PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

excel-bw legal 5years old
CONFUSEDMAN365
post Mon, 20 Feb 2017 - 16:18
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 20 Feb 2017
Member No.: 90,395



Hi

I know there has been many posts with regards to BW legal and there pursuit of old PCN's I have recently received 2 myself, before I respond to them I was wondering if someone may be able to help with my question which is as follows? how have they managed to locate me? I have moved house numerous times and not had a vehicle registered at my current address? I was wondering if they had obtained my details fraudulent.

any ideas?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Mon, 20 Feb 2017 - 16:18
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
CONFUSEDMAN365
post Mon, 10 Jul 2017 - 10:53
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 20 Feb 2017
Member No.: 90,395



just an update, seems they have not pursued the one PCN, but i have received the court questionnaire this morning for the other, not sure if they are playing games
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 10 Jul 2017 - 11:35
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,169
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Hows your WS going?

What do you mean, "it appears"? Have you checked online? Call the coutrs? Or are you assumimng its closed?

You assume the case is live until you are TOLD otherwise by the court. Anything else is foolhardy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CONFUSEDMAN365
post Tue, 11 Jul 2017 - 11:14
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 20 Feb 2017
Member No.: 90,395



WS is not going great currently, work has been getting in the way. need to sit down and really look at it.

i have checked online and nothing has appeared saying the one claim has been dropped i will call the courts later to find out as it has been 28days since they sent me a letter saying if they did not hear from bw within 28 days of this letter the claim will be closed.

i have only had one court questionnaire with one claim reference against it
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 11 Jul 2017 - 11:56
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,169
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



OK, but it is entirely possible there is a 2 to 3 week delay on the court handling paperwork. So calling them is all you can do. State you havent had confirmation they want to proceed, so would like the claim stayed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CONFUSEDMAN365
post Tue, 8 Aug 2017 - 12:26
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 20 Feb 2017
Member No.: 90,395



Just another Update

one pcn has defiantly been stayed, confirmation in writing.

had a court date for the other one at my local courts for the end of October, I have until the end of September to enter my ws and any other evidence/defense that i wish to use.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 9 Aug 2017 - 00:55
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,169
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



I would ask the court to use their case management powers to stay that claim as well, pending an explanation from teh claimant why they want one claim to go ahead, but an identical claim they had no desire to let go to a hearing. Say this appears to be an abuse of the courts and the defendants time by filing separate claims for identical circumstances, and an obvious attempt at double recovery

ASsume it will go ahead

Show us your prepared WS and that you have correctly referenced ALL evidence you want to include
A WS is a statememnt b y a Witness of FACTS in their knowledge. You dont argue within this document. "I am the registered keeper of...." is a stateemnt fact. "Im not liable for the claim because..." is an argument.

Sooner the better.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CONFUSEDMAN365
post Fri, 11 Aug 2017 - 11:29
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 20 Feb 2017
Member No.: 90,395



thanks for the quick reply, i have contacted the court about the open case and asked them as you mentioned above, no word from them as we.

ws should hopefully be completed over this weekend, i will upload before sending

just on a side note, if i lose the case in court, does a ccj automatically get imposed or do i have a grace period to pay the amount before they can issue a ccj to my credit file?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Fri, 11 Aug 2017 - 12:01
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,748
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



QUOTE (CONFUSEDMAN365 @ Fri, 11 Aug 2017 - 12:29) *
just on a side note, if i lose the case in court, does a ccj automatically get imposed or do i have a grace period to pay the amount before they can issue a ccj to my credit file?


Pay within a month and no record kept.

Why should you lose?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CONFUSEDMAN365
post Fri, 11 Aug 2017 - 13:12
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 20 Feb 2017
Member No.: 90,395



ok thats good.

been reading on other forums about judges not being upto date with pofa, and awarded some cases to the claimants not many mind but enough to so a seed of worry
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ManxRed
post Fri, 11 Aug 2017 - 14:34
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,054
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,992



Make sure there's a copy of Schedule 4 in your bundle with the relevant bits highlighted in case you need to show the judge.


