Abuse of Process - BW LEGAL win Appeal against strike out

MothballsWallet

beamerguy said:

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

I've saved a copy of the whole page as a PDF on my hard drive (PDF preserves the formatting better than HTML, which is dependent on your web browser's interpretation of the page layout tags).

Coupon-mad

Can you pm it to me, MothballsWallet?

beamerguy

MothballsWallet said:

beamerguy said:

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

I've saved a copy of the whole page as a PDF on my hard drive (PDF preserves the formatting better than HTML, which is dependent on your web browser's interpretation of the page layout tags).

Thanks.  It might well be used when they attempt to defend Abuse of Process and the interpretation of what the QC said

waamo

Here is a transcript of the judgement. The interpretation in the article by BW legal is interesting to say the least https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/Misc/2020/12.html&query=(Britannia)+AND+(Parking)+AND+(Group)+AND+(Ltd)+AND+(v)+AND+(Matthew)+AND+(Semark-Jullien)

KeithP

Thanks for that Waamo.

And here is exactly the same thing in an arguably easier to read format...

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2020/12.pdf

Johnersh

The amusing thing about the article is that most ppcs use advocates who aren't fully qualified - pot & kettle springs to mind.

With the number of strike outs made out of Southampton an appeal was inevitable at some point. A strike out without hearing from the party concerned is always vulnerable

The judgment preserves the right to claim recovery costs (which must be right) but specifically stopped short of expressing a view on them. Where (a) no money has been spent and the debt never recovered its not an actual cost and (b) most signs don't have a liquidated damages clause, so it's still fair game.

As ever the biggest issue here can be defendants throwing the kitchen sink in, without tailoring the template they adopt to their specific circumstances. 

Snakes_Belly

"The amusing thing about the article is that most ppcs use advocates who aren't fully qualified - pot & kettle springs to mind."

The advocate in my hearing had been called to the bar but had not managed to get a pupillage.  He was very ill prepared. Could have really put me on the spot if he had read my defence.  

I thought that the rationale behind the Protocol was that the Claimant was to avoid escalating the costs. Why do the PPC's need to involve debt collectors and solicitors?  I thought that anyone could make a claim through the small claims process. Why does a solicitor have to be involved to just send out standard letters?

I wonder how much people actually respond to debt collectors letters?. There may be some that get very scared at the thought of going to court. There are also many who just cannot afford to pay and will get taken to court and end up paying a small amount each month or never pay. Then there are the belligerent ones (myself included) who will not engage with debt collectors and are in it for the principle.   

I strongly consider that these claims should be recognised as disputed claims and therefore debt collection is suspended.  The only way that this could happen at present is if the debt collection companies were authorised by the FCA or that all PPC's had to use companies that were authorised  by the FCA. 

No regulation in respect of debt collection means that the vulnerable will receive these letters. There will be no checks done before these letters are sent out. This is so bad on every level and especially in the current scenario.  

Snakes_Belly

After reading the transcript I can see many PPC's where a relationship exists between the PPC's, the debt collection agent and the Solicitor will just invoice each other. No money will change hands. 

Still, there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Snakes_Belly

Protocol  states,
c) encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another (for example, avoiding running up costs which do not bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue);

We know that these are fake add on's even so 60% does not bear a reasonable relationship to the standard charge of £100.00

Johnersh

1. If the arrangement is no win/no fee then no cash has changed hands. If an invoice or quote is supplied you should always request an undertaking that it has or will be paid
2. A barrister who is yet to take a pupillage is effectively just a post grad. It is the completion of the first stage of a pupillage that provides rights of audience. Hence the pot/kettle point...