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

beamerguy

Not this BWLegal crap again, they really are living in the clouds.

So, please go to this thread and scroll down to post 4.   There you will see more of the same BWLegal crap
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6103933/abuse-of-process-thread-part-2/p1?new=1

The OP asked BWLegal on what Legal authority they had to add a fake £60.   The reply from BWL is much the same crap as yours.
See how the OP replied to the BWLegal crap and what happened next.   NOW IT'S YOUR TURN, feel free to use the same letter

D_P_Dance

 a reasonable sum (which covers the cost of recovering debt) may be added for the debt recovery fees.

Not according to several judges,

forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

hayd555

Hi All, what do I got back to their last reponse with? 

I have also had this information from SRA:

Report about BW Legal

 Thank you for your report dated 28 March 2020.  I have been allocated to investigate this matter further. 

 Summary

 You have raised concerns in relation to BW Legal, explaining that the Firm has attempted to claim inflated charges during its pursuit of alleged unpaid parking debts. 

 Background

 We have received a number of reports in addition to yours about the way the firm deals with the recovery of its client’s debts.   We have previously investigated these concerns, including whether the firm is recovering debts that are legitimately owed, and whether its practices are taking unfair advantage of those who had allegedly parked in breach of car park terms and conditions.

 We have spoken to the firm on several occasions about their practices to fully understand how they operate this area of their business. We have also requested various documents, including copies of letters sent by the firm and the parking company regarding the recovery of car parking charges.

 We are satisfied that the firm is acting on their client’s (The parking company) instructions and they are instructed on claims where the parking company has been unsuccessful in recovering their parking charges after several attempts.  Please note, it is not the role of the SRA to make a finding on whether the claims pursued by the parking company are with merit.  This is a legal issue determined by the courts.

 Our Investigations

 Where we identify serious breaches of our rules, Standards or Regulations, or serious risks to consumers, the public or the wider public interest, we take action. We are at an early stage in our investigation and no decision has been reached yet as to what action, if any, we will take.  We will keep you updated.

 Our Enforcement Strategy sets out how we consider seriousness and the factors we take into account. This can be found on our website at www.sra.org.uk/sra/strategy-2017-2020/sub-strategies/sra-enforcement-strategy.

 I am currently in correspondence with the Firm regarding similar issues as those identified within your report.  I will write to you again upon consideration of the Firm’s response, or within the next three months, whichever is sooner.

beamerguy

We are satisfied that the firm is acting on their client’s (The parking company) instructions
So, BWL will now start using this.   What the SRA missed is that BWL fail due care and attention to their client and court by persisting in adding a fake £60 and cases are struck out.

This is a legal issue determined by the courts.
An so it will be except now as the buck has been passed to the parking company and as BWL will still bring the fake claim to court, the question to ask now is

"Who added the unlawful charge of £60, was it BWLegal, the parking company or the debt collector"
"What legal authority do these parties have to add £60."

Nothing really changes

Coupon-mad

Thing is, the SRA is right.  This is not what complaints should be about. 

There is no point reporting a solicitor to the SRA for sending letters where the 'alleged debt' is as instructed by the PPC.    That is not a breach of the Standards.  The complaints being made about Gladstones have focussed on the right thing, the witness statements being written by Gladstones.

hayd555

Thank you both, where do I go from here regarding their last response? Do I give them the example that DP dance gave?

Johnersh

I've long been concerned about scattergun complaints in all cases.  It is rare that conduct is sufficiently egregious that an sra complaint is merited.

It should be reserved for cases like the two recent ones where the DJ themselves were wont to investigate further.  Those cases had been presented relying upon obviously flawed materials and with statements prepared/assisted by a law firm which should also have recognised the flaws.

The fact that the exhibits generally bear the law firm's initials show them to have been intrinsically involved in the preparation.

In OPS I hope the claimant will follow up with the court to obtain copies of the responses (it is her case after all). Once it's all in writing, that's when a complaint supported by evidence and in a robust form can be made and is likely to gain best traction. 

D_P_Dance

Thing is, the SRA is right.  This is not what complaints about BW Legal should be about. 

I disagree.

I agree with Beamer, the claim has nor been subjject to DD.  IIMO that solicitors should ensure, as far as possible, that their client's claims are legitimate.  They are also required to act in their clients' best interests. 

Surely it cannot be that their clients' best interests are served by lodging a claim which  is likely to get dismissed because it contains unlawful amounts. 

beamerguy

D_P_Dance said:

Thing is, the SRA is right.  This is not what complaints about BW Legal should be about. 

I disagree.  IIMO that solicitors should ensure, as far as possible, that their client's claims are legitimate.  They are also required to act in their clients' best interests.  Surely it cannot be that their clients' best interests are served by lodging a claim which  is likely to get dismissed because it contains unlawful amounts. smissed surely.

So, it's on record that BWLegal are acting on their clients instructions ?
I wonder how many parking companies will admit to instructing them to add a fake £60 ??
There is only one thing they can say and that is "the code of practice" allows them, but as each ATA giving this instruction goes against POFA2012 and the Beavis case, a big can of worms is about the explode.  The SRA plays a game of charades and BWL will still keep losing  as will the others  

Coupon-mad

Johnersh said:

In OPS I hope the claimant will follow up with the court to obtain copies of the responses (it is her case after all). Once it's all in writing, that's when a complaint supported by evidence and in a robust form can be made and is likely to gain best traction. 

She will be doing that.  Thanks Johnersh.  I'm sending you a pm to ask a question about that case.