Abuse of Process ... District Judge tells BWLegal

Coupon-mad

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 because PPC cases are a unique animal.

The double recovery 'costs' needs attacking more, as the odd person who loses seems to get clobbered with costs and we need Judges to see what the issue is here.

And we see wins 99% of the time, and no Judges care if the info is taken from t'internet. In fact people on this board are complimented on their organised court submissions.

Snakes_Belly

The fake costs will be included in all the claims that proceed to the debt collection stage so many of these claims will be paid before the court stage. That is a lot of money.

beamerguy

Snakes_Belly wrote: »

The fake costs will be included in all the claims that proceed to the debt collection stage so many of these claims will be paid before the court stage. That is a lot of money.

These dodgy legals don't seem to know what the £60 is for.
Take BWLegal, we have seen it claimed as "admin", debt collector charges", Contractual charges" ..... all of which is rubbish.
We must therefore conclude that the SRA approves "rubbish"

Our job on here, is to point people to this £60 scam and in particular to the BWLegal failure where DJ Taylor blasted them with Abuse of process. It will take time, but we must get as many judges around E&W to at least read what DJ Taylor did and the reason

You said in an earlier post that an investigation should happen and it's the media that will highlight the scam and this will bring this to the attention of the authorities

legal_magpie

I agree with this last comment but it must be contained in the defence and short and to the point. It will be interesting to see whether the parking company appeals or applies to set the order aside.

beamerguy

legal_magpie wrote: »

I agree with this last comment but it must be contained in the defence and short and to the point. It will be interesting to see whether the parking company appeals or applies to set the order aside.

It would take a very brave or stupid company to do this. Mind you, the latter seems the order of the day with these companies.

So, let's see who the stupid company might be, all over £100

Coupon-mad

They didn't appeal the Crosby case.

kryten3000

My defences are deliberately as short as possible whilst getting in all the salient points. Three pages maximum. They are clear and concise and can be read in a couple of minutes - anything to help a busy judge .

The_Deep

Three pages is short?

In a past life I had to draft answers to Parliamentary Questions. They had to be one side of an A4 sheet, double spaced.

beamerguy

BWLegal ignoring ABUSE OF PROCESS, so are the others.

Never mind, the more we see of this abuse the more will be forwarded to this thread ..... and more judges will be invited to read what DJ Taylor did and said.

It will take a bit of time but the way BWL and the rest are going on, the target in England and Wales may be reached quickly

Let's be honest, if these legals don't try to scam people with a fake £60, we will not have to shout ABUSE OF PROCESS

Big_Boi

Forgive me for being stupid, but I'm in the process putting together a rebuttal to a LOC. Is it worth including this at this stage, or should this be saved only for when the LBC arrives?