Supplementary WS BWL

Ivylady68

I have a court date of 19th July. I sent my WS on the 25th June. i received a copy BWL WS dated 27th June. Today i have received a copy of a supplementary WS from BWL dated 9th July.
They have addressed my defence more specifically, especially the "Abuse of Process" argument.They have said "that this case is a separate claim and is irrelevant to the matter in hand" (I referenced The Southampton case - F0DP201T).They say the costs of recovery at £60 is reasonable and in any event recoverable from the Defendant
Will the court accept this supplementary WS from them - clearly it was not filed at least 14 days before the hearing. Can anyone advise if BWL has done this before?

beamerguy

Ivylady68 wrote: »

I have a court date of 19th July. I sent my WS on the 25th June. i received a copy BWL WS dated 27th June. Today i have received a copy of a supplementary WS from BWL dated 9th July.
They have addressed my defence more specifically, especially the "Abuse of Process" argument.They have said "that this case is a separate claim and is irrelevant to the matter in hand" (I referenced The Southampton case - F0DP201T).They say the costs of recovery at £60 is reasonable and in any event recoverable from the Defendant
Will the court accept this supplementary WS from them - clearly it was not filed at least 14 days before the hearing. Can anyone advise if BWL has done this before?

Been waiting for such a reply from BWL. Ever since the Southampton case came to light and then the IOW case where BWL were kicked out, many people are being told that the £60 fake is Abuse of Process. BWLegal must not take our word for it, this is the ruling by two judges, more will follow.

If they think "that this case is a separate claim and is irrelevant to the matter in hand", why have they included the fake £60 in one claim, why not make another claim for the fake £60 ?? If BWL really do think that this is a separate claim, for any claim, they need to comply with PaP and send a letter before claim

The fake claim is very relevant because as they say it's all part of the T&C's on PPC signs which indeed is THE MATTER AT HAND. BWL also state with others that this fake charge is "admin", contractual charge", "debt collectors fee", "solicitors fee". All of which is a Pandora's Box just waiting to be opened by the court

They may think they are entitled to add a fake charge, trouble is the two judges say it's ABUSE OF PROCESS.
We must assume that courts are correct and indeed know better than BWLegal.

Ivylady68

Thank you for your comments. Can you advise if the 14 days before the Court date for filing WS will be adhered to by the Court and make their supplementary WS inadmissible?

KeithP

Ivylady68 wrote: »

Thank you for your comments. Can you advise if the 14 days before the Court date for filing WS will be adhered to by the Court and make their supplementary WS inadmissible?

Only if you object strongly, and even then it is possible that the Judge may allow it.

Prepare to argue your point.

BrownTrout

Some judges allow evidence to be produced on the day so dont be surprised.....

RobinofLoxley

Just bumping this thread as interested in the outcome of the case, particularly the Judge's view on the supplementary WS from BWL re the fake £60 costs.

The OP hasn't reported back yet, any news please?