--------------------
Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CONFUSEDMAN365
post Tue, 29 Aug 2017 - 11:21
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 20 Feb 2017
Member No.: 90,395



this is a draft of my w/s i have until mid sept to send it off




1. I, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, am the defendant in this claim. I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the way that the Claimant may do, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.

2. In this Witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise.

3. The facts of the case are as set out in my Defence, dated xxxxxxx, filed and served in response to the original N1 Claim Form, and verified by a Statement of Truth. They do not bear further repetition here, but this document will lead the evidence to support my case.

NO KEEPER LIABILITY
4. I was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle at the time of the event in question, however, I was not the driver

5. The claimant has produced no evidence of who was driving

6. At the time of the event there was no law that would allow a claimant to transfer liability for an alleged private parking contravention from the driver to the registered keeper (RK). As such only the driver can be held liable in this matter, if any contravention has even occurred. This claim has nothing whatsoever to do with the RK.

7. With no route in law to transfer liability for any alleged contravention, by a driver - to the RK, this claim is null and void. There is no case to answer. The claimant must prove who was driving then take the matter up separately with that person

NO “REASONABLE PRESUMPTION”

8. The claimant cannot “presume” that the defendant and RK was the driver at the time of the alleged contravention. For the following reasons:

9. There is no law that allows them to do this

10. The defendant asserts under ‘statement of truth’ that he was not the driver. This will be repeated in court should this claim proceed to a hearing.

11. Barrister and parking law expert Henry Greenslade was the ‘Parking on Private Land Appeals’ (“POPLA”) Lead Adjudicator from 2012 – 2015. This is an independent appeals service offered by the British Parking Assosciation (“BPA”) and Excel was under that Trade Body at the time of the alleged contravention. Mr Greenslade’s opinion in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 which confirms that there is no presumption in law that a keeper was the driver and that keepers do not have any legal obligation whatsoever, to name drivers to private parking companies.

12. The claimant will rely on the case of Elliott v Loake [1982] to argue that they can presume the RK was the driver.

13. Elliott v Loake [1982] has no relevance whatsoever in small claims or any civil matters. It is a criminal case which turned on forensic evidence and an eye witness statement. The defendant was prosecuted for, amongst other things, offences under S172 of the Road traffic Act. There is nothing about that criminal case that is comparable or relevant to this small claims matter

14. I refer to Excel v Mr C C8DP37F1 at Stockport 31/10/2016. In this case the judge recognised that Elliot vs Loake was completely irrelevant. In dismissing the claim the judge stated amongst his reasons for doing so that - Excel did not adduce evidence of the driver, and - Elliott v Loake is not persuasive, and can be distinguished.

15. I refer to Excel v Mr B C7DP8F83 at Sheffield 14/12/2016. In this case the Keeper was not the driver, so he elected to offer no evidence, and put the claimant to strict proof. This of course was an impossibility for the claimant. As Mr B was not the driver, there would be no way they could offer any proof. The Judge made it clear that without proof of driver, and without invoking Keeper Liability, there was no claim against the Keeper.

16. I refer to the case of Excel v Ian Lamoureux, C3DP56Q5 at Skipton 17/11/2016. The Judge was critical of the claimant’s attempts to hold the keeper liable. The judge suggested that the only way Mr Lamoureux could be held liable was if he was the driver and Excel could prove he was (which they could not). The judge stated “I think the claim against Mr Lamoureux is totally misconceived because it has no evidence that he is the driver and it seems to be relying on some assumption that the registered keeper is the driver because it is not seeking to rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012”.

17. Several other people including friends and family members had use of the vehicle, around the time in question, though the ‘Driving Other Cars’ (DOC) extension on their own fully comprehensive car insurance policies.

18. If the defendant’s assertion that he was not the driver was to be tested against the ‘balance of probabilities’ then it would be highly unlikely that he was the driver due to the number of other people that could have been driving

CLAIMANT UNREASONABLE BEHAVIOUR/ LACK OF CREDIBILITY
19. In 2012 after complaints about them for stating or implying on their documentation /signage that the vehicle owner/keeper is liable for the payment of parking charges in respect of parking contraventions and following an investigation, Excel were banned by the DVLA from access to keeper data. From their action in my case it is clear they have not changed their tactics. They are attempting to hold me liable as they RK when, in law, they can do no such thing.

