Abuse of Process - BW LEGAL win Appeal against strike out

BrownTrout

https://www.bwlegal.co.uk/news/bw-legal-successfully-appeals-strike-out-orders-on-claims-incorporating-contractual-debt-recovery-costs-for-the-private-parking-industry/

DoaM

I see this forum (obliquely) gets a mention there too.  

The Pitfalls of Forum advice and using Lay Representatives

Redx

Coupon mad gets several mentions , as do Bargepole and Lamilad

The problem with their statement is that instead of just sticking to the facts involved they do a Trump and crow about it like the cat that got the cream whilst ignoring the fundamental sc@ms involved , preferring to heap scorn on their opponents which is disrespectful and doesn't do themselves any favours. I don't remember Klopp heaping scorn on Ole or Frank or Pep just because they were not cup winners

I for one have always mentioned the cautionary viewpoint that even when you remove the spurious charges the core PCN remains an issue to be debated and picked over. This is clear where firms like Parking Eye do not add those charges so this issue doesn't enter the fray.

People need to realise that they must address the core issues , the reason for the PCN , the defence against the PCN itself

D_P_Dance

The reality is that all pre-allocation claims which have previously been struck out by Deputy and District Judges for being “an abuse of process” could now be subject to set aside applications, and the consumers that relied on the advice given by CouponMad, Lamilad etc may be left to pick up the pieces.

That will be interesting.  

nosferatu1001

Yep, its why every defence here is a defence to the claim, with abuse of process being icing on the top. 
Indeed, their whole tone jsut shows how scared BW Legal are of "forumites" and the humiliation their rent-a-reps get to suffer at the hands of Couponmad, Lamilad, Bargepole et al on a regular basis. 
ALso, the appeal judge errred in fact - the SC ruling does cover debt charges. 

Redx

nosferatu1001 said:

Yep, its why every defence here is a defence to the claim, with abuse of process being icing on the top. 
Indeed, their whole tone jsut shows how scared BW Legal are of "forumites" and the humiliation their rent-a-reps get to suffer at the hands of Couponmad, Lamilad, Bargepole et al on a regular basis. 
ALso, the appeal judge errred in fact - the SC ruling does cover debt charges. 

The sooner that defendants realise that aspect and separate the 2 issues the better , it's been obvious to me from the start due to people like Parking Eye not charging these additional charges , clearly they understand the Beavis case better than most

There are some defendants who assume that the claim should be struck out on the abuse of process charges , whereas really a judge should strike out that aspect and then proceed with the core issues , the actual PCN , signage , landowner authority etc

Snakes_Belly

I think that they are running scared. The PPC's and the bottom feeders that live off them are seeing their income stream fall.

They must be hemorrhaging money at the moment and there is no end in sight with little income coming from airports, shopping centres, etc. 

The PPC's that operate by purchasing leases will still have to pay the landlord.  

nosferatu1001

REdx - i disagree, the claim should be struck out if it is determined to be in abuse of process - thats the usual sanciton for a claimant who does so.
Otherwise its a zero risk proposition for them - they can abuse the courts process and at worst get that element removed? No, same as a fine (real one) is a punishment, there has to be punishment here. 

Snakes_Belly

It's a pity that the case in question was not a VCS/Excel case where there is direct evidence that abuse of process has taken place.  The recovery agent states on their website they work on a no collection, no fee basis. I can't see how anyone could say that was not abuse of the process. 

nosferatu1001

They deliberately picked  aFMOTL nutter to appeal against. 

Redx

nosferatu1001 said:

REdx - i disagree, the claim should be struck out if it is determined to be in abuse of process - thats the usual sanciton for a claimant who does so.
Otherwise its a zero risk proposition for them - they can abuse the courts process and at worst get that element removed? No, same as a fine (real one) is a punishment, there has to be punishment here. 

Then if that QC is wrong it needs to go higher for clarity , but I cannot see it being appealed so cannot see how to get clarity on these legal points where you and others are disputing that appeal ruling

In the meantime , defendants need to have all bases covered , yet many are hoping for an initial strike out , like the case you replied in this morning , alliance parking. That defendant wants a full strike out , alliance gave him or her the b w legal link