Abuse of Process -- supplementary

beamerguy

Fruitcake said:

beamerguy said:

legal_magpie said:

I doubt I doubt whether it will make a blind bit of difference

But we know that already ...... it will then be their choice to proceed and it will be the choice of the judge what he does to them ........ they will never know until the day in court. Not a positive thought for these dodgy legals

That all depends if the county courts are still open ?

But when the courts reopen, the new CPR will be operational.

Yes .... the new CPR is a novel way to cull these people.  I'm not saying it's been done for parking companies and the dodgy legals only, but I cannot think of any other industry who issue volumes of claims and with each claim tries to scam extra money from people ??

Anyone think ?

twhitehousescat

judges at small claims level do not get involved in contemp of court or fraud , remember they are small claims , often sorted in a civil matter , they are not magistrates/crown courts 

expect CC magistrates to simply say "stop" and move on 

beamerguy

twhitehousescat said:

judges at small claims level do not get involved in contemp of court or fraud , remember they are small claims , often sorted in a civil matter , they are not magistrates/crown courts 

expect CC magistrates to simply say "stop" and move on 

They do, as judges have referred to it ...... they would no doubt pass it to the Magistrates

THE "C" being CIVIL

legal_magpie

twhitehousescat said:

judges at small claims level do not get involved in contempt of court or fraud , remember they are small claims , often sorted in a civil matter ,

DJs certainly do get involved in contempt of court matters although they are usually referred to CJ's.  But the issue over the abuse of process is never going to give rise to a contempt case.  Of course, the whole court system is going to change over the next few weeks over the Coronavirus problem.

legal_magpie

beamerguy said:

legal_magpie said:

I doubt I doubt whether it will make a blind bit of difference

But we know that already ...... it will then be their choice to proceed and it will be the choice of the judge what he does to them ........ they will never know until the day in court. Not a positive thought for these dodgy legals

That all depends if the county courts are still open ?

The Courts are, in theory, still open but there are going to be massive changes over the next few months.  Physical hearings will be rare.  Many judges are unable to attend Court because of age and risk factors and more hearings will be by phone.  Priority will be given to cases such as non molestation orders.
The £60 extra claim is dealt with in one of 4 ways: 
A.   If the Defendant doesn't respond to the claim, a default judgment is entered including the extra £60.  This is purely administrative.
B.  Some judges strike out the whole claim as an abuse or process at the DQ stage.  Word is spreading.  Alternatively some strike out the whole claim at the final hearing on the abuse of process point but this is rare.
C.  Some Judges refuse to allow the extra £60 at the final hearing but allow the rest of the claim.  I would say that this is the norm.
D.  Some judges grant the whole claim at the final hearing but if the Defendant is well prepared and has put in a good defence and witness statement, this is unlikely.  

beamerguy

legal_magpie said:

beamerguy said:

legal_magpie said:

I doubt I doubt whether it will make a blind bit of difference

But we know that already ...... it will then be their choice to proceed and it will be the choice of the judge what he does to them ........ they will never know until the day in court. Not a positive thought for these dodgy legals

That all depends if the county courts are still open ?

The Courts are, in theory, still open but there are going to be massive changes over the next few months.  Physical hearings will be rare.  Many judges are unable to attend Court because of age and risk factors and more hearings will be by phone.  Priority will be given to cases such as non molestation orders.
The £60 extra claim is dealt with in one of 4 ways: 
A.   If the Defendant doesn't respond to the claim, a default judgment is entered including the extra £60.  This is purely administrative.
B.  Some judges strike out the whole claim as an abuse or process at the DQ stage.  Word is spreading.  Alternatively some strike out the whole claim at the final hearing on the abuse of process point but this is rare.
C.  Some Judges refuse to allow the extra £60 at the final hearing but allow the rest of the claim.  I would say that this is the norm.
D.  Some judges grant the whole claim at the final hearing but if the Defendant is well prepared and has put in a good defence and witness statement, this is unlikely.  

I am unsure where you are going with this ????
Everything you say is already noted in the two abuse of process threads  

Two questions for you ...
Why has the new CPR being introduced ?

Why do you think the Judges select another part of the claim to dismiss when prior they would allow it ..... once they see the fake £60 is added ???

The answers seem very obvious but we welcome your input 

D_P_Dance

No-one can predict what will happen.  Boris may use emergency powers to shut down these companies, (Carrie might get a ticket).  All I can predict is that the cash flow of the scammers is very likely to dry up in the near future   Money will suddenly become extremely tight.

beamerguy

D_P_Dance said:

No-one can predict what will happen.  Boris may use emergency powers to shut down these companies, (Carrie might get a ticket).  All I can predict is that the cash flow of the scammers is very likely to dry up in the near future   Money will suddenly become extremely tight.

I agree, If Carrie got a ticket, guarantee Boris would do something just like the clamping of Betty Boothroyd

Snakes_Belly

This is slightly off piste but I was going through stuff that I had downloaded on the computer and found this article that for some reason I had downloaded some time ago. It may have been when a member of my family was the claimant in a personal injury claim which went to mediation.

https://www.dacbeachcroft.com/es/gb/articles/2015/february/a-fundamental-change-for-dishonest-claimants/

Whilst the article refers to dishonest claimants who overstate a personal injury claim it is interesting that a judge can now dismiss the whole claim. 

In relation to the above then surely the private parking companies are dishonest claimants and the whole of the claim should be dismissed. Perhaps in a defence they should be referred to as dishonest claimants.

I realise that some judges are now dismissing the claims but some are just knocking off the £60.00.   

beamerguy

Snakes_Belly said:

In relation to the above then surely the private parking companies are dishonest claimants and the whole of the claim should be dismissed. Perhaps in a defence they should be referred to as dishonest claimants.

I realise that some judges are now dismissing the claims but some are just knocking off the £60.00.   

Adding £60 is dishonest and it's a blatant try on in the hope it's not noticed by the motorist and indeed a judge.  Our job is get more and more judges fully understanding this unlawful scam.
Actually, we are doing a very good job at this as judges see the scam for what it is.
It simple means that the likes of BWLegal, Gladstones and DCBL will never know the thoughts of a judge and they must expect many losses in the future.

The letters I do, are not just letters, they are a demand for their legal authority authority for adding the fake £60.  The replies we see, in the words of BWLegal are nonsensical.  They waffle on about why they are allowed to add £60, all of which is rubbish and each point they make can be easily dismissed. Not once have they proven their legal authority.  I find it highly amusing that they actually believe what they say.

Whether they reply or not makes no difference as a judge can be referred to the letter to which he/she can ask the same question.  The purpose being that their claim is unreliable  as they cannot substantiate the fake add-ons.

  When I attended court, helping a defendant on here, a week before we composed a letter to BWLegal which was sent by email. Two questions were asked ...... who actually is the entity who is bringing the claim and also requesting their legal authority to add £60 ?
BWLegal did not reply to that email. The judge asked the legal had he seen the letter, no the legal replied, can you answer these questions, no said the legal. 
The judge just looked at the legal and said "this is not going very well for you, is it " NO said the legal ..... case dismissed and £100 costs awarded

In my opinion, whatever the likes of BWLegal retort with, as they keep proving they have no legal authority and yes, their claim is unreliable and yes the judge should be asked to strike it out