Abuse of Process - BW LEGAL win Appeal against strike out

DoaM

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).

beamerguy

YES,  a statement of desperation and it's sad that BWL are in denial that all the problems they mention were caused and created by themselves. A bull in a china shop crashing through everything, can only result in the bull being destroyed,

Snakes_Belly

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).

My understanding is that they are not authorised by the FCA or there would be some recourse. I have not seen any references to the FCA on paperwork from DRP or Zenith.

If they were authorised claims could be disputed where there is a valid reason for doing so. This could apply in certain circumstances. 

Some collection agents are authorised as I have disputed a claim from a energy company in the past and they immediately referred the claim back to the energy company. I then went to the Ombudsman and was compensated.   

The agents that the PPC's use appear not to be authorised which is not surprising. I have mentioned this in my letter to my MP regarding the CoP.

As we know the whole industry and bottom feeders are a law unto themselves. We must make sure that the new CoP is robust and cleans up the whole grubby business.

Snakes_Belly

The £60.00 add on is a result of letting the PPC's self regulate.  This has allowed them to run roughshod over the motorist. The whole industry needs to be regulated by independent regulators. 

Castle

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").

Le_Kirk

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").

Whoever they are paying for their admin that they buy from their £60 is not doing a very good job then!

beamerguy

The joke of this is that BW started the fake £60, the others followed on like Lemmings and thought this was a good way to extort more money.  Now those Lemmings are suffering all because they followed the leader.  Those Lemmings are failing as well because of BWLegal

Castle

Le_Kirk 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").

Whoever they are paying for their admin that they buy from their £60 is not doing a very good job then!

I have also seen their letters in which they claim the £60 is called "debt collection costs" on page 1 and on page 2 the same £60 is then referred to as "legal costs."

beamerguy

Castle said:

Le_Kirk 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").

Whoever they are paying for their admin that they buy from their £60 is not doing a very good job then!

I have also seen their letters in which they claim the £60 is called "debt collection costs" on page 1 and on page 2 the same £60 is then referred to as "legal costs."

I have seen a lot of those ?  And BWLegal wonder why they crash in court 
Their incompetence never ceases to amaze me

Snakes_Belly

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.