Abuse of Process - BW LEGAL win Appeal against strike out

g0wfv

What does this mean for those of us still waiting to go to court (in a few weeks!) that have used Abuse of Process as part of the defence?

How do I go forward when the PPC's advocate inevitably brings up this case?  What do I say in response?

Shall I ask this question in my thread and continue the conversation there?

#Confused

beamerguy

g0wfv said:

What does this mean for those of us still waiting to go to court (in a few weeks!) that have used Abuse of Process as part of the defence?

How do I go forward when the PPC's advocate inevitably brings up this case?  What do I say in response?

Shall I ask this question in my thread and continue the conversation there?

#Confused

Best to keep in your current thread.
In your claim, how have BWL described the fake £60 ? ..... answer on your thread please

Umkomaas

g0wfv said:

What does this mean for those of us still waiting to go to court (in a few weeks!) that have used Abuse of Process as part of the defence?

How do I go forward when the PPC's advocate inevitably brings up this case?  What do I say in response?

Shall I ask this question in my thread and continue the conversation there?

#Confused

Keep reading all cases nearing the court stage where BWL are involved - as we do. It's the only way to keep up to speed.  Knowledge is power.  This is new territory for us and could be fast moving. We don't have immediate silver bullets for every new scenario that blows up in our face. We have to do a lot of work to be in a position to gain any advantage. Please don't sit back and hope we'll formulate a one-liner to throw at a BWL rent-a-mouth to stop him/her in their tracks on this.  It just don't happen compadre!

Coupon-mad

This appeal judgment doesn't make any finding on adding £60.  It is a damp squib.

beamerguy

Coupon-mad said:

This appeal judgment doesn't make any finding on adding £60.  It is a damp squib.

I agree, BWLegal still have to prove their authority to add the fake £60.
In the past BWL have tried many ways to substantiate the fake, none have worked and they are now stuck with the "code of practice" which is meaningless to the motorist and carries no weight and is just a feeble attempt by the BPA and IPC to extort more money from the motorist.

BWL started this and we will finish it. In the meantime BWL will throw a lot of money at this damp squib and they are quickly heading towards being another Wonga

Snakes_Belly

Code of Practice is not worth the paper it's written on. It's recommended practice not law. 

This case that is going back to district court is a weird one. 

I have emailed my MP and RJ.  My background is financial so my focus is on the lack of regulation of the debt collection agents. I feel more confident arguing the financial aspects. If they were regulated it would see them off as many claims would qualify as disputed.  They would also have to take much more care with vulnerable people.

Have also attached copies of my LBC which clearly shows the figure of £60.00 as debt collection charges, letter from DRP (the one that says if you don't pay you could end up on "don't pay we'll take it away" !) and the copy of their web page which says that DRP work on a "no collection no fee " basis.    


 

beamerguy

Thanks for doing that Mr Snake. Of course the PPC's don't pay debt collectors, it's all part of the "share system" and the "extortion racket" 

And the BPA and IPC support the fake scam and even suggest it.   ??

Umkomaas

beamerguy said:

Thanks for doing that Mr Snake. Of course the PPC's don't pay debt collectors, it's all part of the "share system" and the "extortion racket" 

And the BPA and IPC support the fake scam and even suggest it.   ??

Miss/Mrs/Ms Snake. 🐍 I told you that here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/77302332#Comment_77302332

Memory fade? 😉

beamerguy

Umkomaas said:

beamerguy said:

Thanks for doing that Mr Snake. Of course the PPC's don't pay debt collectors, it's all part of the "share system" and the "extortion racket" 

And the BPA and IPC support the fake scam and even suggest it.   ??

Miss/Mrs/Ms Snake. 🐍 I told you that here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/77302332#Comment_77302332

Memory fade? 😉

Never saw that Headmaster, it's just Snake from now on

pauldev

Having read their statement  despite no legal training i can read their desperation.
And oh the irony in 2 following paragraphs.
The irony of it all is that since BW Legal entered the private parking sector, we have suffered constant abuse from some customers, campaigns to leave poor reviews about our firm on Google, Trust Pilot, unsubstantiated complaints, media enquiries, complaints made to the SRA, FCA (despite not falling within the FCA’s remit), memberships like the CSA, all incited by various consumer forum groups, simply to obfuscate a legitimate process.

Next paragraph
We have never spoken out about all the abuse we have received and we have always engaged with our regulators to assist them in understanding the sector, however, we felt it was important to share our insight and experience with a view of setting the standards for best practice in the industry. Ultimately, as a firm regulated by both the SRA and FCA, 
Says it all really,