Multiple Parking fines - NCP / Trace debt recovery and BW Legal

hayd555

Update from SRA:

Report about BW Legal Services Limited

 

You were previously corresponding with my colleague Andrew Cooksey in relation to your report about BW Legal Services Limited (BW Legal). However, this matter was recently reallocated to me for consideration. I am writing to inform you that our investigation has concluded and, we have decided not to take any formal regulatory action.

 

In addition to your report, we have received a number of other reports about the way BW Legal recovers debts on behalf of its clients. These reports all raised concerns about the inclusion of an additional £60 charge during the debt recovery process for “initial legal costs”. Specifically, the reports raised concerns that the additional charge may not be legally recoverable.

 

During our investigation, we have spoken to BW Legal to help us understand how it operates. Having done so, we understand that BW Legal believes that the additional charge is legally recoverable.

 

It is not the SRA’s role to make a finding on whether the additional charge is legally recoverable, this is a matter for the courts to consider. However, the courts do not appear to have made a conclusive finding on this matter.

 

Without a conclusive finding, there is no evidence to demonstrate that BW Legal has failed to comply with our standards. For this reason, we have decided to conclude our investigation. Although we will be concluding our investigation, should the courts make a conclusive finding in the future, we may engage with BW Legal further about this matter.

 

Thank you for taking the time to contact us with your information. You may find it helpful to refer to the consumer section of our website for further information about our approach to regulation – sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/report-solicitor.

Le_Kirk

The terms whitewash and sweeping under the carpet or too hard pile (not the carpet pile!) spring to mind!

beamerguy

We have seen similar before. Shame the SRA don't understand the ruling of the Beavis casem POFA and the courts own ruling about double recovery.
Maybe they think the code of practice is a contract and is legal, well that's the feeble excuse the legals claim.

The SRA are just a members club and are proving to the public they are NOT what they seem.

Future complaints to the SRA about BWLegal musy include the facts

Coupon-mad

To find the wording about why the Semark-Jullien case doesn't matter and was a damp squib for the BW Legal guys, read the example WITNESS STATEMENT in the NEWBIES thread, it covers it and explains it.  And you can copy that into your defence when the time comes.

Mrplay123456

Coupon-mad said:

To find the wording about why the Semark-Jullien case doesn't matter and was a damp squib for the BW Legal guys, read the example WITNESS STATEMENT in the NEWBIES thread, it covers it and explains it.  And you can copy that into your defence when the time comes.

But this had no effect with my Judge

Umkomaas

Mrplay123456 said:

Coupon-mad said:

To find the wording about why the Semark-Jullien case doesn't matter and was a damp squib for the BW Legal guys, read the example WITNESS STATEMENT in the NEWBIES thread, it covers it and explains it.  And you can copy that into your defence when the time comes.

But this had no effect with my Judge

Judge bingo. Litigation carries risks. Judges rule in their own small claims court. 

Coupon-mad

Mrplay123456 said:

Coupon-mad said:

To find the wording about why the Semark-Jullien case doesn't matter and was a damp squib for the BW Legal guys, read the example WITNESS STATEMENT in the NEWBIES thread, it covers it and explains it.  And you can copy that into your defence when the time comes.

But this had no effect with my Judge

Did you get a chance to point out that the Salisbury appeal wasn't about the added £60 (per se) and was only about whether a strike out was draconian? Did you read out that paragraph from your WS?  Some Judges don't read the WS, as I find quite a lot, so you have to say it.

Mrplay123456

Yes I read and He stated he had read both WS, but I find that high unlikely, He was on the side of the Claimant all the way for some reason...

Coupon-mad

Same experience as @robertcox999 for you and him.  I've just replied on his thread and suspect these are new Deputy DJs drafted in, who have quite possibly never heard a parking case before and lack the weekly experience of District Judges, who see these cases as the scam they are.

I am so sorry that it happened to you after all your hard work, and as I said to that other poster, I don't think any of us could have won against a Judge who starts off clueless and against you, with the Beavis case in his head. 

Judge Rinder did the same thing in an atrocious show trial on TV with a parking firm earlier this year.  Absolutely clueless.

D_P_Dance

Judge bingo. Litigation carries risks. Judges rule in their own small claims court.

Perhaps, but they are not unaccountable, read this

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-courts-and-tribunals-service/about/complaints-procedure