IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.

Abuse of Process ... District Judge tells BWLegal

Options
beamerguy
beamerguy Posts: 17,587 Forumite
First Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
edited 26 June 2020 at 6:56PM in Parking tickets, fines & parking
ABUSE OF PROCESS THREAD PART 2 can be seen here
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6103933/abuse-of-process-thread-part-2/p1?new=1
Abuse of Process ... District Judge tells BWLegal. Scroll down to the Southampton case

GLADSTONES / HORIZON . V daniellog Case dismissed for Abuse of Process
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6057026/court-claim-form-horizon-parking/p1
Gladstones did not even pick up the BT Meet call from the court.
And Gladstones was the legal Horizon chose ???? OH DEAR HORIZON ??
York County Court District Judge Mark

Gladstones told by Judge .... added £60 NOT LAWFUL
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=76692888#post76692888

GLADSTONES: .... The rep sent by Gladstones admitted to the judge that the fake add-ons WERE FALSE This is now what any case can turn on if the FALSE add-ons are applied
POST # 64
Hertford county court
CASE NUMBER F1GF9J4G
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=76756261&posted=1#post76756261
========================================
UPDATE: 6/01/2020
Amis95 was in court against UKCPM, brought by Gladstones with a "wet behind the ears" rep.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=6017649&page=4
The judge said the £60 in not lawful and claimant rep said they no longer are seeking it (so only the £100). ???
GLADSTONES CAUGHT OUT IN COURT AGAIN
========================================
UPDATE: BWLegal appealed the ruling of Judge Taylor on the 11th Nov 2019 in Southampton court.
The was heard by DJ Grand and present was coupon-mad and the claimant sent a Barrister who failed.
BWLEGAL/BRITANNIA LOST. For the full court report by coupon-mad click this link
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=6006850&page=4 .... POST # 79
Coupon-mad has now updated post #14 on this thread. READ IT FOR YOUR WS
=========================================
BWLegal spanked in Warwick for ABUSE OF PROCESS
Deputy District Judge Josephs
CLAIM NUMBER: F5DP2D6Y dated 6th Dec 2019
CLAIM STRUCK OUT: REASON: ABUSE OF PROCESS
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=6079858
See the actual court judgement in post #20
=========================================
UPDATE REGARDING DCBL (Direct Collection Bailiffs)
If you have received a letter from these people, please carefully
read this thread
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=76631816#post76631816
=========================================

THIS THREAD APPLIES TO EVERY LEGAL OR PPC WHO ADDS ON A FAKE £60

ABUSE OF PROCESS

In a very recent case, District Judge Taylor, dismissed a case from BWLegal that included a false amount of £60

You can read about this case here
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=75917866&posted=1#post75917866
POST #10

Claim number is F0DP201T District Judge Taylor
Southampton Court, 10th June 2019

IT IS ORDERED THAT
The claim is struck out as an abuse of process

"The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the defendant contracted to pay, This additional charge is not recoverable under the protection of freedoms act 2012, Schedule 4 not with reference to the judgement in parking eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover,

This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the civil procedure rules 1998 "

Whilst this does not set a precedence in a county court and each judge is entitled to make their own decision, EVERY judge should be invited to read this case decided by a District Judge

By quoting "Claim number is F0DP201T District Judge Taylor
Southampton Court, 10th June 2019, any judge throughout England and Wales will be able to locate the case via the court's internal system

Abuse of Process should be highlighted in any witness statement

This applies to all legals and parking companies. The more these legals attempt ABUSE OF PROCESS, the more we will invite judges to read

PLEASE READ POST #14 ON THIS THREAD BY COUPON-MAD

It is vital that a judge fully understands about ABUSE OF PROCESS

Also read the Jonnersh post on this thread # 36 regarding
"statement of truth"

BWLegal took no notice of DJ TAYLOR and got whooped again for ABUSE OF PROCESS. This time it was DJ Grand on the IOW

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=6017640

Toddygirl ... post #33 AND post #47

======================================
And as ABBA says ...... "Here we go again"

Another BWLegal/Britannia case in Southampton kicked out
for ABUSE OF PROCESS
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=76038300&posted=1#post76038300

Case # F0DP163T Judge was DJ Grand, Southampton Court
======================================
The Judges above refer to POFA2012. Some claimants such
as EXCEL/VCS say they do not rely on POFA2012 ?
If so, the courts do not allow double recovery, same thing.

