Abuse of Process ... District Judge tells BWLegal

beamerguy

BrownTrout wrote: »

I think we have to be careful this is only a county court decision and many many other judges will simply disagree with this. Although a lot of courts find the £60 is not recoverable.

Let's put it this way, it is a very persuasive point, especially as judges can read what another says and does.

It seems to me that some judges may need assistance in their decision and it cannot get better than from one of their own kind

Snakes_Belly

beamerguy wrote: »

I see no reason why not.

Maybe Martin Lewis should review this as he zapped the banks with charges and PPI

Over inflating the claim is worse than the PPI scandal. PPI was not a bad product for some people. Problem was not with the product itself but that it was sold to the wrong people. I have seen people actually benefit from PPI. I have not seen anyone benefit from an over inflated parking claim.

Coupon-mad

It seems to me that some judges may need assistance in their decision and it cannot get better than from one of their own kind.

I agree, and I really hope Judges start to see the point, so we need to hammer it home!

DEFENCES
EXCEPT IN PARKINGEYE CASES (see NEWBIES thread post #2 for examples of defences used agaist them) people can use the TEMPLATE DEFENCE that is now at the top of the forum.

legal_magpie

This advice is very unwise. Any judge seeing all that stuff will realise that this a bog standard defence taken from a website and won't even read it. By all means refer to the Southampton case but do so briefly.

beamerguy

legal_magpie wrote: »

This advice is very unwise. Any judge seeing all that stuff will realise that this a bog standard defence taken from a website and won't even read it. By all means refer to the Southampton case but do so briefly.

You could say that what these dodgy legals do is unwise with their copy paste scam charge

But you agree .... point any judge to the Southampton case, nobody can insist a judge reads it but most will probably do so, out of Curiosity alone.

The_Deep

legal_magpie wrote: »

This advice is very unwise. Any judge seeing all that stuff will realise that this a bog standard defence taken from a website and won't even read it. By all means refer to the Southampton case but do so briefly.

I disagree, of course it is a bog standard defence taken from a website, this is small claims court where bus drivers sue builders for shoddy work, not the Supreme Court.

Any judge who refused to read a layman's best efforts at a defence would not be fit for purpose IMO.

beamerguy

The_Deep wrote: »

Any judge who refused to read a layman's best efforts at a defence would not be fit for purpose IMO.

I agree, but the courts must be sick to death with the Robo Claim copy and paste fake claims

Snakes_Belly

From my limited experience the courts seem to be very busy and the DJ's and DDJ's have to cover cases that involve divorces, children, repossessions, etc and parking claims must be low down in priority.

I would include the £60.00 add on scam as at the very least it should knock £60.00 off the claim.

IMO it needs an investigative journalist to go undercover into some of these companies to expose exactly how they are operating.

beamerguy

Snakes_Belly wrote: »

I would include the £60.00 add on scam as at the very least it should knock £60.00 off the claim.

IMO it needs an investigative journalist to go undercover into some of these companies to expose exactly how they are operating.

You are right. The court should always take out the £60 scam and hopefully dismiss the case

After all, this wheeze was started by one legal and the other copycats followed

beamerguy

Going to the top