Abuse of Process ... District Judge tells BWLegal

beamerguy

Big_Boi wrote: »

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?

No harm in letting them know that you are aware of ABUSE OF PROCESS which will be duly advised to the court

Le_Kirk

Big_Boi wrote: »

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?

An LOC (Letter of Claim) is a LBC (Letter Before Claim). Did you mean when the claim form arrives?

Big_Boi

Le_Kirk wrote: »

An LOC (Letter of Claim) is a LBC (Letter Before Claim). Did you mean when the claim form arrives?

Yeah, sorry.

To clarify, and make sure I'm on the right page - I'm sending a robust rebuttal to the LOC/LBC, and I will await the claim forms from (presumably) the County Court Business Centre in Northampton. Once received I'll then complete the MCOL, AoS and prepare the court defence etc.

beamerguy

The fun still continues with the £60 add-on scam.

The arrogant and ignorant companies, be they legals or DIY parking companies still think they can scam us and the courts.

Every day we are telling people about ABUSE OF PROCESS.

This will alert judges and their colleagues around the country which in turn will help those who do not come to this forum

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN for those who issue fake claims ?

Simply put, they will not know if any claim will be thrown out, at any time ?

Whilst they continue to issue fake claims, we will continue to inform people to advise a judge of ABUSE OF PROCESS.

This can only get bigger until sense prevails

[Deleted User]

I've long argued that there is little basis for the bolt-on uplift costs. Even if the claim is lost, these additional costs should still be defended. That means making submissions regarding why the claim should be defended AND even if the court isn't with you on that, why the costs should be limited to £100.

The additional costs are generally non-contractual (the signs do not refer to a specific sum), unspecified and unparticularised (how are they calculated/broken down).

The obvious corollary of this is that there is also an issue when the claim has been verified with a statement of truth (esp. if you have highlighted pre-action that the POFA limit is £100).

Computersaysno

Johnersh wrote: »

The obvious corollary of this is that there is also an issue when the claim has been verified with a statement of truth (esp. if you have highlighted pre-action that the POFA limit is £100).

Could you explain that a bit further...TIA

beamerguy

Johnersh wrote: »

The obvious corollary of this is that there is also an issue when the claim has been verified with a statement of truth (esp. if you have highlighted pre-action that the POFA limit is £100).

I have referenced your post to read in my post #1

The_Deep

But surely this is no just an abuse of process but either perjury or CLTPTCOJ.

Computersaysno

The_Deep wrote: »

CLTPTCOJ.

For the rest of us.....conduct likely to pervert the course of justice.

The_Deep

For the rest of us...

Surely not all of you CSN (Computersaysno)