In addition to the 'parking charge', the Claimant has artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding costs of £60 which has not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery. >>>> thanks to bargepole
======================================
4th September 2019
VCS CASE STRUCK OUT FOR ABUSE OF PROCESS
https://www.dropbox.com/s/gexc6psfmi8y6d8/VCS Claim Struck Out - Abuse of Process.jpg?dl=0&m=
======================================
27th September 2019
BWLegal claim struck out with the judge saying ....
"this court is now systematically strikes out claims for those costs" and also said to rep to refer back to the instructors if they wanted to appeal this decision that
"this is the position its going continue to be adopted" ???

Southampton Court
Judge Giddins
claim numbers: F4DP5264 & F4DP5279
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5932249
======================================
Coupon-mad pointed out recently what the Supreme Court stated

198. ''...The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme...''
Thanks to coupon-mad

That level is now £100 and the Supreme court deemed it includes costs of recovery ... not a penny more
=======================================
POFA2012 says clearly

(5)The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper
=======================================
Wondering what's happened to the new code of practice 2019
which is delayed ?????? It seems one MP is the problem
Luke Hall MP ... said government was still 'considering the options for delivery of the Code.'
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=6065482
========================================
Please read the Guardian article posted by Brown Trout
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=6065869
BWLEGAL EXPOSED
========================================
If BWLegal claim a fake £60, complain to the SRA
https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems.page
========================================
GLADSTONES .... EXORBITANT CHARGES Case dismissed
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=76533511#post76533511
========================================
QDR (Part of Wright Hassall solicitors) spanked in Warwick court
for ABUSE OF PROCESS
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=6029649&page=4
========================================
The excuses given for adding the fake £60 ..
* contractual charge
* admin costs
* debt collector costs
* legal fees
* The CoP of each ATA says they can do it.
ALL OF WHICH IS RUBBISH
Claiming they are allowed to by the ATA's code of practice ?
Neither you or the judge can be bound by a CoP as it is only for
members of each ATA
READ HOW THE BPA AND IPC entice their members to break the
law
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=6083229
========================================
IS THE FAKE £60 OPERATED BY AN ILLEGAL CARTEL ??
Illegal Cartels ... you could get £100k by reporting them
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=6086114
========================================
£511.60 in costs awarded for unreasonable behaviour by VCS
Court: Derby
Judge: DJ Stringer

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=6021367&page=3
========================================
PREVIOUS BWLEGAL FAILURES
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5672664
========================================
ishotthesheriff .....I used guidance in this forum to successfully defend a claim from Britannia Parking / BW Legal in court
BW Legal *genuinely* are a shambles ... read about this win here
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=76742517#post76742517
Worcester County Court
District Judge Gibson
F0DP2W79
========================================
IS THIS PLAIN STUPIDITY OR COMPLETE INCOMPETENCE ?
On friday 10th January, BWLegal/Britannia presented two cases, one in Reading and the other in Oxford.
The themes were the same whereby BWLegal claimed on behalf of Britannia Parking Group Ltd but the contract to operate on the site was signed by Britannia Parking Services Ltd. This is a separate entity with it's own company number as seen here ..

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/RHPBpZJHOsN21zDn5VXHggkxTLo/appointments

BWLegal submitted a claim from the wrong entity and duly signed this as a statement of truth ???
In the Reading case, in their witness statement, BWLegal provided a copy of the contract with the landowner which stated Britannia Parking Services Ltd. The NTK showed Britannia Parking Group Ltd

Both judges fully understood this and both claims were dismissed

OXFORD CASE PST # 87
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=76747116&posted=1#post76747116

READING CASE POST # 49
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=6008854&highlight=icicle&page=3

The BPA can also be called into question. They are supposed to monitor their members sites. CLEARLY THIS IS NOT TRUE
====================================

RESIDENTIAL CASE ..... VCS LOST
VCS passed the case to DCBL who in turn passed it to Elms Legal who sent their rep to court
A DISASTER FOR ELMS LEGAL

Sheffield County Court, 2pm, 28/01/20 Judge Heppell
Full report in POST # 110 here
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=76779349#post76779349
====================================
CALLING A WITNESS TO SUPPORT YOUR CASE ..
Posted by Brown Trout
Witness Summons in the County Court
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=6099468
«134567…31

Comments

  • The_Deep
    The_Deep Posts: 16,830 Forumite
    Options
    Someone should bring this to the attention of the SRA.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
  • beamerguy
    beamerguy Posts: 17,587 Forumite
    First Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    Options
    going up to the top
  • Snakes_Belly
    Snakes_Belly Posts: 3,696 Forumite
    First Anniversary Photogenic First Post Name Dropper
    Options
    Thanks Beamer for posting this.

