Abuse of Process ... District Judge tells BWLegal

beamerguy

Snakes_Belly wrote: »

So Judge Taylor had not changed his stance on this. I assume that the appeal will be heard by a Circuit Judge in the same region. If the CJ dismisses the appeal, Britannia may have shot themselves in the foot.

I cannot see how the courts can ignore the law

Where these PPC's will shoot themselves in the foot is by using dodgy legals who add the fake amounts

The fake £60 starts with the idiotic debt collectors who play a game of chance which means nothing and thereafter the dodgy legals turn the £60 into what they think is factual ... the courts don't think like that.

Take VCS who you paid £3 to, (still laugh at that), BWL failed them hence they are on a DIY and trying to piggy back on the warped thinking of that legal by adding £60

The PPC's who use dodgy legals can probably exonerate themselves by blaming a third party, the legal

VCS/EXCEL often say they do not rely on POFA2012 ??? ODD.
They are still flouting the law and if they continue with the £60 fake, they will suffer more and more Abuse of Process spankings

If BWL lose in November, it's very difficult to see how they can win unless they prove their authority to add on a fake £60, the law applies. Would they take this all the way to the Supreme court such as the Beavis case ? But, the Supreme court has already ruled on a max charge

Coupon-mad

I am concerned about the Southampton case. I will send a pm to CEC16.

Snakes_Belly

Beamer,

It was not BWL in my case. The LBC came directly from Excel. I think that they were represented by someone from Elms or a similar set up.

Supreme court is busy at the moment with more pressing matters. Surely by the time the case got that far the new CoP would be in place.

They could do with someone like Nicholas Bowen taking on the case pro bono. He has given the PC's a spanking and cost them a lot. He was the QC who stopped off for a break in a motorway service area. I wonder if he argued the £60.00 in his defence?

beamerguy

Snakes_Belly wrote: »

Beamer,

It was not BWL in my case. The LBC came directly from Excel. I think that they were represented by someone from Elms or a similar set up.

Supreme court is busy at the moment with more pressing matters. Surely by the time the case got that far the new CoP would be in place.

They could do with someone like Nicholas Bowen taking on the case pro bono. He has given the PC's a spanking and cost them a lot. He was the QC who stopped off for a break in a motorway service area. I wonder if he argued the £60.00 in his defence?

I am aware of that, VCS employing a "rent-a-legal"

Mr Bowen's case was with Parking Eye and PE very wisely do not add on the fake £60

minster.sucks

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I agree, and I really hope Judges see the point that these are vexatious litigants, hence why I suggest all PPC defences (except maybe ParkingEye who don't add a fake debt cost) need this ending now.

People can use bargepole's concise defence then add this to hit out at the 'costs':




* Astonished I've had to point out to people copying this, to ADD PARAGRAPH NUMBERS!

:eek:


** If you are at Witness statement stage you will need these 2 orders printed & appended as evidence:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/gexc6psfmi8y6d8/VCS%20Claim%20Struck%20Out%20-%20Abuse%20of%20Process.jpg?dl=0&m=

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ndl5rf4urx02gtj/UKCPM%20v%20Esplanade%20Ltd%20-%20judgment.jpg_large.jpg?dl=0&m=


The only exception is ParkingEye cases, where they do not add any £60 or 'costs'.

Would the abuse of process argument be flawed if a legal rep digitally signed the particulars of claim? Suggesting that legal advise has been used and quantifies the cost, as I noted in your quote it stated that a signatory was not present?

Thanks.

beamerguy

minster.sucks wrote: »

Would the abuse of process argument be flawed if a legal rep digitally signed the particulars of claim? Suggesting that legal advise has been used and quantifies the cost, as I noted in your quote it stated that a signatory was not present?

Thanks.

Whoever signs it, be it a person or robot, it is a statement of truth acting for the company activating the claim

The abuse of process is as shown in post #1 of this thread
It would be up to a judge to decide if the claimant lied to the court

Snakes_Belly

If the LBC states an item of £60.00 relating to debt collection fees. The bundle contains a rain forest of paper from DRP and Zenith (same company). DRP state on their client website that they work on a no collection no fee basis. It's pretty blatant abuse of the process.

There is also the question of the Pre-Action Protocol which states that the Claimant should not inflate the costs.

Personally I think that debt collector's letters should not be totally ignored. An initial letter saying that the debt is disputed, that you will not engage with debt collectors and to refer back to the Claimant will help the cause.

Umkomaas

The allowable costs in a small claims court are restricted to:

£25 filing fee
£50 (max - capped) for legal costs
£25 hearing fee (but I rarely see that showing in lost cases)

That's about it.

What has sneaked in over the past 3 years or so is an additional £60 - and that's from where the 'abuse of process' potentially emanates.

legal_magpie

This is mixed up.

The £60 is not claimed as Court costs but as part of the claim for debt collection charges or admin charges or something if that ilk. Most judges disallow that part the claim as not recoverable but give judgment for the rest, usually £100 if they find the case otherwise proved. This is usually on the basis that any admin fee is covered by the difference between the lower figure and the higher

The Court costs are quite separate. The Claimant is entitled to claim the Court issue fee, usually £25, and solicitors' costs on issue. If the case goes onto trial, the Claimant has to pay an additional hearing fee, usually £25 which is recoverable if they win.
The only exception is if the Judge makes a finding of unreasonable conduct with regard to the litigation. In that case, the Judge can award a higher sum for costs.

DoaM

legal_magpie wrote: »

This is mixed up.

The £60 is not claimed as Court costs but as part of the claim for debt collection charges or admin charges or something if that ilk. Most judges disallow that part the claim as not recoverable but give judgment for the rest, usually £100 if they find the case otherwise proved. This is usually on the basis that any admin fee is covered by the difference between the lower figure and the higher

I somewhat suspect you are incorrect ... unless the defendant challenges that part of the claim then most judges finding for the claimant will allow the whole claim value.