WISE UP to the £60 add-on which is Double recovery and Abuse of Process

beamerguy

It started as Double recovery.  Judges Taylor and Grant in Southampton said Abuse of process which of course it is.  BWLegal suffered badly, as did the others who support the £60 scam.
BWLegal objected and appealed to the area judge.  This has no doubt sent shivers to judges within the area as todays case in Bristol shows
 https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6067229/lbc-received-from-bw-legal/p11

Whilst emailing Coupon-mad about this. she said she uses DOUBLE RECOVERY which the fake £60 is.
DOUBLE RECOVERY goes against the courts own ruling and must be taken seriously by the presiding judge as such fake claims actually abuses the court itself.

PLEASE add your comments as this thread is attached here
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6103933/abuse-of-process-thread-part-2/p1?new=1

bargepole

Double Recovery is nothing new, courts have disallowed that since around the reign of Henry VIII.

The question of whether a claim which includes an element of double recovery (i.e. the £60 add-on) should be struck out entirely as an abuse of process, or disallowed even where the Claimant otherwise wins the case, is something which will vary between disparate Courts and Judges

But to suggest that Double Recovery is something new which 'voids the decision made by the Area Judge (sic)' shows a naive and fundamental lack of knowledge of how the law works, and you really should not be trying to give advice to people about court procedure on this or any other forum.

Coupon-mad

Neither is a 'magic wand' phrase.    Can we NOT give it a name please?  This is unhelpful even though the intention is good.

There is no need to give it a name. 

Just say to any Judge that adding costs twice is unrecoverable and specifically unfair under the CRA 2015 (in fact the Guidance on the CRA 2015 specifically mentions unfair terms would include a term that attempts to charge the same costs twice). 

There is no need to coin a phrase for it and this confuses newbies who just shout 'abuse of process!' then wonder why the Judge says ''no'' because they don't agree, but would listen if the D simply said:

''Sir, Madam, they have added the same costs twice.  All pre-court costs (which are minimal for an automated letters model) must be already within the PCN.   As well as this being spelt out in paras 98, 193 and 198 of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] in addition, the earlier ParkingEye v Somerfield [2011] case (that people need to use more) already covered this at High Court stage, let me take you to para 419 of HHJ Hegarty's decision that was upheld by the Court of Appeal''.

Also, in the case linked (where a D sadly lost their case today because the Judge decided the signs were adequate, as she is entitled to find...if she thinks so) the Judge DID agree that the £60 was unrecoverable.  She wasn't wrong.

beamerguy

bargepole said:

Double Recovery is nothing new, courts have disallowed that since around the reign of Henry VIII.

The question of whether a claim which includes an element of double recovery (i.e. the £60 add-on) should be struck out entirely as an abuse of process, or disallowed even where the Claimant otherwise wins the case, is something which will vary between disparate Courts and Judges

But to suggest that Double Recovery is something new which 'voids the decision made by the Area Judge (sic)' shows a naive and fundamental lack of knowledge of how the law works, and you really should not be trying to give advice to people about court procedure on this or any other forum.

WHOOPS ...... I did not say it was new and indeed it was YOU who introduced Double Recovery to the forum a couple of years ago when this rubbish started. This was used until the two judges declared abuse of process.

As you come across as the guru on this forum who pops in every now and again, mostly to be rude, why don't you explain to "all those naive" people why you think the Salisbury case would still be applicable if we do not implant Abuse of Process and more so highlight Double Recovery .... what purpose will the Salisbury case serve ???  

I'm sure BWLegal would appreciate your advice to save them wasting time in another irrelevant statement.
PLEASE .... no rudeness

bargepole

You are completely missing the point here.

The ruling from the Circuit Judge (one level higher than a District Judge) at Salisbury, was to uphold the appeal, and he stated that just because a claim includes a sum which may not be recoverable, it shouldn't be struck out without a hearing to determine the facts of what the added sum actually represents.

But the appeal only applied to one of the two defendants, and the original judgment of DJ Grand in Mr Crosby's case still stands. So it could be argued both ways, and in any event it is still a County Court level judgment, which may be persuasive, but not binding, on other Judges.

So my view is that Defendants should, in their initial Defence, highlight the fact that the £60 add-on represents an attempt at double recovery, which may be considered an abuse of process, and invite the Court to strike out the claim ab initio for that reason. 

