Claim Form but not the driver

Crystaltips76

Amazing news! I had a letter today from the County Court at Warwick, where the hearing for this claim was to be held, saying that the 'Claim is struck out as an abuse of process.'

I am so happy that it is all over. Thank you all so much for your help and advice throughout this whole debacle.

Umkomaas

Crystaltips76 wrote: »

Amazing news! I had a letter today from the County Court at Warwick, where the hearing for this claim was to be held, saying that the 'Claim is struck out as an abuse of process.'

I am so happy that it is all over. Thank you all so much for your help and advice throughout this whole debacle.

Seems Warwick court has got the hang of AoP and will be a graveyayd for any PPC chancing a £60 add-on. BWL and Gladstones take note!

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST

Redx

Brilliant result , yet another abuse of process victory due to greedy claimants and dodgy debt collector solicitors conspiring to highly inflate a simple invoice into the stratosphere realm of spurious additional charges

Well done to you , and well done to the people that helped you

DoaM

Excellent news.

Does this now mean the OP has grounds to raise a claim against the PPC? (Should they so desire).

nosferatu1001

A claim for damages due to a breach of the DPA2018 seems obvious here
They had no reaosnable cause that they can substantiate.

Coupon-mad

Crystaltips76 wrote: »

Amazing news! I had a letter today from the County Court at Warwick, where the hearing for this claim was to be held, saying that the 'Claim is struck out as an abuse of process.'

I am so happy that it is all over. Thank you all so much for your help and advice throughout this whole debacle.

I am soooo pleased this is filtering through, and you were lucky the case was allocated to Warwick even though you are in Kent!

Was it struck out by DJ Joseph? Like here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6079858/bw-legal-premier-park-thanks-for-all-your-help

So now Britannia (CEC16's case) then Premier Park (in the linked thread) and Phoenix Parking Solutions (your pet scammers) have all felt the heat of the Consumer Rights Act and the POFA used against their little game, by a Judge who doesn't even want a hearing wasting his time.

And yours wasn't even a claim filed by BW Legal was it, so BW Legal have actually CAUSED issues for other robo-claim solicitors who will not be happy!

Hahaha!

:rotfl:

If you or that other poster hear that (his case) BW Legal (or your case - claim filed by QDR solicitors, yes?) are appealing against the Order to strike it out, copy exactly what I did at Southampton in CEC16's thread. Word for word, read the court report I typed out in November and emulate what was said.

And if this does go to an application hearing, DO NOT use a lay rep unless it's someone this forum says is OK, as there are some very nasty people out there pimping their time out to appear in court. Nasty aggressive people. Be careful & ask us for guidance.

Hopefully they won't try it again...as DJ Joseph seems to know DJ Grand, we are guessing, as I doubt he reads MSE forums!

OH, CAN YOU PLEASE SHOW US THAT ORDER FROM THE JUDGE, SO WE CAN LET PEOPLE ATTACH IT AS EVIDENCE TO THEIR WS?

:T

beamerguy

Brilliant ........ NOW QDR GET SPANKED

QDR had ample opportunity to read this forum about abuse of process ...... they thought they knew better ???

Not good for the QDR owners, Wright Hassall who also thought they could corner the market with WHOPLA

Any claim, any court, any day, any week ....... QDR can be spanked again, they will have no idea when, if they keep adding on the fake £60

Now in post # 1 in the abuse of process thread
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

THE HALL OF SHAME

Coupon-mad

ZZPS who are very much the driving force behind QDR, will be spitting feathers at this. Hahahahahahahaha!!

Castle

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

A claim for damages due to a breach of the DPA2018 seems obvious here
They had no reaosnable cause that they can substantiate.

I thought that the RK/Defendant was a limited company; so the DPA won't come into it. But the limited company could certainly go after the PPC for their time and costs in defending the claim.

Coupon-mad

Interestingly, the CRA still applies, because the driver who allegedly entered the 'contract' on the signs, is a consumer. It's just that the PPC tried to transfer that initial driver liability to the company, but the initial 'contract terms' were between a consumer and the PPC.