Excel Parking Services- Appeal refused

beamerguy

Spencerdog123 wrote: »

Thank you Coupon mad.

I am struggling to find CEC16 thread...

Not appearing in a search... i am planning on getting it all studied with a few lines to ready to read out including those quotes :-) get everyhting re-printed... I will let you know of the outcome

Go to the abuse of process thread. First post headed ...
UPDATE: BWLegal appealed the ruling of Judge Taylor
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

Redx

Spencerdog123 wrote: »

Thank you Coupon mad.

I am struggling to find CEC16 thread...

Not appearing in a search... i am planning on getting it all studied with a few lines to ready to read out including those quotes :-) get everyhting re-printed... I will let you know of the outcome

Do a member search with their name

Spencerdog123

beamerguy wrote: »

Go to the abuse of process thread. First post headed ...
UPDATE: BWLegal appealed the ruling of Judge Taylor
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

JUst to double check is it certain that BWlegal is used in every case.

I received a threatening letter from
elms legal

Redx

Various legal firm's can be employed , but the claimant remains the same

A judge decision has been made , they are all affected by it if you bring it up

beamerguy

Spencerdog123 wrote: »

JUst to double check is it certain that BWlegal is used in every case.

I received a threatening letter from
elms legal

You see, BWL use "rent by the hour" reps from Elms.
As we have seen many times, it is these rent a legal bods who lose it in court, mainly because they come unprepared and simply cannot argue about that scam charge of £60

But ELMS should not be sending you threatening letters and that should be pointed out to the judge.

Spencerdog123

So the 3 points below are printouts I need to take ? and the cec16 order stuff

6. Alleging that the letters the parking firm sent have caused an additional loss, is simply untrue. The standard wording for parking charge/debt recovery contracts is/was on the Debt Recovery Plus website - ''no recovery/no fee'', thus establishing an argument that the Claimant is breaching the indemnity principle - claiming reimbursement for a cost which has never, in fact, been incurred. This is true, whether or not they used a third party debt collector during the process.

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('the CRA') is against this claim
10. Further, the purported added 'costs' are disproportionate, vague and in breach of the CRA 2015 Schedule 2 'terms that may be unfair'. This Claimant has arbitrarily added an extra 60% of the parking charge in a disingenuous double recovery attempt that has already been exposed and routinely disallowed by many Courts in England and Wales. It is atrocious that this has been allowed to continue unabated for so many years, considering the number of victims receiving this Claimant's exaggerated Letter before Claim, or the claim form, who then either pay an inflated amount or suffer a default judgment for a sum that could not otherwise be recovered. It is only those who defend, who draw individual cases to the attention of the courts one by one, but at last in 2019, some areas noticed the pattern and have moved to stop this abuse of process at source.

14. If this claim is not summarily struck out for the same reasons as the Judges cited in the multiple Caernarfon, Southampton, IOW and Warwick County Court decisions, then due to this Claimant knowingly proceeding with a claim that amounts to an abuse of process, full costs will be sought by the Defendant at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

The_Deep

But ELMS should not be sending you threatening letters and that should be pointed out to the judge.

Also consider complaining to their regulatory body here,

https://www.sra.org.uk/

Spencerdog123

The_Deep wrote: »

But ELMS should not be sending you threatening letters and that should be pointed out to the judge.

Also consider complaining to their regulatory body here,

https://www.sra.org.uk/

If done, Should this be before I attend court. Or would it not matter when I complain.

Umkomaas

Spencerdog123 wrote: »

If done, Should this be before I attend court. Or would it not matter when I complain.

Concentrate on the main event. The SRA can wait until it's all over.

Spencerdog123

Actually excited for it, annoyed I have not seen any evidence at all or what they will use against me in court. But I have concrete evidence to back up the fact that my address should have been changed. They acknowledged my address change previously over email. So why completely ignore it this time round... I made sure I sent it to 2 different excel emails too.... (including the email address that they would have accepted the address change on the first occasion)

Because I didn't present the three bullet points and the cec16 stuff in my WT. Would they be willing to read through paper printout copies... If that fails I guess I could just read it out aloud?