Abuse of Process -- supplementary

beamerguy

As usual folks, I have linked this to the ABUSE OF PROCESS - PART 2 THREAD
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6103933/abuse-of-process-thread-part-2/p1?new=1

This can be a TRUE discussion thread

1: THE AUTOMATIC TRANSFER TO DEBT COLLECTORS BY THE PPC
The missing part of this jigsaw is who adds the £60 fake charge ?
The PPC will tell the debt collector they are owed £100. Does the debt collector say it will cost the PPC £60 ?
(The £60 being the cartel operating)
Does the PPC have documentation of this transaction that they have paid £60 to a debt collector ?
Is the PPC not aware of POFA 2012 and the ruling of the Supreme Court ????
Is the PPC relying on the fabrication by the BPA/IPC code of practice saying the PPC can add on fake amounts

A VERY IFFY UNREGULATED SYSTEM THAT IS NOT THE LAW
We must assume it is the debt collector who adds the fake £60 ?  But, this is the problem, as we know in the parking scam industry, debt collectors like DRP and ZZPS  are totally meaningless and they have NO LEGAL AUTHORITY to add anything to the debt they are chasing

Despite the advice here is to ignore the cloud dreaming debt collectors, that should change and we should respond to these money grabbers by asking two questions.....
"What legal authority do you have to add £60 to the claim made by XXXX ..... Has the PPC XXXX instructed you to add £60 or have you added this amount yourself and for what reason. If you cannot respond, please pass this to your client for a reply. As you already know, your letter is meaningless and he amount you claim will not be paid "

Neither debt collector or PPC can actually give any legal authority. The might cite the codes of practice by the BPA/IPC but these are not the law, remember you are asking for LEGAL AUTHORITY. 
Will they respond ???? Experiments  have shown NO. 
A letter from you with no response from either a debt collector or the PPC can easily be brought to the judges attention as I have seen first hand with a bumbling legal knowing nothing about it. Judges get very disturbed if the claimant attempts to hide any charge they are claiming for.

As the debt collector cannot instruct a legal to proceed to court (despite the rubbish they say) , they have no option but to pass it back to the PPC as they have failed.  Did the PPC pay £60 for failure?, doubtful and that brings us nicely to this ...

Does the PPC then instruct a legal that the debt is now £160 (£100 plus fake £60) or does the legal add on the fake £60 for extra income (profit)
Both of course are acting against POFA2012 and the Supreme court ruling plus The Consumer Rights Act 2015

As the legal is obliged to obey PAP (pre-action protocol), you must be sent a "letter before claim" giving you 30 days to respond.  It is at this stage that the £60 is added.
.
It is your right to query this and the same question arises ... "On what legal authority do you have to add a further £60 ?    Thus far, the legals cannot provide legal authority for this although they will attempt to fabricate a reason. Nothing of which complies to POFA2012 or the Supreme court ruling.
If of course a legal fails to answer and prove their claim, then the judge must be alerted and I have also seen this first hand in court. 

Now onto the legal if they proceed to court. 
Just as you have to provide a statement of truth and sign it, so does the legal. 
Given they continue to add £60 which they cannot substantiate, given that the courts are now dismissing their claims as abuse of process (because of the fake £60).  County court judges are also stating that such an amount is unlawful, it is a feeble attempt to go behind the Beavis case in the Supreme court, etc etc, 
Even when the legals and parking companies like VCS who have appealed and lost, they still apply a fake £60 and ignore what courts are saying.

Knowing what more and more courts are saying, they still sign a statement of truth ?? which is against what the county courts are saying.  Is that the truth ???   Should the court be alerted about this statement of truth ?

Like everything, prevention is better than a cure and as not one legal or PPC has given a suitable answer as the fake £60 .... they think the public and county court judges are gullible.  The question must be asked ... "ON WHAT LEGAL AUTHORITY DO THEY HAVE "

Going forward, what will the forthcoming government code of practice (which is so overdue), 
say about debt collectors ???   Will this new code that replaces POFA2012 allow add-ons and if so, will it over-ride the Supreme court ruling.
And if this new code is detrimental even more so, what will we do about it ???

