Excel/BW Claimform - PCN dated 2011 Ebbw Vale, The Walk **CASE DISMISSED**

[ericsbrother]

well, yo know the answer to Elliot v Loake etc,

use the cases referred to by the parking prankster in his blog, print off the blog so all of the references are there, make 3 copies.

 

When you show us their bundle we will have a look at the signs and advise as to whether they are old or new, they will be different to you pictures

 

WHERE ARE YOUR PICTURES OF THE SIGNAGE AS IT IS NOW?

we need to see them to compare, you have better have got them

[Cutty Sark]

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

[ericsbrother]

their sign may be from that time but it is illegible.

Bear in mind you are supposed to be able to read the key terms from a moving vehicle.

Also it refers to full terms and conditions that are not displayed, (presumably on their web site),

 

 

how are you supposed to read something that isnt there?

As the signage refers to other material not available the sign would be an "invitation to treat" and not a contract. make these points as part of your defence.

 

Say about the lack of keeper liability etc and then say

"In any Case the signage refers to other conditions that are not part of the key terms so the signage is an invitation to treat.

 

 

Also the wording, layout, font sizes and colour of the sign mean it is impossible to comprehend what is being offered, particularly from the drivers seat of a moving vehicle.

 

 

For these reasons the signage cannot be said to be a contractual offer.

The copy of the signage brought as evidence by Excel is merely a stock lay up image and Excel have offered no contemporary photographs to show that any such signage was in place at all at the time so it is disputed that this is a true record.

[Cutty Sark]

Good morning,

Can anyone recommend a PDF redactor tool for me to use please so that I can upload the claimants WS?

[dx100uk]

you don't

you scan as a picture

redact in MSPAINT

then convert them all to PDF

OR

put all the pictures in word

file save as .pdf

READ THE UPLOAD

[ericsbrother]

I forgot to pick up on a very important point, the contract dated 2014 isn't worth the paper it is written on as far as this claim goes.

 

You will copy all of the Parking Pranksters blog referring to Elliott v Loake and CPS v AJH Films to rubbish their claim.

 

They know it is pants but hope that you are ignorant of this.

Adding £30 is something you can challenge

but as you arent going to be paying a penny

then it is of little consequence but I would mention it as it shows their unreasonableness so you can claim a full costs recovery under CPR 27.14.2 (g).

 

Get that all written up as a separate document.

Also as they are using an advocate look up "rights of audience" as well and challenge the credentials of the person they are sending along.

 

If they aren't a solicitor on the SRA roll in their own name they cant say a thing

so challenge this as soon as you get into court,

 

don't speak to their rep at all whilst you are waiting to be called and don't accept any papers from them either.

 

Again, when you get into court mention it to the judge and ask if they have received the documents the advocate is trying to force upon you.

 

If the judge had them some time beforehand you could say that you haven't and you wont have time to read them.

 

This hint at an adjournment will make the judge either throw the new papers out or decide if they are relevant.

 

If they aren't then you will have a good idea of where things are going

[Cutty Sark]

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

[ericsbrother]

Well, they ahve put the wrong document in their WS so dont accept anything they try and hand over at court. It is still a secondary part of your argument but a killer for them and they know it.

 

You dont have to deny driving, they have to prove WHO was the driver at the time so a lack of denial is NOT the ame as an admission. They know you have denied it but they had alreadys set out on their journey so they werent going to stop now having wasted a goodly amount of money on it thus far.

 

They are hoping that somehow you screw up and the judge is completely unaware of their behavious and parking law in general. Fat chance. Over the years on watching these cases I have seen 2 where the judge sided with the parking co on pints such as these, one making the comment that the defendant sghould pay up regardless of the applicable law because he obviously owed the money as the parking co had sued him. that was appealed.

 

The other was HHJ Hegarty making up the law as he went along as he wanted consumer and commerial contract law to be the same. he was the judge who decided on the original Beavis case. All of his other judgemts were set aside waiting for that oen to go through the higher courts so now we know the extent and limits of that decision.

 

I have never denied killing the dinosaurs but it doesnt mean that I am a huge meteorite and thus culpable.

Edited July 10, 2017 by honeybee13
Paras

[Cutty Sark]

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!

[ericsbrother]

that is not a bad thing,

the judge is clearly going to use that time to inform themself of the material referred to

and I would say it would be very difficult for them to determine that they do count

as there is what is called persuasive argument (previous cases) that they dont count.

 

You should have acquainted yourself on rights of audience better

and taken a copy of the legislation with you and gone through it.

 

 

Everything you mention you need supporting evidence where possible

[Cutty Sark]

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.

[ericsbrother]

OK, in the case of their rep,

they dont have a right of audience and you aksed them the wrong question.

 

 

It wouldnt matter of they had worked on the preparation of the case,

they do not work for the claimant or their legal rep,

who are BW so they MUST be a solicitor or have someone from Excel present.

 

An analogy is someone claiming they are a taxi driver and offering you a lift in the street.

You havent booked them and they are not a licenced hackney carriage

so whatever they say doenst matter as the law is the law

[Kaffee]

hi cutty

Can you point me in the right direction for the relevant "rights of audience " law??

 

 

Got my case next week and might be in the same situation as you.

Have you got another date yet?

Cheers

Kaffee

[honeybee13]

Hello Kaffee.

 

I could be wrong, but I thought ericsbrother pointed you towards the right thread the other day.

 

HB

[Cutty Sark]

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.

[Kaffee]

Cheers guys.

I'll check it out.

 

Good luck cutty.

Your case looks great with being pre pofa etc.

 

 

Mine is from 2014 and they look like they have followed everything to the letter so far but you never know.

 

Will make them do as much work as possible for the money.

All the best.

Will let you know.

Kaffee

[ericsbrother]

copyright notice- what utter twaddle,

that is another lie designed to beat you down.

Their submissions are not a work of art

 

Make sure you hammer home the lack of contract at the time

 

as for signage,

their claim is twaddle regarding the Norwich Pharmacal order As for driver acting as agent.

 

 

well that went out when people stopped having chauffeurs as normal but only decided in law back in the 1970's and insurance became compulsory undar all circumstancesso again utter twaddle

 

Make sure that you have a copy of the legislation on rights of audience with you for next time.

[whitecraig_wizard]

Having waded through similarish circumstances, good luck with your case, practice your speech and arguments in front of some critical friends, remember you know the facts as you lived it, to them it is just another file.

[ericsbrother]

there are many cases where BW have tried this "agent of the keeper" nonsense.

 

 

Quote some that are on the pranksters blog and look at why Elliott v Loake and AJH films are irrelevant,

 

 

The first one was an accident on the public highway where there was plenty of evidence that the keeper was the driver at the time

and the second one was a company lorry so the company would be responsible,

same as a chauffeur does as his employer tells him to.

 

 

Unless the driver at the time was employed as your chauffeur then they are not your servant.

[Cutty Sark]

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.

[ericsbrother]

should have requested costs under CPR 27.14.2(g) for abuse of process. All made clear in a miriad of posts. Having to shell out another £100 or so would make them consider whether it is vaible to keep making up stories i the hope no-one challenges them.

Glad the result was as we expected though, no doubt a weight off your mind.

[Kaffee]

Nice one cutty. Another good result.

[whitecraig_wizard]

Well done, you should have gone for expenses though, it'd paid for a meal out which would be extra sweet.

[dx100uk]

Good work CAG

 

Thread title changed

 

DX

 

Don't forget to donate if you can to keep us going

[Cutty Sark]

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.