Letter of Claim Received

Coupon-mad

I feel that the ‘legals’ are the real brutes behind the whole operation- any suggestions on how to reign them in?

I agree. In general, IMHO the biggest problem is not the parking firms.

It really is very simple.

The added false £70 feeds the likes of BW Legal and directly causes the toxic 'race to court' mentality that ruins people's lives and causes CCJs.

Ban that extortion (Minister's word) and the roboclaim parasites fall away.

This is what everyone must say in your replies to the upcoming Public consultation, IMHO.

In one fell swoop, by banning the extortionate spiralling fake 'fees', the DLUHC can easily halve the number of court claims and CCJs. Maybe even better than that. The positive effect will be huge and PPCs will find that (by contacting them directly and not inflating the quantum) most PCNs will be paid by consumers without involving the likes of the various 'barely legals'.

If the DLUHC get this wrong, the roboclaim gits will have a feeding frenzy going back six years (roping in all those PPCs who rarely sue people) and the courts won't know what hit them. Potentially there are millions of cases that will be put on a conveyor belt to court, with no way for consumers to argue against the false fees any more. 

And ParkingEye will be handed £70 million extra per annum for no reason at all.

We cannot let that happen.

wobs2k

Absolutely! Let’s break the cycle. 

I’m no lawyer but BWLegal’s modus operandi really undermines faith in the profession. The idea that they could say that because I don’t have knowledge of this area, adapting templates from those that do constitutes a false statement is completely unethical. It’s a shame the legal profession hasn’t eliminated such forms from with. 

Anyway, thanks again and I look forward (with baited breath) to the consultation. 

Umkomaas

I tried to argue that for 4mins it was disproportionate but she didn’t buy it. 

She couldn't 'buy' it, she is obliged to follow the decision of The Supreme Court who decided in their wisdom in the ParkingEye v Barry Beavis case that the amount was not 'disproportionate'. She had no option to agree with your proposition. 

wobs2k

True, she was bound. 

It it bloody well is disproportionate though isn’t it?! 

Hopefully any new legislation will bring some common back. 

Coupon-mad

wobs2k said:

True, she was bound. 

It it bloody well is disproportionate though isn’t it?! 

Hopefully any new legislation will bring some common back. 

And you will have a say on exactly that.

The legislation is already in place with just an Impact Assessment and Public Consultation to be done.