Bwlegal & UK Parking Patrol LTD Altering Documents please help

nosferatu1001

Not a litigation friend
You are a LAY REP, and this right to be there is g'teed in small claims court. 
You do not ask for this. you turn upm on the day with her, and have a copy of the Act with you just in case. 

BrownTrout

this will go to court.

nosferatu1001

Very little chance of them discontinuing before the hearing now
You could try to get the court to look at the CRA2015 issue now, as they have a duty to do so, and of course assuming theyve added the £60 per ticket costs on. 

Coupon-mad

Going back to the contract issue does this make all the Parking Charge Notice's issued which rely on this contract invalid ? paid or unpaid I would have thought so

No.  If you mean the signatory has since left, so what?  The landowner contract he signed, still stands.  The point about two Directors signing contracts isn't a deal breaker either, sorry.  Companies can do what they want by way of contractor agreements, pretty much, and most Judges will NOT give that point the time of day.

So do both issues count as " Abuse Of Process" ?

No, only the point about the added £60 (regardless of what the sign says, it can't be added).  And everything else you have asked about the wording for, is clearly stated in the forum's  template defence, linked in the NEWBIES thread, already written for people.  Trouble is you've already put in a scattergun defence and can't change it now.

If your wife is at WS and evidence stage now, then take a breath and read other threads at the same stage and see what others put in as their WS and evidence, such as threads by:
@keypulse
@Lego-9
@gbbe
@Chefdave
@Littlewadie
@Staatsgrenze

henrik777

https://www.dropbox.com/s/so7rekthttknhgp/One%20Parking%20Solution%20Ltd%20v%20Ms%20W%20-%20Lewes%20County%20Court%205th%20Feb%202020.pdf?dl=0


Read that to discover some very salient points. It won't all directly apply to you, so you'll need to pick the parts that do.

Don't read it just once. Read it until you get it, over days if required.

KeithP

Bilbo_Baz said:

Hi every one who commented on this post some time ago hope you are all well.
I just put in a second part of defense based on.           (Then looked on here !!!)
Documents received by Bw Legal that I had never received before on 20the April the case was adjourned because both the wife and I where shielding.
So further defense was made regarding Charging the extra 60 quid is this now not a valid defense ? because of the recent Strike Out by BW of the Southampton case won by Fruit Cake ? 
I have still added that they have shown no connection to land owner and the contract may be invalid.
Bw have threatened to Sue me for Slander as I have been contacting the land owners agents regarding The Abuse of Process is this even valid now ? hope they do
Time for direct action and protest now I think it  would  be better time to bully the bully boys !!
I had a recce yesterday on how to close down the retail park to traffic  and obstruct the camera's without breaking the law.
The Courts all ways decide with the money its all just a big long gravy train for them.
we are  all the cash cow's in the system.

You got that so wrong.

Read again the thread about the set aside in Southampton. You will read that the set aside was achieved in that one case because the earlier judge had not received enough information upon which to base his decision. That will not be the case in the vast majority of cases prepared on this forum.

Redx

The £60 add-on is not and never was a defence

A defence is legal arguments about the PCN , about the PoC listed on the court claim , about the core principles of the case , nothing to do with the £60 add-on

The £60 add-on is considered to be an abuse of process and asks for a strikeout of the claim

B w legal believe that the case should be considered in two or more parts , so that even if the £60 is struck out , the case for the PCN should proceed

Some companies like Parking Eye do not charge the extra £60 , so abuse of process does t apply , so ant defence is based on the core issues , the PCN and the PoC

beamerguy

The fake £60 add-on still remains as abuse of process
The question must be is why BWL continue to add on a fake amount when the courts are ruling against them and if they want a proper claim to be considered, are they adding on the £60 hoping they will find a judge they can mug.

BWLegal have told the SRA that they act on their clients instructions ?  Can they prove that the £60 claimed for debt collection was actually paid by the PPC. They must offer proof to the court and yourself that such an amount was paid, failure means their claim is unreliable

KeithP

Bilbo_Baz said:

But really if Bw Legal and other collection firms do not add this then they will get no payment unless case goes to court thus they will fight tooth and nail to win this eventually ! 

Really not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you defending the right of a debt collector to add £60 to the alleged debt because otherwise they would get no money?

I wouldn't mind betting that the vast majority of people getting a a debt collectors letter pay up instantly.  Since the debt collectors work on a 'no win no fee' basis, they will get paid in that situation.

Bilbo_Baz

No not defending it at all !!! the opposite I hate the way councils do this as well and think motorist's in the country should unite and  demonstrate and get militant like the French do and stop all this everywhere. public and private land
 but the amount of money at stake they will have to take it back to Supreme Court I would think, do you think parking company's will give them half there charge to chase debt ? rightly or wrongly claimed I think not