General form of Judgement or Order

KeithP

Afternoon beamerguy...
I've just read your post regarding BW Legal are not Solicitors.

Where does he say that?

D_P_Dance

They are, , perhaps you have misunderstood his post

https://www.bwlegal.co.uk/

Umkomaas

D_P_Dance said:

They are, , perhaps you have misunderstood his post

https://www.bwlegal.co.uk/

Six of them are!

https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/register/organisation/?sraNumber=569773

The other 259 are battery hen debt chasers!

Founded in 2009, BW Legal has seen continued growth year on year due to the expertise we show in the debt recovery industry and has grown in to the UK’s largest independent debt recovery law firm, with 265 staff based out of our Leeds HQ.

As a one stop shop for debt collection and litigation we are specialists in what we do and are focused on delivering market leading recovery solutions in an ethical and fair manner.

We have also mastered the capability to carry out collections across highly regulated consumer debt sectors as well as traditional commercial debt.

Our experience is combined with scale and a fully bespoke platform to make us the obvious choice for organisations with debt issues. As we are a firm of solicitors, we can handle debt collection at all stages including fully defended litigation.

We are recognised within the industry for our compliance and fairness, whilst achieving optimum results and brand protection for our clients.

Being dual regulated gives assurances, to both our clients and customers, that the services which we offer are carried out in line with the principles set by both the SRA and the FCA. Our ethical approach also ensures we are focused on achieving the fairest outcome for the customer based on their own specific set of circumstances.

As a result we have won multiple awards in the debt collection sector for demonstrating our effectiveness and value for money.

Key Facts

• 265 staff from one head office who concentrate solely on debt collection;
• Largest specialist debt collection law firm in the UK;
• Specialists in consumer debt;
• Specialists in commercial/business debt across all sectors;
• Cutting edge and compliant platform includes call monitoring, bespoke reporting, online portal and volume court claim issue;
• Multiple winners of various categories across nationally recognised consumer, commercial and customer service awards; and
• Unlike most law firms, we operate a modern, lean management structure which keeps us in front in terms of technology and compliance and allows us to deliver truly cost effective solutions.

Johnersh

The problem with that is their signage does not stipulate that you agree to a notional enhanced fee being applied. At best they are limited to actual costs (and even then only if they can be proven).

The debt recovery letters are usually no win/no fee so there is no actual cost there at all. Certainly, I have yet to see an interest calculation that is correct since the additional charges are applied at a different date to the parking event, but lumped together with a single charge, which is self evidently incorrect. 

Johnersh

D_P_Dance said:

I would like to see someone challenging the legality of telephone hearings.  

I'd like to know on what basis this is proposed? Telephone hearings have been provided for in the court rules since at least 1998. They can be efficient - but extra preparation is needed. 

If a hearing is unsuitable for telephone (and many of these may well be) then that simply needs to be raised, but in the knowledge that it will push matters back by several weeks. 

BrownTrout

Am finding hearings being pushed back to november and december now for face to face cases 

beamerguy

Nomad1967 said:

Just received this. Looking at previous replies to certain posts, I expected this. 

This is like going on a Magical Mystery Tour with Bwlegal ??????
There is no reason whatsoever to send such a letter headed Without Prejudice.  By doing this, they attempt to hide from the court their invalid reasons for the fake £60.  This can be handled very easily by telling the judge that their reply headed Without Prejudice is designed for the court NOT to see.   Anyway, your reply

Dear Sirs..

I refer to your letter dated xxx regarding xxx

I note your comments regarding county court decisions do not set a precedent.  However, it is BWLegal who are attempting to set a precedent by continuing to add £60 which you are not entitled to and is unlawful. As such, I will rely on the wisdom of the judge and his/her understanding of cases where BWLegal have had cases struck out and I will provide full details on these to the court

You state your client is attempting to recover debt recovery costs?   As such costs will be calculated by figures, I will expect you to provide a breakdown of these figures so as to satisfy the judge that your claim is fair.  In saying that, the court will be made aware that such costs are unlawful. To that, I refer to the ruling of the Supreme court in the Beavis case and POFA2012 of which you will be well aware of.

It is also noted that you deny the rights offered to the consumer under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. As the court is obliged to rule on this, it will be highlighted for the Judge to decide

Finally you make mention of the BPA code of practice.  This is only an agreement between the BPA and the parking company. Take note that the code of practice has no legal bearing for the motorist. It is not a law, nor is it a contract for the motorist.  I would suggest you cease using this as an excuse for your unlawful £60

This letter will be made available to the court and your "Without Prejudice" will be referred to as not wishing the court to see.

As I believe you cannot justify your claim of £60 especially with the reasons you give, I will ask the court to strike out your claim.  It now makes sense that you discontinue your claim given consideration of my comments above.
On that basis, you will cover your own costs and I will cover my own.  If you proceed to court then of course I will claim costs against your clients.  

Please confirm within 7 days

Yours faithfully,

Coupon-mad

I already posted the problem they have with that, here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/77114261#Comment_77114261

Umkomaas

Is that the whole shebang?  If it is, there's no authority provided by the landowner for the PPC to litigate in their own right. This is what the BPA Code of Practice says:

If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being 

Report them to Steve Clark of the BPA if that authority isn't included in the contract. 

steve.c@britishparking.co.uk 

Coupon-mad

That's a landowner contract a Judge would say is OK, unless the company named isn't the landowner and you prove that with, say, Land Registry records and map.