Abuse of Process ... District Judge tells BWLegal

Coupon-mad

But the leading Beavis case law says no, and such added costs must be TRUE (i.e. they were really incurred) and justified, under the CPRs. they are neither.

A PPC cannot add 'debt collection' or 'letter/business' costs. The trouble is the law is only what you take in and say on the day, and a Judge only goes by what he/she sees. Most Judges are canny enough to see what you mean. But not all.

That is why we give people the tools for damage limitation, by removing these costs if they see they are losing. Sounds like your Judge didn't see enough to tell him they were a matter of double recovery, and wasn't pointed to the Beavis case para 98 and 198?

RobinofLoxley

It seems DRP have reacted to this by updating their website. Their new website now doesn't mention 'No win no fee' at all.

Also the link I provided to their brochure in post #180 doesn't work anymore. It seems they have withdrawn the brochure and anything from their website that might incriminate them.

I do have a pdf copy of their brochure that I can give anyone if required.

dexion7

here's details of my hearing


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76346849#Comment_76346849

beamerguy

RobinofLoxley wrote: »

It seems DRP have reacted to this by updating their website. Their new website now doesn't mention 'No win no fee' at all.

Also the link I provided to their brochure in post #180 doesn't work anymore. It seems they have withdrawn the brochure and anything from their website that might incriminate them.

I do have a pdf copy of their brochure that I can give anyone if required.

They took their time, guess there was a big pow wow with the scammers.
No matter, many of us have screenshots to show the courts and the vanishing page must raise some eyebrows in the right places

At the end of the day, based on the Supreme court, the PPC must absorb costs which is built in to the charge
So if DRP are acting for the PPC, it matters not what costs they add on, it is a cost to the PPC who must absorb it because the PPC can only claim the ticket price

If the PPC thereafter increases the ticket price, they will be attempting to circumvent the law being POFA2012

The whole scam industry has built itself a very big hole

dexion7

For the benefit of anyone who thinks that I lost the case please understand that the case was dismissed due to signage issues but that the judge had decided that on the point of the addition of the £60, that this was acceptable because it was stated on all documentation from the NTK onwards.

dexion7

(and alluded to on the sign)

fisherjim

dexion7 wrote: »

For the benefit of anyone who thinks that I lost the case please understand that the case was dismissed due to signage issues but that the judge had decided that on the point of the addition of the £60, that this was acceptable because it was stated on all documentation from the NTK onwards.

But if this states that it is additional costs for debt recovery that has failed then it should be pointed out and the PPC asked to produce proof of payment.

[Deleted User]

I still don't think the £60 is acceptable as it is a fixed charge (not an expense) and not agreed to at the point the contract (signage) was agreed to.

But hey, we know that judges interpret cases differently.

fillyfat45

Hi, Is it possible to send the PDF to me please. I am new to this forum & currently in the process of a situation.
Thank You in advance.

Molts

Is it possible to send the PDF to me

PDF of what exactly???

I am new to this forum

Then you have no doubt recently read the forum guidelines and familiarised yourself with the Newbies thread which covers almost all circumstances. If not that is your first port of call.