Excel/BW claimform - PCN Swansea SA1 2012

[ericsbrother]

They know nothing of the circumstance surrounding the event,

they have just taken a load of old paperwork out of the recycling bin and posted it out instead.

 

Pre POFA so a short letter saying that as the registered keeper of the vehicle in question you have no liability in this matter and you dont know who the driver was at the time.

 

They are sending out hundreds of these fishing letters in the hope some will pay up

and others drop themselves in it and make a claim possible.

 

Do not explain or justify yourself in any way,

[ericsbrother]

you must make the simple point that there is no keeper liability and you dont know who was driving at the time.

Anything else leaves it open to assumption and further letter tennis.

[ericsbrother]

I wouldnt even bother being polite but that will do.

[ericsbrother]

In short,

BW cant do anything unless their client instructs them to and then they only do what they are paid to do.

 

Will excel be stupid enough to try their luck?

I doubt it as both they and BW know that Elliott v Loake is irrelevant to this matter

but like threatening a Norwich Pharmacal order to force you to name the driver

they think that by quoting these cases you will be so scared or impressed that you will now pay up.

 

Funny how when these things to get to court

they never ever quote the same case law they use in the threatograms.

 

likewise no point quoting the PoFA,

they know that it isnt applicable and there is no keeper liability,

 

that is why they use the shotgun approach to other case law.

[ericsbrother]

How do they know what their client will do if they havent already been told?

Psychic powers?

 

 

BWL hope that their client takes that step as they get paid whether Excel win or lose.

Trev has lost a few of these more speculative claims on no keeper liability alone so he wont be in a hurry to throw more money at it.

 

slight update since then.

 

I received another letter from them in October saying that it was my last chance to settle before their client WILL instruct them to take legal action.

 

Haven't heard anything since, but if i do get some kind of court papers through i will be back in touch.

 

Thanks everyone.

[ericsbrother]

they are not only rubbish solicitors but also rubbish clairvoyants.

 

They cant tell what thir client will do on a certain date but i will also offer a view of the future.

They will lose a court claim if they make one.

 

Dont bother responding, Excel have taken a bit of a beating in court recently on defended claims so BW are probably sending out a letter for free to kiss and make up with them for costing them money for their last day out.

 

Expect a letter saying you have won the Canadian lottery, all you have to do is pay them a £160 admin fee and the prize is yours I always wondered how they got peoples names and addresses, perhaps there is a link?

 

The saga continues.

 

Another letter from BW Legal saying "Letter of claim" on it, but all it is, is another letter demanding the same amount of money by 6th of March 2017 or their client WILL instruct them to take legal action

they said in their letter last year that was the last chance before they took legal action.

 

Im of the opinion they know its pre POFA and I have no liability and are just continuing to try their luck and are now putting "Letter of Claim" across the top to make people think its at a more serious stage or something?

 

my intentions are to ignore?

 

Regards

47

[ericsbrother]

first thing to do is acknowledge the claim.

Best done online at moneyclaimonline.

That way you can keep an eye on the clock for when they have to do the next bit.

Then you have an extra fortnight to submit a skeleton defence.

 

In this time you send off a CPR 31.14 request to BWL demanding sight of their contract with the landowner that assigns the right to enter into contracts with the public and to make civil claims in their own name.

 

Also ask for sight of the planning permission for their signage under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007.

 

Lastly you ask for strict proof of who the driver was at the time and copies of any notices or correspondence issued by their client.

 

Give the 14 days to respond.

They wont so you can add this failure to follow procedure and show evidence of a cause for action in your skeleton defence and ask for the claim to be struck out (on several grounds )

That will force the to either discontinue or risk a costs order, which will be your next request to court.

 

Get cracking so they are damned whichever way they go.

[ericsbrother]

once you tick the defend in full you automatically get another 14 days added to the existing fortnight from the date of issue.

 

You don't have to apply,

all you need to do is get a few bullet points in the relevant spot and it progresses to the next bit.

 

The reason you aren't doing that now is you want to hit them when they don't follow the court procedures regarding the CPR information request.

 

If you delay sending that to the solicitors you will run yourself out of time so get a move on with the CPR 31.14 and the ack of service .

 

Ok perfect. Thanks.

Just to confirm.

 

 

Tick the option to dispute the whole claim.

Then shall I apply for the 28 days?

 

 

The extra time to prepare defence part?

[ericsbrother]

they are hoping you are bricking it and are going to pay up.

If you dont their client will lose some more money and they will both look stupid.

 

Later on you should consider asking the court for a full expenses order for their unreasonableness

(ie they know that pre-POFA they have to show strict proof of driver identity) under CPR 27.4.2(g)

 

You may be asking for a striking out of the claim anyway,

 

wait until you get the directions questionnaire and the go for that as the claim is too vague as to be viable

[ericsbrother]

it will be thriough the post.

You can check the progress of the claim online and if Excel havent done their next bit on time you can ask for the claim to be struck out (various grounds) but that isnt a certainty

[ericsbrother]

the you wait until it happens. It is down to the courts service to send out the allocationquestionnaire and they will do so when it is tim to do so.

[ericsbrother]

I like the way they turn a statement of denial around so it appears to be a question about your possible liability. They have done this because they know that they are on a hiding to nothing and any other answer could be used against them.

[ericsbrother]

keep an eye on the clock. When it runs down tyou can ask for a strike out on various grounds and that will make it impossible for them to try again.

[ericsbrother]

of course not, the law isnt going to change all of a sudden jsut because you keep asking the same question

[ericsbrother]

everyone gets one of these, they still behave like catholics when the date approaches- withdraw at the last moment.

