Newcastle Airport UKPPO BW Legal collective defence group

Umkomaas

^^ Quality post ^^ :T

beamerguy

I am not sure if BWLegal understand how pathetic they are ?
They don't seem to know what they are doing most of the time.

They came from basic debt collection like gas bills, phone bills etc and entered a scam industry and now, they are completely out of their depth ?

There is no mileage in supporting parking scammers and by the time they send out reams of papers, rookie legals to court and still lose, there is no money in it.

The wrath against BWLegal is growing so fast and this bubble is going to burst and ...... it's not going to be us

BrownTrout

grimnog wrote: »

Yes, I’d still strongly recommend you contest jurisdiction. The person who did so to test the waters received calls from BW Legal desperate for the case to be withdrawn. They paid all his costs to date (£100) to have it go away. There is an awful lot of work, time and effort involved in taking them all the way to court, even if we will ultimately win. Contesting jurisdiction has so far proven the quickest and easiest way to make this all go away without costing a penny.

Regarding the cases so far, I’m disappointed that none of the judges have addressed the elephant in the room that is the gaping void between Byelaws and contract law within which UKPPO and BWLegal are operating. Unfortunately it is now clear that no judge at this level wants to risk getting into that sticky area. One even said “I’m just a lowly District Judge”. This is obviously what is giving the charlatans the confidence to continue taking these cases to court, as there’s always a chance (however slim) that they might actually win one. Every case so far has been dismissed on a different technicality, but all the judges have allowed the cases to be heard, meaning it’s not open and shut in their eyes. Alas our only saving grace for the future looks like it’s going to be the new parliamentary legislation and these predatory tactics will not cease until then.

This was advised to people at the very beginning BUT a lot of people chose to ignore that advice........

sq291073

Hi I am also looking for some help as I have received a letter of claim as well and have until the 5th of September to respond, I will apologize now for not being the most literate of people and don't want anyone to feel I am wasting their time just after some advice

BrownTrout

sq291073 wrote: »

Hi I am also looking for some help as I have received a letter of claim as well and have until the 5th of September to respond, I will apologize now for not being the most literate of people and don't want anyone to feel I am wasting their time just after some advice

When you an actual claim form, you must do the "contest jurisdiction" option

grimnog

BrownTrout wrote: »

This was advised to people at the very beginning BUT a lot of people chose to ignore that advice........

Unfortunately the advice came too late. Ticking the “contest jurisdiction” box on the AOS is absolutely the right way forward. Unfortunately we had all completed our AOS already and were therefore left with the option of continuing to defend, or gamble on an unproven course of action at potentially significant cost by applying to change our AOS and contest jurisdiction. This is why we used a single test case to see what happened. Please don’t make out that nobody listened, because at the end of the day we are all trying to make this go away with minimal risk and minimal cost. Our experiences will help others in future, but there was no precedent for us to rely on at the time.

Redx

part of the problem is convincing people to pay £100 to contest the jurisdiction , most people dont want to pay the pcn never mind a £100 court fee they may not get back , hence why people were reticent in trying a new idea out

hence the test case I believe


it would now seem that paying the £100 fee and cobtesting jurisdiction and stating you will be claiming it back from the claimant is the best way forward, but means shelling out with the AOS acknowledgement

Quentin

If you get an actual claim from the Court then pm bounty hunter with your phone number to join the group

See # 289 above

sq291073

Thanks for the replies, I won't be able to do anything until tomorrow due to work, I have photographic evidence of a delivery vehicle parked on the double red lines outside the Double Tree completely blocking one lane on 2 separate occasions, is this useful as I can't see PCN being issued for some reason

Computersaysno

Remember when testing jurisdiction that by law any 'fines' must be paid to the courts, yet in this case the scumco keeps the money for itself.


Trust me they don't want to have this challenged or tested in court.