Abuse of Process ... District Judge tells BWLegal

beamerguy

BWLegal still issuing claims with ABUSE OF PROCESS

COMPLAINT TO THE SRA.

SUBJECT: BWLEGAL

Dear Sirs,

I am writing to ask, why do you allow BWLegal, one of your members, to continue to issue court claims which include an inflated amount of £60 when they have already been told by DJ Taylor sitting in the Southampton county court that it is ABUSE OF PROCESS

https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems.page

Redx

fake fee add on struck out yet again in the IOW court (either DJ TAYLOR or DJ GRAND ?)

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6017640/bw-legal-court-hearing-nhs-staff&page=2

Taliessa

Is there a claim number or print of judges letter that we can use in our defence/WS regarding the new case that has been struck out?

beamerguy

An interesting thread where BWLegal has claimed that the fake £60 is a separate claim ???

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6024010

Well, that's a new one, I suppose BWL think the courts are mugs

[Deleted User]

I don't think they have. Are they not suggesting that the Soton case is separate/distinct. Essentially that the court isn't bound?

The court of course isn't bound. That said, it doesn't make the £60 meritorious. My preference would be to not get carried away and assume the bolt on will get kicked out - learn why it's an abuse so you are "pushing against an open door" to ensure it is struck.

Finally, I can see the £60 being struck, but that doesn't necessarily mean the entire claim will be...

Coupon-mad

My preference would be to not get carried away and assume the bolt on will get kicked out - learn why it's an abuse so you are "pushing against an open door" to ensure it is struck.

Mine too.

It's always frustrating when the odd person here loses and have been hit with a silly sum in costs that they should have been able to explain to a Judge, as to why it is an abuse of process.

That's why I have gone overboard on the paragraphs on the subject of those fake costs, in the hope of rescuing people who might then at least have something to refer to at the hearing if the Judge isn't with them, to explain why the costs are double recovery.

Jomot

Just in case its of any use, the 'debt collection' letters sent by Excel/VCS (for which they add on £60) are sent via MailSmart (MBA Group Ltd) whose website says:

Have you ever considered the time and cost associated with posting a single letter? Each individual process could be costing your business anywhere between 90p to £1.52*

Thankfully, our hybrid mail solution will enable you to save up to 50% on your current output costs

*Estimated industry costs based on postage, paper, envelopes, consumables and managed time

[Deleted User]

The standard wording for DRP debt recovery contracts is on their website - no recovery/no fee. Thus establishing an argument that the claimant is breaching the indemnity principle - claiming reimbursement for a cost which has never, in fact, been incurred.

beamerguy

Johnersh wrote: »

I don't think they have. Are they not suggesting that the Soton case is separate/distinct. Essentially that the court isn't bound?

The court of course isn't bound. That said, it doesn't make the £60 meritorious. My preference would be to not get carried away and assume the bolt on will get kicked out - learn why it's an abuse so you are "pushing against an open door" to ensure it is struck.

Finally, I can see the £60 being struck, but that doesn't necessarily mean the entire claim will be...

Of course you are right and that is why I said in my post #1 that this does not set a precedence

However, there is already a reaction whereby they are attempting to substantiate themselves ... without much luck

The two judges in Southampton and the IOW have basically laid down the gauntlet. It is very early days to see what happens because claims take so long to get into court. Maybe kicking out these cases would free up the courts time.
Let's face it these companies are using the courts as a public convenience and a very cheap £25 debt collection service

As said, it's very early days and whilst some judges may just strike out the fake £60, others will follow Southampton and the IOW

The problem BWLegal and the like has, they will never know what a court will decide about Abuse of Process ?

I am convinced this will build Momentum and of course we can stop this advice with a click of a finger if ..... they stopped adding a fake claim

The_Deep

I agree with beamer, judges must deal with these cases several times a weak. They must realise that most of them are scams, not really a breach of contract in the commercial sense, here is a way they can reduce the flow