Cpm/BW windscreen pcns - BW PAP LOC Now Claimform - (residential car park) The citrus Building, Maderia road, Bournemouth ***Claim Dismissed with Costs** now another PAPLOC for another same place ticket ***Dismissed again with costs***

[brassnecked]

Says vehicles must be parked in Marked Bay, doesn't say only one per bay, if the bay can fit two. Think they are knackered by their own sign, now a suitably acid ericsbrother style response might be an idea.

[brassnecked]

Just for clarity Harni the bay is normal width but long enough to fit two cars or a car and caravan nose to tail?

 

As Mrs O'Frog indicates they couldn't touch a car on a trailer or caravan, they insinuate in their letters they could ticket a trailer or caravan, no can do, unless there is something in the lease that says no more than one vehicle can be parked in a bay long enough for two cars or a car and caravan then they are talking through their sorry jive ass, and should lose in court.

[brassnecked]

Take a sneaky picture of the other double parked car, might be useful later.

[brassnecked]

I reckon they are very silly if they try court.

[brassnecked]

Simpler the better maybe acidic like ericsbrother might write, but no specifics of what you would use to defend a claim. Just area you park in isn't covered by them as per the map perhaps so no jurisdiction to ground invoice, as per pics in post#56 and Shamrocker's comments in #57/ others will give some constructive ideas no doubt.

[brassnecked]

Reason for never using e'mail is clear, if they did try court they could send documents at last minute, say 12:01 am on the day of the case and say you had had them.

[brassnecked]

Answer  the questions on here:

 

then acknowledge Online on the MCOL website detailed on the claimform.
.
 register as an individual
 note the long gateway number given
 then log in
.
 select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box.
.
 then using the details required from the claimform
.
 defend all
 leave jurisdiction unticked.
 click thru to the end
 confirm and exit MCOL.

[brassnecked]

Let them spout and don't tell them that you have recorded the call until its nearly ended and you have said you are logging date and time of all calls as they are in breach of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997

 

 Prohibition of harassment.

(1)A person must not pursue a course of conduct—

(a)which amounts to harassment of another, and

(b)which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.

[F1(1A)A person must not pursue a course of conduct —

(a)which involves harassment of two or more persons, and

(b)which he knows or ought to know involves harassment of those persons, and

(c)by which he intends to persuade any person (whether or not one of those mentioned above)—

(i)not to do something that he is entitled or required to do, or

(ii)to do something that he is not under any obligation to do.]

[brassnecked]

Might even get a suggestion to proceed on the papers, if they copy Gladdy's busted MO.  On The Papers is always a desperate bid to stop their dodgy POC, and WS being challenged at a hearing.

[brassnecked]

Don't engage with the advocate for any cosy chat they might ask to have with you prior to the case, might be worthwhile checking if they have right of audience as well, others might give better info on that.

[brassnecked]

And that can work in your favour.

[brassnecked]

Good luck, hope they get pwned in court. could you post a pdf of final submission, think the no locus standi, over your space should be a key for sure

[brassnecked]

Good luck, don't forget to ask is the WS author present for VCS, as DX says, if not it puts them on back foot straight away.

[brassnecked]

Great news surely the PPC's must be near getting a bigger kicking by a Judge soon.

[brassnecked]

I would be inclined to go after them under GDPR anyway, once they cough up the costs  as they are stupid enough to invoice you again.  Likely another £500 for you and cost to them, and risk of a ICO fine for them.

[brassnecked]

Might be worth looking into exactly who passed the data and when, but might then be best leave it  for now then.

[brassnecked]

Is it exactly same facts as one they lost on,  so yes do AOS, and maybe put something about case No XXXXX which was identical to this claim in all essential facts where they were sent packing.

 

The other Team Members likely along soon with some other tactics.

[brassnecked]

Potentially if you can put on MCOL that you informed BW etc on whatever date you sent the snotty letter  as they have sent the claimform to new address but are using your old address on MCOL as part of any defence? Others will have some extra advice I feel.

[brassnecked]

Would inclusion of the case findings no xxxx xxx  which was judged in my favour by XXX judge an XXX County Court  be a good inclusion in WS a with the comment,  that that claim was brought by the claimant on identical facts  at same place also help get it chucked out and leave a nice GDPR claim?

[brassnecked]

The previous win should help, and is there a way to introduce some degree of the claim being vexatious and a knee jerk revenge?

[brassnecked]

Well done again, hope they have learned not to be so stupid in future.  Some hope there sadly.