[ericsbrother]

Invigilating GCSE law today, one of the school pupil's initials were BW. I wonder if this is the same person getting a better qualification.

[ericsbrother]

you will get another letter telling you that the small claims track is the appropriate one and the matter will be sent to your local county court.

 

 

Everything else will then come from there.

Once the locol court is allocated it becomes worthwhile writing to them to get the claim struck out on procedural grounds and for having no chance of success etc.

[ericsbrother]

of course they will accept mediation in the hiope that you offer to pay something or they

(1) look stupid (easy for them to do because they are stupid) and

(2) they are losing money on this nad hope that some settlement is agreed so they avoid point 1

 

As you say, the courts will send you the proper form and if you dont accept mediation then it doesnt happen, the system doesnt think any less of you for saying no. It isnt appropriate in your case anyway.

[ericsbrother]

the directions will no doubt be aimed at Excel to prove they have a claim or shut up.

 

You may be asked to provide some evidence that you have mentioned in your skeleton

such as why you believ they have no claim against you

( had that once when I sued my next door neighbours landlord (housing association) when the tenant burnt my fence and garden shed down by accident.

The LL was happy to settle if they believed that I was using the right laws to sue.

 

Once I quoted a couple of relevent cases the judge said that was enough and that would I accept the full claim without a judgement being entered against the defendant. saved a lot of time and on th HA's side money as well)

[ericsbrother]

yes, it could be a year before you get a date but that would be unusual, a month is quite normal

[ericsbrother]

on the 23rd july you post your WS and evidence bundle to the court and to BWL.

That is a sunday so post the court lot on the friday and BWL's on the monday first class recorded.

 

 

With a bit of luck they will refuse to sign for it and drop themselves in it as then they wont be able to peep at your homework and use it to make up their new version of events and thus file theirs late.

 

 

The RM log will show refused delivery and that isnt a reason to complaint to court about not receiving it but you will be able to say they didnt send theirs on time.

[ericsbrother]

You could but you may not get a response so adding a request with the paperwork you have to send would at least get read by the same judge.

 

As it is nothing to do with POFA that isnt a reason for a strike out so you wont be asking for that.

A strike out would be on the grounds of Excel failing to show Locus standi and not providing evidence that they have "strict proof" of any cause for action against the defendant as he was not the driver at the time.

 

The difference betwen this and what you have suggested is on the face of it fairly small but huge in legal terms.

 

 

Your POFA bit is one for the day, they will argue that Elliot v Loake and CPS v AJH Films allpy when they dont, they both concern criminal matters and any way in the latter the driver was a "servant" so unless you have a chauffeur that is irrelevant.

[ericsbrother]

a separate request yes but get the wording right.

 

Look up "locus standi" and "strict proof".

 

When you say they havent provided documentation you must say that this was asked for as discovery under CPR 31.14 and asked for to determine their right to make a claim and show a cause for action against the defendant.

 

these are things they cannot do regardless of whether the request was complied with so there is a good chance they will be asked to explain themselves as a CMO or at the very beginning of the hearing and get told to sod off when they cant answer.

 

You are not making a vague request without a reason behid it so use the correct terminology where appropriate and your chances of success are increased massively.

 

Look at the pranksters latest blog and quote those cases to show they are abusing the court process by pursuing hopeless cases when they know they have no cause to do so.

[ericsbrother]

I would suggets that you dont say you cant remember who was driving, just state there is no keeper liability and you put it to strict proof theat they identify the driver at the time.

have you got photographs of the signage as it is now? Reason i ask is because they may well try pulling the wool over people's eyes and claim they are the same as they wee then. The IPC didnt exist back then so your pictures can rebut their evidence if they try that one on.

[ericsbrother]

your WS will say that you are the defendant and then lay out the facts and your statement of why you dont owe them money

 

So begin by numbering the points you want to address such as

 

1. The defendant denies that any contract exists between the claimant, Excel parking and the defendant and they have failed to show a cause for action aginst the defendant by way of showing they have an assignment of the landowner giving them the right to enter into contracts with the public and to make civil claims in their own name.

 

2. As there is no keepr liability in this manner it is put to Excel to show strict proof as to who was driving at the time as the defendant denies being the driver.

 

3. The claim itself fails to properly fulfil the requirements of CPR 16.4 at is is unclear how the claim is made up, why the defendant is liable and nor whether it is damages for a breach of contract or a contractual sum. The claim also includes an element of costs that are not recoverable in the small claims process.

 

4. s the event is pre POFA (oct 2012) no liability has been transferred to the the keeper so there is no cause for action against the defendant in that capacity and without proof of who was driving at the time, no evidence of any actionable cause at all against the defendant.

 

5. Excel have made a number of unsubstiantiated claims in the courts and are abusing the court process as a method of intimidation or coercion rather than for collecting monies they have proper entitlement to. I cite claim numbers xxxyyyxxx ( list a load of previous cases that involve pre 2012 claims that got chucked out and then have the full detail as part of your document bundle). Excel have offered no evidence that their claim is a genuine one

 

6. Excel did not issue a notice of their claim or an invoice at the time, the first the defendant knew about this matter was a demand dated the xxth mon 2016/7 and the plaintiffs have failed to respond to requests for a full breakbown of how the demand came about. This means the defendant could not agree or dispute the claim before court action was taken by the plaintiff and is still unclear as to what exactly the cause for action is. Again this is an abuse of the court process.

 

There will be more about the site itself but that will have to wait for you to produce a load of pictures, proof planning permissionwast given and all the other things you should have read up on.