Abuse of Process - BW LEGAL win Appeal against strike out

Castle

nosferatu1001 said:

C-M et al have no pieces to pick up. 
Some lay reps do take money for appearing, to cover tehri time in court. Thats fine - and bargepole has already sent a cease and desist as BW legal have certainly, to my mind, libelled him. 

Same here; based on the fact that they have identified three specific "Lay Reps" and then state:-
"Some of these Lay Representatives are also charging fees to consumers for representing them in court, or assisting with drafting documents such as defences or skeleton arguments etc."

beamerguy

I hope Bargepole and Coupn-mad have saved that page onto their computer as an html

Half_way

Abuse of process may be a cherry on a cake, but three are many other things that make up a cake

D_P_Dance

As HW says, this is no big deal.  The situation is as it was a couple of years ago before the scammers started adding on the extra charge.  

If they do try appealing cases which they have lost they may well struggle to get round the SC ruling.  

D_P_Dance

As HW says, this is no big deal.  The situation is as it was a couple of years ago before the scammers started adding on the extra charge.  

If they do try appealing cases which they have lost they may well struggle to get round the SC ruling.  

beamerguy

The major flaws BWL claim

Both membership bodies have specific provisions in their respective code of practice regarding the amount of debt recovery costs an operator can add to the unpaid parking charge – for the BPA, the amount is £70 per PCN and for the IPC, it is £60

The problem is that both codes of practice from members clubs DO NOT form any legal authority to add anything. You could call it a suggestion to a member but NOT to a motorist. Both the BPA and IPC should be called to answer why they suggest the PPC should go against the law which is laid in stone.  It must be noted that before the Beavis case, there was no mention from either ATA about adding charges. It is a recent innovation by the BPA and IPC to circumvent the Supreme Court

It should be clear that an operator only seeks debt recovery charges if and when time is spent recovering the unpaid parking charge

This is contrary to the Supreme Court ruling. It is not clear why an operator would also assume they can go against the Supreme Court just because their members club says so with no legal authority

Such recovery charges, where recovery becomes necessary, have long been recoverable by a debtor, subject of course to reasonableness.

That maybe the case for non related issues not applicable to parking tickets, the Supreme court made this very clear that the ticket price includes recovery

Whilst our BPA clients are entitled to administer a charge of £70 on unpaid PCNs, when BW Legal act for a BPA client, we only seek to recover £60 in relation to debt recovery costs. Even for persistent offenders, we do not administer £60 per PCN – in fact, we reduce the debt recovery costs to make it fair

I fail to see that any parking company is entitled to add any amount, it is a suggestion to mislead PPC's and is totally against the SC ruling.  I note that they are mocking their competitors who do add £70 ????

We have, in some circumstances, seen that some firms are increasing the PCN value citing administrative charges. We would not condone this as no person or entity should be charging over and above what is stipulated in the relevant code of practice, but more importantly, if it is a genuine administrative cost, it is a cost chargeable to the parking operator and it should not be passed down to customers.

BWLegal if you don't condone this, why have you added ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS to many many claims.  Now you are saying "it should not be passed on "   On this point alone, it could start the process of claiming back monies for those who paid, including "Admin costs"

It is very poor that BWLegal still fail to explain their legal authority and just prefer to hide behind a code of practice that is not legal and against the Supreme court ruling 

At this stage we carry on with Abuse of Process but with a more defined explanation for the Judge.
And because their claim will still be unreliable, a request to the Judge to strike out the claim
If the Judge does not want to say ABUSE OF PROCESS, he /she will be given many other reasons and options

Castle

beamerguy said:

The major flaws BWL claim

Such recovery charges, where recovery becomes necessary, have long been recoverable by a debtor, subject of course to reasonableness.

That maybe the case for non related issues not applicable to parking tickets, the Supreme court made this very clear that the ticket price includes recovery

Except the PPC is the Creditor, not the Debtor!

(A fixed sum can be charge for debt recovery costs for commercial debts, (business to business), and it's possible to claim late payment/admin charges for liquidated debts for consumers, provided it's in the contract)

beamerguy

Castle said:

beamerguy said:

The major flaws BWL claim

Such recovery charges, where recovery becomes necessary, have long been recoverable by a debtor, subject of course to reasonableness.

That maybe the case for non related issues not applicable to parking tickets, the Supreme court made this very clear that the ticket price includes recovery

Except the PPC is the Creditor, not the Debtor!

(A fixed sum can be charge for debt recovery costs for commercial debts, (business to business), and it's possible to claim late payment/admin charges for liquidated debts for consumers, provided it's in the contract)

I noticed that error but did not want to stoop down to their level

When you say liquidated debts, do you mean those that have be sold on to debt collectors

Castle

beamerguy said:

Castle said:

beamerguy said:

The major flaws BWL claim

Such recovery charges, where recovery becomes necessary, have long been recoverable by a debtor, subject of course to reasonableness.

That maybe the case for non related issues not applicable to parking tickets, the Supreme court made this very clear that the ticket price includes recovery

Except the PPC is the Creditor, not the Debtor!

(A fixed sum can be charge for debt recovery costs for commercial debts, (business to business), and it's possible to claim late payment/admin charges for liquidated debts for consumers, provided it's in the contract)

I noticed that error but did not want to stoop down to their level

When you say liquidated debts, do you mean those that have be sold on to debt collectors

No, I was just talking about debts in general such as mobile phone, broadband, credit cards and even electricity companies, where the contract often allows them to add a late payment charge.

As we all know; PPC's never claim for the unpaid parking tariff or their actual losses, (which would be the liquidated debt),

Half_way

As far as i know Websites for companies that make false claims ( for commercial gain) are governed by the advertising standards agency.

 If BWL are touting for business from the public, or other organisations then any false claims on their website should be reported as such