If the Judge who does the initial allocation and directions does strike out the entire claim, all well and good. If they don't strike it out, and it proceeds along the track to the WS and hearing stage, the next Judge who hears the case is unlikely to dismiss the claim solely for that reason. Most Judges will not allow the £60 even if the Claimant wins, but the Defendant will need to have additional solid defence points to argue concerning the core £100 charge.

As for being rude, I have a coffee mug bought as a present by my kids, which says 'I'm not always rude and sarcastic, sometimes I'm asleep'. I prefer to think I just tell it like it is. If people don't like that, it's their problem, not mine.

beamerguy

That's much better David.  And as you and I are both saying .....
So my view is that Defendants should, in their initial Defence, highlight the fact that the £60 add-on represents an attempt at double recovery, which may be considered an abuse of process, and invite the Court to strike out the claim ab initio for that reason. 

So, we are on the same page, maybe not so naive as you think.

I will however say that it will be interesting to see what Judges Taylor and Grant will do in future and indeed all the other judges in this particular area.  As coupon-mad has said, the Salisbury case is a damp squib
The Bristol case yesterday and the judge opening with the fact she had read the Salisbury case must show us something of the future mind set

By the way, you have clever kids ?

MothballsWallet

Coupon-mad said:

Neither is a 'magic wand' phrase.    Can we NOT give it a name please?  This is unhelpful even though the intention is good.

There is no need to give it a name. 

Just say to any Judge that adding costs twice is unrecoverable and specifically unfair under the CRA 2015 (in fact the Guidance on the CRA 2015 specifically mentions unfair terms would include a term that attempts to charge the same costs twice). 

There is no need to coin a phrase for it and this confuses newbies who just shout 'abuse of process!' then wonder why the Judge says ''no'' because they don't agree, but would listen if the D simply said:

''Sir, Madam, they have added the same costs twice.  All pre-court costs (which are minimal for an automated letters model) must be already within the PCN.   As well as this being spelt out in paras 98, 193 and 198 of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] in addition, the earlier ParkingEye v Somerfield [2011] case already covered this at High Court stage, let me take you to para 419 of HHJ Hegarty's decision that was upheld by the Court of Appeal''.

Also, in the case linked (where a D sadly lost their case today because the Judge decided the signs were adequate, as she is entitled to find...if she thinks so) the Judge DID agree that the £60 was unrecoverable.  She wasn't wrong.

Can we not come up with an on-forum only use phrase that is to refer to the highlighted section so it's easier to remember? But then there's the risk of people using our phrase outside the forum and shooting themselves in the foot with a blunderbuss...

Side note: I hate this new forum software, it doesn't understand that Ctrl + shift + Left Arrow means "select previous word" and Ctrl + Left Arrow means "move left by 1 word" and so on. Who wrote their keyboard handler?

beamerguy

This has been taken out of context ....... It is not about a new name, it is changing from the cry of Abuse of Process to Double Recovery just as Bargepole said earlier ....

So my view is that Defendants should, in their initial Defence, highlight the fact that the £60 add-on represents an attempt at double recovery, which may be considered an abuse of process, and invite the Court to strike out the claim ab initio for that reason. 

IE: We change from Abuse of process to Double recovery.  

bargepole

beamerguy said:

IE: We change from Abuse of process to Double recovery.  

To be pedantic (which you have to be in legal submissions) it is not either one or the other, it is both.

Claiming a sum which represents double recovery, is one example of an abuse of process.

There are other examples, such as trying to re-issue a claim which has previously been determined at trial, or making a claim for a matter which is outside the jurisdiction of the County Court, and so on.

beamerguy

bargepole said:

beamerguy said:

IE: We change from Abuse of process to Double recovery.  

To be pedantic (which you have to be in legal submissions) it is not either one or the other, it is both.

Claiming a sum which represents double recovery, is one example of an abuse of process.

There are other examples, such as trying to re-issue a claim which has previously been determined at trial, or making a claim for a matter which is outside the jurisdiction of the County Court, and so on.

I think we agree with your comment ..... this deals with both
So my view is that Defendants should, in their initial Defence, highlight the fact that the £60 add-on represents an attempt at double recovery, which may be considered an abuse of process, and invite the Court to strike out the claim ab initio for that reason. 

Coupon-mad

Yes, but let's not give it a name.  For example, a defence point about signage doesn't have a name. Nor should the point that David has suggested. 

The reason I keep banging on about the Somerfield case is, that High Court decision actually says in black & white, that parking firms can't add £60. If more people used para 419 of Somerfield we'd be getting somewhere.  To be fair, we already are because we almost never see a Judge allowing the added 'fake double recovery costs' now.