Friday, 30 June 2017

Judge "fed up" with BW Legal

Excel v LordGreenElf. 29/06/2017. St Helens

This post on MSE gives the full story.

This claim concerns an unknown parking event Excel claimed happened on 15/03/2011. BW Legal filed a claim on 08/03/2017, or 7 days before the Limitations Act potentially kicks in* and the claim is time-barred.

The keeper had no recollection of any parking contravention (Excel are known for the black hole near their post office and letters they claim to have sent often are reported as never being received).

The keeper had also moved house in the intervening years. Luckily the new resident forwarded the court claim papers as they "looked official".

They therefore filed a defence on the basis that they had no idea what the claim was about and the onus was on the claimant to prove who the driver was.

Their witness statement also put Excel to the sword.

This unwarranted harassment and baseless litigation has caused me significant alarm and distress, during my research I discovered that Excel are issuing robo-claims for archive 'parking charges' in their thousands. It is clear that no checks have been made as to the facts of the alleged contract, signs or parking charge, in their undue haste to issue these claims.

The Hearing

BW farmed out their representation to a local "professional" after the case was moved to the motorist's local court. As the witness statement of BW Legal was signed by somebody not in court, the judge tore her apart with legal mumbo jumbo that the keeper didn't understand but caught something to do with a 27.9, and that because they hadn't filed one then she (the judge) didn't have to give any weight to the witness statement provided. Also if they had have filed a 27.9 then she wouldn't have expected any other representation to turn up either. She wasn't happy with them at all!

After all of that, the case was dismissed on the grounds that it was pre-POFA, and even if she had have taken any weight to the claimants witness statement, they offered no proof who the driver and there could be no case against the Registered Keeper.

Costs were awarded to the keeper.

She dismissed the keeper from the court but asked the claimant's representative to remain. The keeper heard the judge asking her if "she worked for BW Legal as she's had just about enough of their ......." and the door closed behind the keeper.

Prankster Notes

It loos like BW Legal's reputation is starting to get around the courts.

The legal "mumbo jumbo" is explained here.

If a party is not going to turn up in court, they need to give 7 days notice.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

** Although potentially there may be a few more weeks to wait, depending on when payment is actually overdue.

1 comment:

  1. CPR 27.9 relates to non-attendance of parties at a hearing.