Abuse of Process ... District Judge tells BWLegal

Computersaysno

The_Deep wrote: »

For the rest of us...

Surely not all of you CSN (Computersaysno)

Gotta love them old TLAs...or in the case of CLTPTCOJ them old ELAs.

Big_Boi

Everyone: Oh, not another PCN. I better look for some advice on this matter.
BWLegal: yOuR nOt AlLoWeD tO sEeK hElP bEcAuSe We WiLl LoSe. PlEaSe PaY uS oR wElL tAkE yOu To CoUrT.

P.S.

Hi Tito,

We know you're watching, you repugnant, pompous, little weasel.

waamo

Computersaysno wrote: »

Could you explain that a bit further...TIA

The Statement of Truth (sic) invariably states they have complied with POFA. They then whack on a fee not allowed under POFA.

Oops.

beamerguy

waamo wrote: »

The Statement of Truth (sic) invariably states they have complied with POFA. They then whack on a fee not allowed under POFA.

Oops.

yes, PLAINLY PUT, the likes of BWLegal and Gladstones plus the DIY bods .... WILL BE LYING TO THE COURT

[Deleted User]

1. The PPC knows their charges are capped at £100 (those are prescribed by statute) EXCLUDING court fees.
2. Since they cannot usually point to actual expenses incurred chasing the debt (the debt collectors work on a no win no fee basis, generally). If they've got receipts, thats probably a legitimate expense, but in my PoC they had the audacity to refer to a notional cost.
3. Since you have not agreed a fixed fee for notional costs (aka liquidated damages) in advance and those costs could be specified in the contract (sign)

THEN... there cannot be a reasonable belief in the validity of the bolt on charges IMHO, much less a confidence to sign off the PoC as correct.

The perfect example of point 3 is a credit card, whereby you agree in advance that if you miss a payment etc an admin fee of a fixed amount will be charged. There are no similar T&C's here.

Snakes_Belly

It is also against the principle in the Pre-Action Protocol which states that the Claimant should not inflate the claim.

2.1 (c) encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another (for example, avoiding running up costs which do not bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue);

beamerguy

The sure fact is that every time they add fake add-ons, make fake statements, the judges will be duly advised.
This will continue until they wake their ideas up

Snakes_Belly

They could be hit by non compliance with the Protocol and abuse of process.

beamerguy

Snakes_Belly wrote: »

They could be hit by non compliance with the Protocol and abuse of process.

YES, whatever it takes to offload these vermin

Snakes_Belly

beamerguy wrote: »

YES, whatever it takes to offload these vermin

If it's included as non compliance with the Protocol and again as abuse of process then there is twice the chance that the judge will pick it up.