director of legal services jbw group


Miss Rubena hafizi Head of parking medway council Joint co defendant


Mr XXXXX Claimant


Also a newspaper was in court as well.

So whats cooking today ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

This is a letter recieved from them yesterday. hope it helps everyone !!!!!!!!



Here is a letter which i recieved with a cheque for £30.00 It says :


Without prejudice


Hearing on 2 september 2009


Firstly i would stress that this letter is made without prejudice and therefore cannot be refferred to in any future litigation.

Any comments made in this correspondance must remain cinfidential.


Secondly, and for clarification, I would reiterate that you claim for damages was dismissed by district judge Green. It was dismissed on the basis that the seizure of the vehicle was not unlawful from the onset, although enforcement action taken after theorder had been reversed, which ,may entitle you to a claim in restitution.




I accordance with Halsbury vol17(1) para 217 and geoff & jones on Restitution(6th edition,2002) both contained in counsels opinion upon which you sought to rely during the hearing, you would be entitled to restitution, As a restitution was not the basis of your amended claim, your claim for damages was dismissed.


A claim in restitution is substantially different from a claim for damages and will therfore not necessarily be for everything you have lost as a result of the stat dec. It will be a claim for whatever has reached the "respondents'" hands as a result of the sale of your vehicle. In which case the respondaents would be medway council and the jbw group who recieved £760.00 and £30 respectively.


Next steps



you will recall that following judgement. It was agreed that settlement would be in all parties best interests to avoid a unnecessary and avoidable claim in restitution. In that regard, I enclose a cheque in the sum of £30.00. i would stress that liability for the remaining £760 under any potential claim would fall to the local authority, medway council. This is due to the fact that £7060..00 i.e the monies collected at auction following the sale of the vehicle registration xxxxxx has subsequently been remitted to medway council who currently retain the benefit if these monies.


Further more i would emphasise that hthis offer does not reflect the merits of any potential claim you may have against the jbw group. Instead, this offer is made upon the reasoning that, firstly, it does not make commercial sense to defend a future claim in restitution, secondly, pursuing this matter further would be contrary to the overriding objective of the cpr.

I trust the enclosure of a cheque in the sum of £30.00 now closes this matter.




Dont name me.


It has takem 5 years to get to this stage.

So whats cooking today ?

Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...