Abuse of Process ... District Judge tells BWLegal

Coupon-mad

I say both...

It is that important that Judges realise what they have been allowing is wrong.

beamerguy

The_Deep wrote: »

Somebody must report this to the SRA. I nominate Beamer as this is his crusade. .

Happy to take this on but gently gently catch a monkey.
Complaints have been sent to the SRA by many and are being ignored
Let us wait to see what happens with the BWL set aside in November and let's see if the court backs a scam or the law

You can guarantee that all 4 of the legals who ply their trade using a scam have all got together like witches in a coven

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I say both...

It is that important that Judges realise what they have been allowing is wrong.

Good point, will follow that advice but with an eye on that fact that Bargepole likes concise defences and Johnersh recently said that it is better to add it to defences in precis form and expand upon it in the WS.

beamerguy

The fake £60 scam keeps coming.

BWLegal and now VCS are spanked for not only abuse of the courts own "double recovery" but much more serious, they are attempting to circumvent the law .. POFA2012

The excuses for this fake £60 ranges from "contractual", "admin fees", "debt collectors fees", legal fees, right down to a recent Gladstones claim saying "costs for pursuing the debt"

We wonder what part of POFA2012 do these legals not understand ?

THE LAW IS EXPLICIT .....
"The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper"

BWLegal, Gladstones, SCSLaw, QDR and VCS fail to explain why they think they can ignore the law.

In every response to those above including a reply to a LBC must ask on what authority they have to ignore the law ?

Of course they will ignore you but cannot ignore a judge asking the same question

Umkomaas

We wonder what part of POFA2012 do these legals not understand ?

THE LAW IS EXPLICIT .....
"The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper"

BWLegal, Gladstones, SCSLaw, QDR and VCS fail to explain why they think they can ignore the law.

In every response to those above including a reply to a LBC must ask on what authority they have to ignore the law ?

But what if they are not pursuing under PoFA? For example if they are pursuing an already identified driver?

beamerguy

Umkomaas wrote: »

But what if they are not pursuing under PoFA? For example if they are pursuing an already identified driver?

Interesting thought. I don't know of any other law that refers to a PCN, Parking Charge Notice as does POFA2012
With both ATA's with the two types of "code of practice" referring to PCN's and giving access to the DVLA
The DVLA comply to POFA so why is access allowed if POFA is not being followed

We already know that even though some do not follow POFA, the likes of BWLegal/Excel/VCS still get spanked by the courts so it really makes no difference

All very interesting

nosferatu1001

If they are claiming an amount they have not incurred or otherwise are not entitled to it is an abuse of process
So BWL classic "£60 legal costs" that mysteriously changes to "£60 no mention of legal" on the actual claim IS an abuse of process as it is not recoverable under CPR27.14 and they know this - and must know this as theyre lawyers.

[Deleted User]

The PPCs usually argue in the alternative - driver/keeper or both. If they want to come after the defendant as keeper, then they MUST be relying on PoFA and then there is clear argument to say £100 is the limit.

If they attempt to produce evidence or persuade the Court that the Defendant was the driver responsible, then in principle there is nothing to stop them claiming any additional sum, save for the usual points about the sign not referring to any additional sum and £60 not actually being a proven cost, so it is a liquidated damage, which it follows could and should appear on the sign.

Both routes do, I think, reach the same point that the £60 bolt on simply shouldn't be there...

[Deleted User]

If they are claiming an amount they have not incurred or otherwise are not entitled to it is an abuse of process
So BWL classic "£60 legal costs" that mysteriously changes to "£60 no mention of legal" on the actual claim IS an abuse of process as it is not recoverable under CPR27.14 and they know this - and must know this as theyre lawyers.

Certainly they're not entitled to it as a legal cost within the CPR. The issue is then whether the overhead of chasing the debt is recoverable. I say simply that I think it could be - but only if they'd provided for that in the contract, which they haven't. It does raise significant issues in the context of a claim verified with a statement of truth.

Coupon-mad

Johnersh wrote: »

If they attempt to produce evidence or persuade the Court that the Defendant was the driver responsible, then in principle there is nothing to stop them claiming any additional sum, save for the usual points about the sign not referring to any additional sum and £60 not actually being a proven cost, so it is a liquidated damage, which it follows could and should appear on the sign.

Except, I would argue, that the Beavis case is something that stops them from claiming any additional sum for costs/loss/damages/letters, however they describe it:

98. {re...The desirability of running that parking scheme at no cost, or ideally some profit, to themselves}

''Against this background, it can be seen that the £85 charge had two main objects. One was to manage the efficient use of parking space in the interests of the retail outlets, and of the users of those outlets who wish to find spaces in which to park their cars. This was to be achieved by deterring commuters or other long-stay motorists from occupying parking spaces for long periods or engaging in other inconsiderate parking practices, thereby reducing the space available to other members of the public, in particular the customers of the retail outlets. The other purpose was to provide an income stream to enable ParkingEye to meet the costs of operating the scheme and make a profit from its services...''

193. Judging by ParkingEye’s accounts, and unless the Chelmsford car park was out of the ordinary, the scheme also covered ParkingEye’s costs of operation and gave their shareholders a healthy annual profit.

198. The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme. It is here also set at a level enabling ParkingEye to make a profit.

And Beavis also tells us that parking firm not in possession cannot plead a case in damages:

97. ParkingEye concedes that the £85 is payable upon a breach of contract, and that it is not a pre-estimate of damages. As it was not the owner of the car park, ParkingEye could not recover damages, unless it was in possession, in which case it may be able to recover a small amount of damages for trespass. This is because it lost nothing by the unauthorised use resulting from Mr Beavis overstaying.

Just trying to get your take on those points in Beavis, in particular.