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

Umkomaas

To be fair, we already are because we almost never see a Judge allowing the added 'fake double recovery costs' now.

Which is good news for defended cases. But for judgments in default there is nothing to sift it out, and I guess PPCs aren't that fussed about having it disallowed in defended cases, as they know they're going to get it every time for those not defended. It's but just another strand of their venal business model. 

Coupon-mad

Let's hope the new CoP tackles this.

Snakes_Belly

For the people that don't pay or can't afford to pay it will appear as a greatly inflated CCJ. If the debt is enforced by bailiffs even more is added on and this could be just the result of a small overstay.

beamerguy

Coupon-mad said:

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.

Yes the High court reference in the Somerfield case must be used.  For those, especially newbies who do not understand this, you can read here
http://nebula.wsimg.com/e1ece9988ce281a5154163aecbf09e49?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

Para 419 clearly states .... Applying the formula adopted by Colman J. in the Lordsvale case, therefore, the additional £60 would appear to be penal in nature; and it is well established that, in those circumstances, it cannot be recovered.

This is the wording of the High Court which sets a precedence for the lower County Court to follow

As people read the ABUSE OF PROCESS THREAD, this thread is linked to ....
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6103933/abuse-of-process-thread-part-2/p1?new=1

DoaM

Snakes_Belly said:

For the people that don't pay or can't afford to pay it will appear as a greatly inflated CCJ. If the debt is enforced by bailiffs even more is added on and this could be just the result of a small overstay.

Would this be treble recovery?


Lights blue touch paper and sidles away  

Snakes_Belly

DoaM said:

Snakes_Belly said:

For the people that don't pay or can't afford to pay it will appear as a greatly inflated CCJ. If the debt is enforced by bailiffs even more is added on and this could be just the result of a small overstay.

Would this be treble recovery?


Lights blue touch paper and sidles away  

I wonder if the fake add on's are disallowed in claims that are undefended? I doubt it.  

If the Claimant applies to the High Court for enforcement of the debt then there are further charges.

If the debtor has not the money to pay the debt or raise the money from anywhere then the bailiffs start removing goods and there is a further cost for this. These goods are basically sold off at fire sale values not their true worth.

It's an awful situation that people find themselves in and it does sometimes happen as a result of parking claims. Younger people often ignore these and think that they will go away.  

Umkomaas

I wonder if the fake add on's are disallowed in claims that are undefended? I doubt it.  

No, they're not removed. The judgments in default process is an automatic one. It's part of the PPC business model, add it in every case and if it's removed in a small number of defended cases, so be it, the bigger prize rests in defaults. Until the Southampton and other whole claim strike-outs, there has been no deterrent for PPCs to risk!

DoaM

Snakes_Belly said:

If the Claimant applies to the High Court for enforcement of the debt then there are further charges.

If the debtor has not the money to pay the debt or raise the money from anywhere then the bailiffs start removing goods and there is a further cost for this. These goods are basically sold off at fire sale values not their true worth.

If the debt has been raised to HC enforcement then:

1. It must have originally been for £600+, so will have been for multiple tickets (minimum 3, more likely 4+)
2. It wouldn't be bailiffs doing the enforcement, it would be High Court Enforcement Officers. (Who may work for a Bailiff company and carry out both tasks, but they have very different rights of entry and seizure depending on which hat they're wearing).

 

Snakes_Belly

"It must have originally been for £600+, so will have been for multiple tickets (minimum 3, more likely 4+)"

We do see multiples on this forum. I have seen these High Court Enforcement Officers in operation on a TV programme. The costs are horrendous. I did not think that they could take away a person's ability to work such as a van but it appears that they can. 

D_P_Dance

 I did not think that they could take away a person's ability to work such as a van but it appears that they can. 

If they have no other assets to pay the debt, I think that this is reasonable.  Not payment could result in the claimant going out of business.