Abuse of Process - BW LEGAL win Appeal against strike out

Castle

Snakes_Belly said:

Castle said:

DoaM said:

If you're pointing at the (seemingly) conflicting references to the FCA, you need to think a bit more subtly ... they may be regulated by the FCA but their activities in relation to pursuing PCNs to court do not fall within the remit of the FCA. (I think that's what they're trying to say; I can't say whether or not that is true).

That's correct.

BW Legal Services Ltd t/a BW Legal are regulated by the FCA but the FCA can only investigate complaints in respect of regulated debts such as consumer credit agreements and certain loans.
(Which is why BW Legal's paperwork sometimes make reference, (incorrectly), to "repayment of the debt"; no doubt this is due to an "admin error").

If they are authorised by the FCA the debt can be disputed. I have done this myself in respect of an energy bill. Also they should be checking to see if the recipient of their debt collection letters is classed as vulnerable.

In fact anyone fighting a claim who has received on of those shielding letters from the Government should hang onto it. They may need it.

Yes the debt can always be disputed; my point was that the FCA can't investigate the matter.

Energy bills, (and most utilities), have their own independent Ombudsman who can settle disputes and order compensation; if only a similar Ombudsman could be established for the parking industry; (something for the new Code of Practice perhaps).

Snakes_Belly

I wonder if  BW are authorised by the FCA as a Claims Management Company?

Castle

Snakes_Belly said:

I wonder if  BW are authorised by the FCA as a Claims Management Company?

Just "Debt Administration" and "Debt-collecting" from what I read on the Register.
https://register.fca.org.uk/s/

beamerguy

Guys .... just heard another BWL case has been struck out and the OP will be posting soon.
One we did off forum and a delightful story which I will tell on the OP's thread

Snakes_Belly

Castle said:

Snakes_Belly said:

I wonder if  BW are authorised by the FCA as a Claims Management Company?

Just "Debt Administration" and "Debt-collecting" from what I read on the Register.
https://register.fca.org.uk/s/

Why the need for two debt collectors ? The Protocol states that they should avoid running up costs. I am sure I have seen cases where the claim goes from the PPC to the debt collection company and the to BW. I would have thought involving two cling-on's was against the spirit of the Protocol.

Castle

Snakes_Belly said:

Castle said:

Snakes_Belly said:

I wonder if  BW are authorised by the FCA as a Claims Management Company?

Just "Debt Administration" and "Debt-collecting" from what I read on the Register.
https://register.fca.org.uk/s/

Why the need for two debt collectors ? The Protocol states that they should avoid running up costs. I am sure I have seen cases where the claim goes from the PPC to the debt collection company and the to BW. I would have thought involving two cling-on's was against the spirit of the Protocol.

If you're talking about the "Pre-Action Protocol" then most things they do, (or not do), are against the spirit of it!.

Snakes_Belly

Castle said:

Snakes_Belly said:

Castle said:

Snakes_Belly said:

I wonder if  BW are authorised by the FCA as a Claims Management Company?

Just "Debt Administration" and "Debt-collecting" from what I read on the Register.
https://register.fca.org.uk/s/

Why the need for two debt collectors ? The Protocol states that they should avoid running up costs. I am sure I have seen cases where the claim goes from the PPC to the debt collection company and the to BW. I would have thought involving two cling-on's was against the spirit of the Protocol.

If you're talking about the "Pre-Action Protocol" then most things they do, (or not do), are against the spirit of it!.

Yes "Pre-Action Protocol". I did think that this is a legal requirement unlike the current Codes of Practice which are basically platitudes and what is considered "good practice". Not really worth the paper that they are written on and do not carry much weight in court.

beamerguy

Snakes_Belly said:

Castle said:

Snakes_Belly said:

Castle said:

Snakes_Belly said:

I wonder if  BW are authorised by the FCA as a Claims Management Company?

Just "Debt Administration" and "Debt-collecting" from what I read on the Register.
https://register.fca.org.uk/s/

Why the need for two debt collectors ? The Protocol states that they should avoid running up costs. I am sure I have seen cases where the claim goes from the PPC to the debt collection company and the to BW. I would have thought involving two cling-on's was against the spirit of the Protocol.

If you're talking about the "Pre-Action Protocol" then most things they do, (or not do), are against the spirit of it!.

Yes "Pre-Action Protocol". I did think that this is a legal requirement unlike the current Codes of Practice which are basically platitudes and what is considered "good practice". Not really worth the paper that they are written on and do not carry much weight in court.

I would say that the PaP is a legal requirement but given the way these crazzies conduct their fairy tale business we simply do not expect intelligence to prevail

nosferatu1001

Courts dont seem to give two hoots about compliance with the PAP. Not in SCT cases. 

Snakes_Belly

Castle said:

Snakes_Belly said:

I wonder if  BW are authorised by the FCA as a Claims Management Company?

Just "Debt Administration" and "Debt-collecting" from what I read on the Register.
https://register.fca.org.uk/s/

Just as a matter of interest when you drill down in the link that you posted above there does appear to be some recourse to the FCA. It also mentions the ombudsman. 

I don't know if you are aware but when the Ombudsman becomes involved it costs the company involved. In some cases its quite a hefty amount. In banking I believe that it is about £500.00 (or used to be). When I worked in finance we would jump through hoops to avoid a customer going to the Ombudsman. 

When I had a run in with an energy company they offered compensation to not go to the Ombudsman. It was too little too late and sometimes firms need a shot across the bows.