Bw legal portswood car park, southampton

Mahershalalhashbaz

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Sounds like they might be bunching together more than one case to explore the matter of the fake costs in these cases:
:

For what it is worth, I have not been notified of any application for the judgement of my subsequent case to be set aside, though it was similar to this one.

As mentioned in a separate thread, mine related to a claimed overstay in the same notorious car park, and it was also struck out because the claimant had 'submitted a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover'. This was in the same court, though with a different judge (DJ Grand).

Presumably there is a limited time frame in which an application can be made for a judgement to be set aside.

didgeridoooo

Despite the many thread subscriptions I have, if I could only have one it would be this one! Watching with interest.


Just thinking out loud (without any training/qualifications)... I understand the impact this *could* have, if set aside is upheld. But what about the reverse implications? If they put in a big effort to overturn the ruling, and fail dismally (here's hoping), could that have wider impact on the claim industry too, in the other direction?

beamerguy

Mahershalalhashbaz wrote: »

For what it is worth, I have not been notified of any application for the judgement of my subsequent case to be set aside, though it was similar to this one.

As mentioned in a separate thread, mine related to a claimed overstay in the same notorious car park, and it was also struck out because the claimant had 'submitted a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover'. This was in the same court, though with a different judge (DJ Grand).

Presumably there is a limited time frame in which an application can be made for a judgement to be set aside.

I wondered about you ?
Cannot answer why not, unless BWLegal are treating the hearing in November as a test.

I suggest you contact the court on Monday, just in case you have not received the letter, will put your mind at rest.

Even at the hearing, it is difficult to understand that a county court would attempt to change the law and their own double recovery rules

beamerguy

didgeridoooo wrote: »

Just thinking out loud (without any training/qualifications)... I understand the impact this *could* have, if set aside is upheld. But what about the reverse implications? If they put in a big effort to overturn the ruling, and fail dismally (here's hoping), could that have wider impact on the claim industry too, in the other direction?

As I have said above ..... "Even at the hearing, it is difficult to understand that a county court would attempt to change the law and their own double recovery rules"

It would make a mockery of the county court system.

It will be interesting to see BWLegal's reasons as to why they think they can circumvent the law and court rules.

ParkingMad

At hearings where the defendant has lost, they are having to pay the following costs:
£100 PCN
£25 court fee
£25 hearing fee
£50 solicitors' fee
£70 debt collection fee
£12 interest (sometimes called tracing fee)
£282 total
If the defendant mentions the abuse of process ruling, the £70 debt collection fee and the £12 interest are deducted, leaving a total of £200.
Could anyone advise if this amount is correct, or whether any other fees are not allowed under POFA 2012? Thank you.

beamerguy

ParkingMad wrote: »

At hearings where the defendant has lost, they are having to pay the following costs:
£100 PCN
£25 court fee
£25 hearing fee
£50 solicitors' fee
£70 debt collection fee
£12 interest (sometimes called tracing fee)
£282 total
If the defendant mentions the abuse of process ruling, the £70 debt collection fee and the £12 interest are deducted, leaving a total of £200.
Could anyone advise if this amount is correct, or whether any other fees are not allowed under POFA 2012? Thank you.

If you took someone to court because they owed you £100, you have two choices
You file the claim online costing £25 or by paper which is £35
That is the court fee which then enables the case to be heard

What is a Hearing fee ??? That indicates the court will receive a further £25

Debt collectors fees are not allowed as per the law of POFA2012,
The courts own double recovery rules and most of all the Supreme court

Interest will be up to the judge, most will not allow. Tracing fees is a business expense and included within the charge as deemed by the Supreme Court.

A county court judge upon seeing that the claimant is adding fake charges should immediately strike out the claim as it's abuse of the consumer and the county court

Umkomaas

What is a Hearing fee ??? That indicates the court will receive a further £25

https://www.moneyclaimsuk.co.uk/small-claims-court-fees.aspx

beamerguy

Thanks Umkomaas, I was unsure

bazookaman

CEC16 wrote: »

Another update

Got another General Form of judgement or order in the post today

it reads

Before His Honour Judge Iain Hughes QC sitting at Winchester County Court at Winchester, The law courts, Winchester

UPON reading the file


This is an application to set aside the order of the District Judge Taylor dated 23rd May 2019
The order was made on the initiative of the court. The Claimant did not attend and is entitled to apply to have the order set aside.

This and any similar applcations are to be listed before a full time district judge, sitting at Southampton time estimate 30 minutes, first open date.

Dated 16th July 2019


So, what does that mean?

Any update on this? I read somewhere that the hearing was today 11th November 2019? Subject to the ruling of this hearing, does that mean that the Abuse of Process arguement cant be used? Thanks

beamerguy

bazookaman wrote: »

Any update on this? I read somewhere that the hearing was today 11th November 2019? Subject to the ruling of this hearing, does that mean that the Abuse of Process arguement cant be used? Thanks

Nothing yet. but VCS were told in Caernarfon they cannot charge the fake £60

The county court system is broken as we have seen with different judges making the most odd decisions.

But rest assured, it will not end