Abuse of Process ... District Judge tells BWLegal

beamerguy

Coupon-mad pointed out recently what the Supreme Court stated

198. ''...The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme...''
Thanks to coupon-mad

That level is now £100 and the Supreme court deemed it includes costs of recovery ... not a penny more

The Supreme court sets a precedence in a County Court

Be it a letter of claim or your witness statement, the following should be asked

1: On what authority do they have to circumvent POFA2012
2: On what authority do they have to circumvent the courts own ruling of double recovery
3: On what authority do they have to circumvent the Supreme court stating that the level of the parking ticket includes their costs

FOOTNOTE
Thus far, not one of the legals adding fake charges have managed to answer

beamerguy

27th September 2019
BWLegal claim struck out with the judge saying ....
"this court is now systematically strikes out claims for those costs" and also said to rep to refer back to the instructors if they wanted to appeal this decision that
"this is the position its going continue to be adopted" ???

Southampton Court
Judge Giddins
claim numbers: F4DP5264 & F4DP5279

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5932249/2-separate-letters-from-bw-legal-britannia-parking

Snakes_Belly

Brilliant. I wish people who had already paid these fake add on's could claim them back like PPI. They should not be allowed to get away with it.

The_Deep

Snakes_Belly wrote: »

Brilliant. I wish people who had already paid these fake add on's could claim them back like PPI. They should not be allowed to get away with it.

I have no doubt that a claims company has already considered it and decided it is not economically viable.

beamerguy

See this thread concerning BWLegal
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76329791#Comment_76329791

They have claimed their rights to include fake amounts is ...

Such costs are recoverable in any event under the relevant Parking Code(s) of Practice

NOTE .... Code(s) ... indicating the CoP of the BPA/IPC.

THE LAW, POFA2012 states such add-on charges are not permitted

As the motorist is not a member of either ATA, they are not bound to the CoP's
are the two ATA's breaking the law by ignoring POFA2012

beamerguy

This is an interesting step forward instigated by BlueBumblebee
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76346313#Comment_76346313
POST # 15

COMPLAINT TO THE SRA

"On the SRA complaint, one of the things I put in the initial complaint was about the £60 extra charge that's been deemed abuse of process in some of the court cases. It seems the SRA were unaware that BW Legal have been doing that, so now they want to investigate it more closely to see if there's a valid reason why a fictional £60 was added on. So I sent them the abuse of process info, including the case numbers where the courts have struck out claims because of the abuse of process, so that they know it's not just me questioning the added £60.

The other thing I complained about was one of BW Legal's threatening letters, where they said they would issue a CCJ against me because I had "failed" to provide my defence as to why the debt was disputed, a letter which was sent a week BEFORE my defence was due. The letter was full of misinformation, trying to make me think the case was already lost and I'd have a CCJ declared against me unless I paid the full amount straight away. When obviously the courts weren't expecting my defence for another week, let alone making any decisions on whether I had to pay anything. It was just scare tactics to make me pay up instead of continuing to defend myself".

If you have received a fake £60 add-on from ...
BWLEGAL
GLADSTONES
DCB LEGAL
SCS LAW
QDR

OR if you have been subjected to abusive, threatening letters

Complain directly to the SRA
http://www.sra.org.uk/home/home.page

dexion7

the judge in my case yesterday allowed the additional £60 because it was mentioned on the NTK

beamerguy

dexion7 wrote: »

the judge in my case yesterday allowed the additional £60 because it was mentioned on the NTK

You had a judge who was clueless which is a shame when we put our trust in these people.

A NTK is an invoice stating a contract was broken, an NTK is not a contract as you had no idea of this when entering a car park. Only the sign forms the contract and even then it must comply to the law POFA2012

So the judge, unlike the other judges, does not understand the law

Coupon-mad

dexion7 wrote: »

the judge in my case yesterday allowed the additional £60 because it was mentioned on the NTK

But the Beavis case para 98 and 198 is the answer to that. It is crystal clear that the parking charge already covers the costs of the operation.

Beavis tells us AND JUDGES that!

Also you could have pointed to Debt Recovery Plus' page saying they do debt collection letters free. Thus there are NO VALID COSTS that were ever incurred and the £60 is an abuse, and double recovery.

dexion7

I'm composing a summary of my case which I'll post up soon but regarding the point of AoP the judge said since the additional £60 was mentioned early on (on the NTK) and that the keeper continued to fight the claim.