Letter Of Claim from BW Legal / Premier Park

thecoat

beamerguy said:

Yes they are claiming £100 principle debt, £60 debt recovery costs (they also call this 'initial legal costs'),

can you show us the letter, redacting your personal info

Here's the letter thanks

thecoat

D_P_Dance said:

So they are claiming both legal costs asd solicitors costs.  They surely must know that this is double recovery and not allowed.

I would ask them to explain and then copy the correspondence to the SRA.

https://www.sra.org.uk/

.   

Thanks - I will do that !

beamerguy

As D_P_Dance  says above that is double recovery

THEY SAY...
Principal debt + initial legal costs £160 ?
That is an attempt of double recovery and against the courts ruling.
IT'S NOT ALLOWED ...... BWLegal are abusing the court and you

Wonder which one of their bods thought they could get away with this ?

Coupon-mad

We really do need to stop concentrating on this as if it's something new.  Such a waste of time. The standard defence covers it and we don't need to look at letters.  The fact they add £60 and that Judges are not allowing it, is well known and a waste of time to keep discussing and encouraging yet more questions about it.

beamerguy

Coupon-mad said:

We really do need to stop concentrating on this as if it's something new.  Such a waste of time. The standard defence covers it and we don't need to look at letters.  The fact they add £60 and that Judges are not allowing it, is well known and a waste of time to keep discussing and encouraging yet more questions about it.

And there is the answer ... it is new to a newbie
I asked for a copy of the letter to see what they said
"Principal debt + initial legal costs £160 ?"

Yes the judges may well kick out the fake £60, a newbie really does not know this as we see time after time,  I do not consider I am wasting my time if it helps a newbie fully understand, especially when the BWLegal rubbish comes into play

Coupon-mad

We don't need to ask.  I am fed up with reading it.  Newbies think it's important to answer and avidly wait for more answers.  This is so unimportant in the scheme of a defence.  It is obvious they've added £60 and such an unimportant question it's driving me mad on MSE to keep reading the question, forget it please!

beamerguy

Coupon-mad said:

We don't need to ask.  I am fed up with reading it.  Newbies think it's important to answer and avidly wait for more answers.  This is so unimportant in the scheme of a defence.  It is obvious they've added £60 and such an unimportant question it's driving me mad on MSE to keep reading the question, forget it please!

Then we must agree to disagree

D_P_Dance

, a newbie really does not know this 

But a newbie can find this out by a quick search of the internet.  We are asked far far too many questions, the answer to which can be answered by OPs by doing a modicum of reseaech themeslves, they just cannot be bothered.

beamerguy

D_P_Dance said:

, a newbie really does not know this 

But a newbie can find this out by a quick search of the internet.  We are asked far far too many questions, the answer to which can be answered by OPs by doing a modicum of reseaech themeslves, they just cannot be bothered.

And that's the problem, most don't do it so we are left with numerous questions which is probably more timewasting for us to explain.  

In the case on this thread, you made a comment about the double recovery and the OP referred to debt collection and legal costs.   So what was it, as it happens BWL seeing the letter, they changed their normal debt recovery to initial legal costs. Proving how stupid they are and the OP should know this and we have the threads to help.
Yes, they should read the newbies thread, yes they should search ..... they don't
And whilst the fake £60 may not persuade a judge to dismiss the case, there is every chance it will. Maybe just dismissing the fake add-on.  

D_P_Dance

Yes, they should read the newbies thread, yes they should search ..... they don't

Beamer, you may well be able to tolerate stupidity more than I.  As a Consul, having to get people out of foreign jails, dealing with uninsured travellers in the USA, deal with relatives when druggies have overdosed in foreign parts, etc., my tolerance for such behaviour has eroded.