Abuse of Process ... District Judge tells BWLegal

beamerguy

Today in Southampton, BWLegal had their appeal heard against the strike out for abuse of process

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76485297#Comment_76485297
READ POST #72 followed by post #75 by coupon-mad

BWLegal lost and for the second time on the same case, it was struck out.

TWICE from the same court and on appeal, BWLegal lost.

This now must be highlighted to every court when (or if) these legals attempt to scam people with fake charges

Snakes_Belly

Another costly exercise for the PPC. If courts are stopping these fake additions and the new CoP (when it is eventually bought in) reduces the £100.00 maximum then some parking companies will go under. They have damaged the High Street. What goes round comes round.

beamerguy

Snakes_Belly wrote: »

Another costly exercise for the PPC. If courts are stopping these fake additions and the new CoP (when it is eventually bought in) reduces the £100.00 maximum then some parking companies will go under. They have damaged the High Street. What goes round comes round.

Let's hope.

They will probably continue like a blind person being led around by a blind guide dog

These people are highly vindictive and want to win. They could well throw tens of thousands at this ... to no avail

The_Slithy_Tove

beamerguy wrote: »

These people are highly vindictive and want to win. They could well throw tens of thousands at this ... to no avail

Remember, ParkingEye threw a lot of money at the Beavis case, taking it all the way to the Supreme Court. And they won.

EDIT: I stand corrected. It was Barry Beavis who lost at each court stage, and took it on to the next. Nevertheless, PE didn't give up, and had to invest a fair sum in pursuing it.

BrownTrout

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

Remember, ParkingEye threw a lot of money at the Beavis case, taking it all the way to the Supreme Court. And they won.

Sorry I disagree with that. This was a case taken by a motorist who thought he could win..yet he was told at the time it was risky and that this was would be a mistake

Non of this was parking eyes fault

The_Deep

I agree with BT. Imo Mr Beavis was ill-advised, the verdict closed off GPEOL by which we were winning hundreds of claims.

Snakes_Belly

There was also a lot on money thrown at the nurses cases by the PPC's. IMHO though there was an element of poor management by the hospital managers. It was inevitable if many more permits are issued than staff spaces there was going to be a problem.

I do believe though that if the fake add on cases got to Supreme Court that the decision would go against the PPC's. The PPC's would have to fake invoices to the debt collectors. They would be on dodgy ground. Mind you they are already on dodgy ground in my opinion.

Coupon-mad

I believe that if this was tested at a higher court, the PPCs wold lose, given they are arguing against binding case law and two statutes. There wasn't much the barrister could say about the CRA 2015 and to be fair, it wasn't his turn to speak and he didn't say a word when I handed him Schedule 2 of the Act and read out paras 6, 10 and 14.

EDIT
THERE IS NOW A TEMPLATE DEFENCE AT THE TOP OF THE FORUM.
EVERYONE SHOULD USE IT, EXCEPT IN PARKINGEYE CASES.

The_Slithy_Tove

Surely the thing about these add-on £60 debt collection charges is less about whether or not they are allowed within the terms of the contract, but more that they are never actually incurred by the PPC, as the debt collectors work on a no-result/no-fee basis.

Coupon-mad

EDIT - THERE IS A TEMPLATE DEFENCE AT THE TOP OF THE FORUM.