Abuse of Process ... District Judge tells BWLegal

Fight_the_good_fight

I have been assisting RK with a UKPPO invoice now with BW Legal (no previous thread as not required as all info in newbies thread and other posts)

In response to their feeble LOC I replied robustly approx 3 weeks ago including amongst many points the abuse of process re the £60.

Today received a letter from BW thanking me for the response and in light of the points raised they will be consulting with their clients and the matter is currently on hold.

Cynical me thinks this may be a delay tactic pending the appeal in November!!!

I can feel another SAR coming on in due course, of which no doubt they will ignore again!!

Le_Kirk

Fight_the_good_fight wrote: »

I have been assisting RK with a UKPPO invoice now with BW Legal (no previous thread as not required as all info in newbies thread and other posts)

In response to their feeble LOC I replied robustly approx 3 weeks ago including amongst many points the abuse of process re the £60.

Today received a letter from BW thanking me for the response and in light of the points raised they will be consulting with their clients and the matter is currently on hold.

Cynical me thinks this may be a delay tactic pending the appeal in November!!!

I can feel another SAR coming on in due course, of which no doubt they will ignore again!!

If they have ignored a genuinely submitted SAR with proof of ID (V5C or copy of PCN/court claim) then report them to the ICO online.

beamerguy

Today received a letter from BW thanking me for the response and in light of the points raised they will be consulting with their clients and the matter is currently on hold.

No doubt BWLegal will blame the PPC for the fake £60 but the scam rests with BWLegal as they are the ones bringing the claim.
They clearly do not offer advice to their clients

Spetznaz7

I've read this thread with interest, however, it is not clear whether the current advice on this matter, is for the defendant to refer to 'ABUSE OF PROCESS' in their written defence of a court claim, OR, refer to this in their witness statement?

Or, both, keeping it succinct in the defence, but expanding on it in the WS?

nosferatu1001

Defence. Because abuse of process has a sanction which is (for a claimant) to have the claim thrown out.

legal_magpie

In the Defence is correct. Some cases certain judges may make the strike out order on their own initiative using their case management powers but such orders must contain a provision permitting the claimant to set aside the order.

Spetznaz7

Many thanks for clearing that up

beamerguy

There is a current thread by Norfolk_Boi

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=6037976

Read through it and you will see that Norfolk_Boi has emailed BWLegal 5 times requesting details about that "infamous" scam charge of £60

5 TIMES BWLEGAL HAS FAILED TO REPLY

This is the work of a highly unprofessional so called legal approved by the SRA.

A complaint to the SRA about such bad behaviour is warranted in the interests of the public
https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems.page

Anyone who has been subject to abuse of process from BWLegal should email them for a suitable answer. Their reply if any should be shown to a court. Failure to reply should be advised to the court

The_Deep

I am puzzled, why has this been ousted her Will and not on a thread of your own?

Umkomaas

Beamerguy asked that I post this exchange from another thread. So, for what it's worth, here goes:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Umkomaas View Post
Does the letter say that UKCPM are pursuing the keeper under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4)?

Nice one, would you mind expanding on this in a new post for the ABUSE OF PROCESS THREAD

This is what I said:

It's just a basic question to ascertain whether UKCPM could hold the keeper liable, nothing more than we ask in any case where it's not already clear. There's nothing surreptitious in the question relating to 'Abuse of Process'.

There's a bigger issue vis a vis PoFA and the addition of extra charges. If there is an admitted driver then PoFA offers no protection, and as I read it, that includes no protection from added charges. That protection does of course extend to the keeper.

The rulings in Southampton suggest to me that they had far less to do with PoFA and more to do with claiming costs for expenditure (debt collection) not made. Or it could possibly be linked to the Beavis ruling on the basis that the £85 standard PCN charge already had a profit element inbuilt, therefore no basis for claiming additional admin charges. You might note that PE never pursue any 'extras' other than £25 filing fee and £50 solicitor costs, no dodgy add-ons.

Originally Posted by beamerguy

Umkomaas

Your input is very valuable and I would appreciate such thoughts on the Abuse thread so as to paint the picture to those suffering the scam from these uncouth legals

GLADSTONES, BWLEGAL, SCSLAW and the jokers QDR set up by the disgraced Wright Hassall
Not forgetting DCBL who are joining in the scam

Job done, but I'm not sure how far forward it takes this thread.