Abuse of Process ... District Judge tells BWLegal

Ballymoss

Im stuck doing my kidney dialysis at the moment, when I get 5 mins free I'll dig out the letter and give you knowledgeable lot some better details. In the meantime, I can confirm that having lost at court once, they are threatening to take her to court again unless she coughs up £185. They have very kindly 'discounted' the "Balance Due" of £261.90.

Im minded to complain to the SRA and court this time, as the wording of the letter is clearly designed to be intimidating. No mention has been made of the prior court application, where the judge refused to hear their case due to the clear abuse of process.

beamerguy

Ballymoss wrote: »

Same ticket, this time they have included photos of the car park signage etc. They "feel certain they will win in court" this time......as opposed to last time they got bounced out presumably. If it does go that far again, I will be going for a counter claim for my expenses I think.

So BWLegal are prepared to face a judge in Southampton again with the same abuse of process claim ????

As Umkomaas says "Isn't this a civil court form of double jeopardy?"

I wonder how the SRA would react to one of their members being so vindictive ....... go ahead, ask the SRA

As BWLegal cannot provide any authority for the fake add-ons they are clearly a self harming setup

Southampton of all the courts will crucify them

BrownTrout

Post up when you can, i am not sure I would complain to the SRA at this time, i would keep my powder dry on this one..........

Ballymoss

How do I post photos to here? Do I need to host it somehow then add a link? Happy to post photos of the paperwork but dont have a clue how to!

Interestingly, amongst the piffle recieved yesterday was an income/expenditure form that looks like its been copied from a court document, but printed over BWL headed paperwork - even looks unprofessional.

BrownTrout

https://imgbb.com/ use that and post up the link

Ballymoss

album/juZYrF

It wont allow me to post a link as im fairly new. Add the above to the link you posted and you should see something.

BrownTrout

https://imgbb.com/album/juZYrF

Ballymoss

Many thanks BT. Will add the court response to their first attempt when I find it. From this lot recieved yesterday I notice they are using the last court case number as a reference F7DP8E9H and telling us to avoid "further involvement from the court". Now call me thick, but I was given to understand the court had made their decision already!

legal_magpie

If the case was struck out on paper as an abuse of process because of the additional £60, there is nothing to stop them from issuing a new claim without the extra sum. This is because the case has not been dealt with on its merits. However, if they included the extra £60 a second time you would be entitled to apply to strike it out as an abuse of process on the basis that the matter had already been dealt with and their remedy was to apply to set aside that order or to appeal.

waamo

legal_magpie wrote: »

If the case was struck out on paper as an abuse of process because of the additional £60, there is nothing to stop them from issuing a new claim without the extra sum. This is because the case has not been dealt with on its merits. However, if they included the extra £60 a second time you would be entitled to apply to strike it out as an abuse of process on the basis that the matter had already been dealt with and their remedy was to apply to set aside that order or to appeal.

The amount that they have quoted suggests they have.