Armtrac/BWlegal

nosferatu1001

Beavis states that all costs of operating the scheme must be wihtin the core charge
Debt recovery is as they admit a normal part of their operations
thus the cost is withhin the core charge, and the amount on top is an abuse
or
the cost isnt within the core charge, and the core charge is a penalty as it is seeking to recover more than is allowed. 

The latter is worse for them. 

charlieb0805

This is a copy of the email sent to BW Legal.....

I refer to you letter dated 16th June 2020, your reference T1445152. After taking some advice on the substance of this claim I am unsure your claim is legitimate. I require that you advise me as to what legal authority you have to add a amount of £60 to your claim. You clearly already know that this is Abuse of Process and in a recent claim made by BWLeagal in Luton County Court, claim number FODP77KP, the judge gave his reason for striking out the claim as follows:-

The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the Parking charge which it is alleged that the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 schedule 4, nor with reference to the judgement in Parking Eye v Beavis, which expressly approved because it included costs of administration. Additionally , S71(2) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires the court to consider the fairness of a contract term and the provision of the additional charges falls into example 6,10 and 14 of the indicative list of unfair terms in schedule 2 of the act. It is an Abuse of Process for the claimant to issue a knowingly inflated sum which they are not entitled to recover.

As I will reference this judgment (and many other where claims have been struck out), in any claim you make together with a copy of this letter, I ask you again on what LEGAL AUTHORITY do you have to add to your claim?

Any reply from you will be shown in court and if you reply states 'without prejudice', I reserve the right to advise the court that you have replied not wanting the court to read it.

This is now a very serious situation for you and I now give you the option to immediately discontinue all of your claim and you and your client bears their own costs. In turn, I will not claim costs against your client.

Please reply within 7 days from the date of this email with your intentions.

Yours faithfully

Coupon-mad

It's all a bit pointless.  Not sure why people are bothering, then they come back wondering what to say next.  No point.   Save it for your defence, WS and the hearing.

There really is no need to ask robo-claim solicitors why £60 has been added. 

beamerguy

Coupon-mad said:

It's all a bit pointless.  Not sure why people are bothering, then they come back wondering what to say next.  No point.   Save it for your defence, WS and the hearing.

There really is no need to ask robo-claim solicitors why £60 has been added. 

WHOOPS C-M are you calling me pointless ?

It's not, it's designed to NOT get a reply and then to show a judge. Proven as in the case I helped in Reading .... case struck out

There is every need to ask a robo claim so called solicitor about the £60 fake ...... because they have no answer

beamerguy

charlieb0805 said:

This is a copy of the email sent to BW Legal.....

Charlie, you now wait.  BWLegal will reply with rubbish or maybe not reply ..... either way your letter is prime to show a judge.  The name of the game is to show a judge that their claim is unreliable 

charlieb0805

The response from BM to my email is posted earlier in the thread. 
Thanks for your info, I’ll await a court date 

Coupon-mad

beamerguy said:

Coupon-mad said:

It's all a bit pointless.  Not sure why people are bothering, then they come back wondering what to say next.  No point.   Save it for your defence, WS and the hearing.

There really is no need to ask robo-claim solicitors why £60 has been added. 

WHOOPS C-M are you calling me pointless ?

No, far from it!

But what is happening is, posters are atually thinking they are going to get some sense out of the robo-claim solicitors and keep asking what to do next and wondering why the reply has come back knocking them back.  That's what's pointless.

It would be fine if all posters went into it with their eyes open, knowing that they will get crap back and that they are only doing it to show the Judge.  Posters seem to think there is another point to it... and seem surprised the argument is not accepted and we go round in a stupid circle pointlessly!

beamerguy

Coupon-mad said:

beamerguy said:

Coupon-mad said:

It's all a bit pointless.  Not sure why people are bothering, then they come back wondering what to say next.  No point.   Save it for your defence, WS and the hearing.

There really is no need to ask robo-claim solicitors why £60 has been added. 

WHOOPS C-M are you calling me pointless ?

No, far from it!

But what is happening is, posters are atually thinking they are going to get some sense out of the robo-claim solicitors and keep asking what to do next and wondering why the reply has come back knocking them back.  That's what's pointless.

It would be fine if all posters went into it with their eyes open, knowing that they will get crap back and that they are only doing it to show the Judge.  Posters seem to think there is another point to it... and seem surprised the argument is not accepted and we go round in a stupid circle pointlessly!

I get and understand what you are saying.
I do say in the thread where the letters are ....
They will either reply with a fantasy response which they will know will make a judge bring out the famous whip again.  Or, they ignore you which is just as good because you can prove you tried to settle the matter and they ignored you which puts in doubt the reliability of their Witness statement and claim

I currently am helping 6 posters and they all have rubbish replies as sent to Charlie above.
The follow up letters are very different and personalised and destroys the rubbish they spout.
So far, it has gone very quiet because they know what will happen in court.

The letter above to charlie, is a prime example of crap and if charlie allows me, we can send a letter back that will rock their soul. 

PS for C-M ...... I am currently dealing with one where in their statement, they included a picture of the sign which either they or the PPC has cropped and doctored.  The OP has a picture of the sign and it's all to do with the entity again ..... ???  know what I mean ?

Coupon-mad

PS for C-M ...... I am currently dealing with one where in their statement, they included a picture of the sign which either they or the PPC has cropped and doctored.  The OP has a picture of the sign and it's all to do with the entity again ..... ???  know what I mean ?

I now exactly what you mean and this is the issue that all Britannia victims need to understand!  It is very simple and has been said so many times I'm not repeating it yet again, but it's in POPLA Decisions with a worked example, if people simply search that thread for BRITANNIA SERVICES.