Abuse of Process ... District Judge tells BWLegal

[Deleted User]

I

f the claim is patently fraudulent does the claimant deserve a trial at all? This is a money claim not a criminal offence.

Right if access to the law is not just a criminal matter.

I don't disagree with the principle. The rules stipulate that a personal injury claim must be struck out (wholly) if there is any suggestion of dishonesty - largely because there was a suggestion that people were taking whiplash. That rule obviously does not apply to other types of cases.

The question then becomes is £60 an arguable cost that the non-specific wording of a sign *might* allow them to seek or is it dishonestly presented? Different judges are going to form a different view on that.

Coupon-mad

I was trying to work out if I can attend. I am worried about that case and Soton is not somewhere I can get to quickly and I might not be allowed to speak & show evidence, and CEC16 is not confident.

beamerguy

My thoughts and open to everybody's comments

Surely, the BWLegal set aside in November is between the court and BWL and CEC16 will be an onlooker as 30 minutes given is very little time to do much more

The set aside against the decision of DJ Taylor who correctly applied the law as described in POFA.

The law is there to protect the public and not to be abused.
What jurisdiction does a county court have to change the law ?

[Deleted User]

Nash coupon is right. It needs arguing to ensure the entire claim is not back in play. There's too much too lose.

That said, I've not seen any notice of appeal or reasons on the forum, I don't think.

Coupon-mad

All we know is this:

Notice of Hearing In the county court at Southampton
Claim number F0DP201T
Date 1 August 2019

"THE COUNTY COURT

Britannia Parking group limited T/A Britannia Parking 1st claimant Ref T1029312

CEC16 1st Defendant


TAKE NOTICE that the Claimants application to set aside the order dated 23rd May 2019 will take place on 11th November 2019 at 1030 AM
at the county court Southampton, London Road Southampton SO152XQ

When you should attend

30 minutes has been allowed for the Hearing

PLEASE NOTE, This case may be released to another Judge, Possibly at a different court.''

I will ask CEC16 for the paperwork but as it was I suspect, a 'without notice' application AIUI, could it be very likely he wasn't served a copy as no copy has to go to the other side?

malihat

Does this still apply if the sign at the property and the NTK say that if the charge remains unpaid and is referred for debt recovery they can add a charge of £60. Do I argue that the max they can charge is £100 and they haven’t provided proof of any debt recovery costs?
Are they allowed to add on these costs? https://imgur.com/a/xEWAeFD

Snakes_Belly

From section 2.1 Aims of the protocol

(c) encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate
manner in all dealings with one another (for example, avoiding
running up costs which do not bear a reasonable relationship to
the sums in issue);

COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PROTOCOL
7.1 If a matter proceeds to litigation, the court will expect the parties to have
complied with this Protocol. The court will take into account non-compliance
when giving directions for the management of proceedings.

Adding on a fake add on is non compliance with the Protocol. If the Protocol is not complied with it makes it just a platitude and something that is just good practice.

beamerguy

malihat wrote: »

Does this still apply if the sign at the property and the NTK say that if the charge remains unpaid and is referred for debt recovery they can add a charge of £60. Do I argue that the max they can charge is £100 and they haven’t provided proof of any debt recovery costs?
Are they allowed to add on these costs? https://imgur.com/a/xEWAeFD

As the law (POFA) clearly defines that the parking charge is the MAXIMUM they can claim, who said they could add on a fake charge
"they can add a charge of £60" ????? WHO SAID ?

Snakes_Belly

They are claiming for a debt recovery charge that they have not paid. I have evidence of that in my case. The LBC states specifically a debt collection charge of £60.00. The web site of the debt collector DRP states no collection no fee.

They quoted Chaplair Limited v Kumari [2015] EWCA Civ 798. This case relates to a tenancy with a costs recovery clause. There is surely no cost recovery clause in the signage. The case relates to a signed contract whereby costs had actually been accrued (management fees) and a written contract had been signed.

As mentioned previously this did not come into play in my case but I did prepare to argue the add on £60.00.

beamerguy

But you do know who started the £60 rubbish and the other legal vermin fell in behind and followed the Pied Piper

Could it start with "B" maybe ???