20. As the RK, in January 2017 I received a letter from the claimant’s solicitor - BW Legal, threatening to pursue me for a £100 parking charge and an additional £54 for legal costs which they claimed are detailed in the car park terms and conditions.

21. In this matter the claimant is lying. No such “legal costs” were detailed on any of their signs at the location in question at the material time. The claimant is put to strict proof otherwise.

22. This is an attempt by the claimant to fraudulently claim costs that, under CPR 27.14 they are not entitled to.

23. As a serial litigant with professional legal representation the claimant knows they cannot claim these costs. Therefore, by attempting to do so they are deliberately misleading the defendant and the court.

CONCLUSION

24. For all of the reasons stated above, the Court is invited to dismiss this Claim, and to allow my wasted costs which will be submitted separately and in a timely manner, depending upon whether a hearing takes place. I firmly believe that to pursue me as registered keeper when the Claimant has no right in law to do so, and to submit vague, incoherent particulars, is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.


I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 29 Aug 2017 - 18:37
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,169
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Is that a ws or a skeleton argument?

A ws is just a statement, by a witness, about relevant facts in their possession.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CONFUSEDMAN365
post Wed, 30 Aug 2017 - 09:15
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 20 Feb 2017
Member No.: 90,395



it was going to be my w/s

otherwise my witness statement would be 2-3 lines long

as the only evidence i have was me not being the driver of the vehicle
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dub_cat
post Wed, 30 Aug 2017 - 10:14
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 167
Joined: 11 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,791



your witness statement should refer to the exhibits (evidence) that you will be submitting with the WS. I can't see any references to any evidence. you should include any and all letters, whatever evidence you have that you were not the driver etc.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 30 Aug 2017 - 17:00
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,169
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



QUOTE (CONFUSEDMAN365 @ Wed, 30 Aug 2017 - 10:15) *
it was going to be my w/s

otherwise my witness statement would be 2-3 lines long

as the only evidence i have was me not being the driver of the vehicle

No it isn't. You also have all the letters. You have any pictures of signs. You have....
you list in date order.

As we told you, a ws is just a set of facts.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CONFUSEDMAN365
post Sat, 2 Sep 2017 - 17:15
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 20 Feb 2017
Member No.: 90,395



hi all

great news, today i received a letter from bw legal saying they have discontinued there claim, i am checking with the courts on monday to make sure its not just a false/tactic by them to stop me from sending anything to the court and will post back here once i hear anything
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Sat, 2 Sep 2017 - 17:25
Post #57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,641
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



So happy to hear it!

Now we trust you will take a moment to write a simple letter to the Court, to claim punitive costs for you, due to this claimant's unreasonableness

Here's how Bluetoffee1878 on MSE did it:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...88#post72966188

and a Solicitor who posts here and on MSE, LoadsofChildren123, wrote a longer version she links here:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...88#post72799488

If people don't try, these scammers get away with putting you and others through the wringer for nothing, and keep repeating it.

HTH
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CONFUSEDMAN365
post Mon, 4 Sep 2017 - 22:18
Post #58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 20 Feb 2017
Member No.: 90,395



Thanks school run mum, i will have a look in the morning and start the ball rolling. I checked with my local court this morning they haven't received a copy yet but it was first thing and said to try again tomorrow

Thank you for eveyones help it really was appreciated

Guess thats another 2 wins to the good guys
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CONFUSEDMAN365
post Thu, 14 Sep 2017 - 10:01
Post #59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 20 Feb 2017
Member No.: 90,395



final update

court wouldnt accept my claim based on the claimant being unreasonable as they say they discontinued there claim with enough long before it was due to be heard, sounds like a fob off to me but i'm just happy it has all been sorted

thanks everyone for your help through out
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 14 Sep 2017 - 10:58
Post #60


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,169
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Did you explain their unreasonable behaviour? discontinuing doesnt excuse prior poor behaviour.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 16th August 2018 - 17:33
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.