OPEN FOR DISCUSSION

D_P_Dance

We must assume it is the debt collector who adds the fake £60 ? 

Or £70 in the case of dcbl.

twhitehousescat

D_P_Dance said:

We must assume it is the debt collector who adds the fake £60 ? 

Or £70 in the case of dcbl.

greedy bar stuards 

Umkomaas

twhitehousescat said:

D_P_Dance said:

We must assume it is the debt collector who adds the fake £60 ? 

Or £70 in the case of dcbl.

greedy bar stuards 

As 'approved' by the BPA in its latest Code of Practice. 

32 Recovering unpaid parking charges

32.1a Where a Parking Charge becomes overdue and before Court Proceedings have commenced, a reasonable sum (which covers the cost of recovering debt) may be added for the debt recovery fees.This sum must not exceed £70 unless prior approval from the BPA has been granted.

Pity the Judges at Southampton, Warwick and Skipton disagree.  Spoils the party a bit!

beamerguy

32.1a Where a Parking Charge becomes overdue and before Court Proceedings have commenced, a reasonable sum (which covers the cost of recovering debt) may be added for the debt recovery fees.This sum must not exceed £70 unless prior approval from the BPA has been granted.

It's the BPA book of jokes. The only people who believes this are parking companies and the BPA, oh yes and dodgy legals ......... I wonder if the Supreme court have read the BPA book of jokes

Coupon-mad

What used to amuse me, and I am not sure if the CoP still has it, was when the BPA CoP said something like:

''If you are going to add costs for debt collection this should be mentioned on your signs but you don't have to state what that sum is'' 

Clearly they think the CRA 2015 about transparent terms and clear costs before consumer contracts are entered into, is beneath their paying members, along with bothering about the POFA and their flagship Beavis case too.  

legal_magpie

In the light of the Southampton and Skipton decisions (which followed a hearing) I recommend that, in all extra £60 cases, as well as referring to those decisions in the Defence, it is essential to mention them when returning the directions questionnaire, ideally sending a copy of the order striking out the claims as made in Southampton and elsewhere but also sending a copy of the Judgement itself.  At the same time, you should ask the Court to exercise its case management powers by striking out the claim as an abuse of process under CPR Part 3.3 and 3.4(2)(b).  This is because DQs are always seen by a DJ or DDJ and while several are aware are aware of the Southampton decision, most are not.  While some regularly disallow the £60 at trial, the aim should be to avoid the case getting that far.  As the word spreads more cases will be struck out early. Not many judges are prepared to strike out the case as a whole at trial if it has already been allocated.

Mahershalalhashbaz

Good to see the growing trend for the £60 add on to be dismissed as an abuse of progress.  I wonder if a parking company could get away with a smaller addition to the £100 charge.  For instance I have seen in a tiny font on a sign about a £100 charge the words:

‘Costs of £8 will be added at each stage of recovery administration (Notice to Keeper/Payment Reminder), & (Notice of Intended Court Proceedings) a total of £16 that will be added to any County Court Claim.’  

Can abuse of process be claimed when the addition is for a sum much lower than £60, and the parking company claims that  these are part of the contract with the person they are pursuing?

beamerguy

Mahershalalhashbaz said:

Good to see the growing trend for the £60 add on to be dismissed as an abuse of progress.  I wonder if a parking company could get away with a smaller addition to the £100 charge.  For instance I have seen in a tiny font on a sign about a £100 charge the words:

‘Costs of £8 will be added at each stage of recovery administration (Notice to Keeper/Payment Reminder), & (Notice of Intended Court Proceedings) a total of £16 that will be added to any County Court Claim.’  

Can abuse of process be claimed when the addition is for a sum much lower than £60, and the parking company claims that  these are part of the contract with the person they are pursuing?

Which parking has this dimwit idea ?????   Anything above the ticket price is abuse of process

Mahershalalhashbaz

beamerguy said:

Which parking has this dimwit idea ?????   Anything above the ticket price is abuse of process

You have to hunt for those words on the sign, just as you have to hunt for the signs (this example is attached to a wall, just an inch or two above ground level).

beamerguy

An IPC member, just as daft as the scam IPC. They need to understand the law
All part of the Gladstones / IPC scam