BWLegal - the list of failures growing

Coupon-mad

Why don't you simply read the sticky thread near the top of this forum, for NEWBIES?

Don't ask where it is...I don't carry the signature below for fun!

didgeridoooo

I have read it, I have worked through it several times in fact.

Trouble is, it spiders off into other threads (to send people to appropriate advice), and each time I go down one of those avenues I find people advising me to be careful because it's "old advice". It was actually doing precisely that which led me to this thread.

Maybe I am doing something wrong, I don't claim to be perfect, but I certainly have read the Newbie thread (I refer back to it constantly, it's open in my browser constantly)

beamerguy

didgeridoooo wrote: »

I have read it, I have worked through it several times in fact.

Trouble is, it spiders off into other threads (to send people to appropriate advice), and each time I go down one of those avenues I find people advising me to be careful because it's "old advice". It was actually doing precisely that which led me to this thread.

Maybe I am doing something wrong, I don't claim to be perfect, but I certainly have read the Newbie thread (I refer back to it constantly, it's open in my browser constantly)

There are some outdated comments around.
This thread is not outdated and was done simply to demonstrate the failures of BWLegal and where they go wrong

didgeridoooo

Thanks BG. Subscribing and will add to my reading list for my upcoming court claim from BW Legal.

beamerguy

didgeridoooo wrote: »

Thanks BG. Subscribing and will add to my reading list for my upcoming court claim from BW Legal.

And if BWLegal are scamming you with a fake £60, read this

12th June 2019
Southampton court threw out a case from BWLegal because of Abuse of Process regarding the fake BWLegal add-on. READ ALL ABOUT IT .... POST #10
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75917866#Comment_75917866

didgeridoooo

Well this is another point of confusion for me, I am not actually sure whether they are doing that or not.
This is what they claim is "statement of account"


But this is what they threaten I "may" have to pay at court:



So I suspect AT court they will try that trick, but not sure I can argue it until then. I can prepare though.

beamerguy

didgeridoooo wrote: »

Well this is another point of confusion for me, I am not actually sure whether they are doing that or not.
This is what they claim is "statement of account"


But this is what they threaten I "may" have to pay at court:



So I suspect AT court they will try that trick, but not sure I can argue it until then. I can prepare though.

There it is .... £60 debt collector costs ??? BIG NO NO

If you carefully read what the District Judge said at Southampton

"The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the defendant contracted to pay, This additional charge is not recoverable under the protection of freedoms act 2012, Schedule 4 not with reference to the judgement in parking eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover"

BWL claim debt collectors charge, contractual charge, whatever takes their fancy at the time

The interest of £27 will be up to the JUDGE to decide but as it has been calculated on £160 which includes £60 fake add-on, we come back to ABUSE OF PROCESS.
That is what the judge wants to hear

Umkomaas

There it is .... £60 debt collector costs ??? BIG NO NO

@OP. Check out the website of the debt collector the PPC has involved in your case and you will find that their terms of engagement with the PPC include the confirmation 'No collection, no fee'.

That will be useful evidence when arguing against the £60 add-on.

didgeridoooo

Two excellent posts, I really do appreciate it. I will make a note of both points in my "defence" doc!!

didgeridoooo

PS - was it DRP or Zenith who's site you looked at.?