    As you are aware I am waiting to see if the PPC appeal against the judgment in my case. They have not much longer now. I had included this in my defence however the judge went down the contract route.

    Nolite te bast--des carborundorum.
  • beamerguy
    beamerguy Posts: 17,587 Forumite
    First Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    Options
    Snakes_Belly wrote: »
    Thanks Beamer for posting this.

    As you are aware I am waiting to see if the PPC appeal against the judgment in my case. They have not much longer now. I had included this in my defence however the judge went down the contract route.

    In your case, I think we all agreed that you had a smart judge and I still laugh that he awarded them £3.00

    Even if they are stupid enough to appeal, that would cost them money they can never reclaim. As you know, I have been using Bargepole's superb comments on double recovery and will continue to do so. Now we have a District judge reaching the same conclusion and to his fellow judges around E&W, he is one to be listened to.

    If the legal attempts to attack you again, you can use this.

    The main aim now for all those going through the same is to ensure that the prevailing judge knows of the decision of District Judge Taylor. It could well mean that in future these dodgy legals will not add on a scam £60 in fear that the case is kicked out without a hearing.

    ABUSE OF PROCESS must now be the keyword and placed right at the top of any witness statement.
    Either these dodgy legals knuckle down and remove the scam element to their claim or they face a similar punishment up and down the country which I believe will start happening.

    Maybe our scottish friends on here could advise how they see this operating in Scotland and indeed N.Ireland
  • Snakes_Belly
    Snakes_Belly Posts: 3,696 Forumite
    First Anniversary Photogenic First Post Name Dropper
    Options
    beamerguy wrote: »
    In your case, I think we all agreed that you had a smart judge and I still laugh that he awarded them £3.00

    Even if they are stupid enough to appeal, that would cost them money they can never reclaim. As you know, I have been using Bargepole's superb comments on double recovery and will continue to do so. Now we have a District judge reaching the same conclusion and to his fellow judges around E&W, he is one to be listened to.

    If the legal attempts to attack you again, you can use this.

    The main aim now for all those going through the same is to ensure that the prevailing judge knows of the decision of District Judge Taylor. It could well mean that in future these dodgy legals will not add on a scam £60 in fear that the case is kicked out without a hearing.

    ABUSE OF PROCESS must now be the keyword and placed right at the top of any witness statement.
    Either these dodgy legals knuckle down and remove the scam element to their claim or they face a similar punishment up and down the country which I believe will start happening.

    Maybe our scottish friends on here could advise how they see this operating in Scotland and indeed N.Ireland

    I don't think that SRS would have been very happy with that decision. Strange because all I could think about when the judge gave the judgment was a book that I had read some years ago called QB7. It's a defamation case taken out against an author. If you have not read it it's worth a read.

    Nolite te bast--des carborundorum.
  • beamerguy
    beamerguy Posts: 17,587 Forumite
    First Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    Options
    Snakes_Belly wrote: »
    I don't think that SRS would have been very happy with that decision. Strange because all I could think about when the judge gave the judgment was a book that I had read some years ago called QB7. It's a defamation case taken out against an author. If you have not read it it's worth a read.

    No doubt SRS is not happy, who cares, but will he risk getting a reputation in court for ABUSE OF PROCESS ?
  • Snakes_Belly
    Snakes_Belly Posts: 3,696 Forumite
    First Anniversary Photogenic First Post Name Dropper
    Options
    beamerguy wrote: »
    No doubt SRS is not happy, who cares, but will he risk getting a reputation in court for ABUSE OF PROCESS ?

    This could turn into another PPI.

    Nolite te bast--des carborundorum.
  • The_Slithy_Tove
    The_Slithy_Tove Posts: 4,024 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Options
    Not sure what the bit
    nor with reference to the judgement in Parking Eye v Beavis
    means. Is it saying that Beavis is irrelevant whatever in cases of over-inflating the claim? Of that if you reference it, it makes some kind of difference? I thought that POFA simply (ha!) means that ONLY the parking charge is recoverable, plus a couple of additional costs (court fees) and nothing else.
  • beamerguy
    beamerguy Posts: 17,587 Forumite
    First Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    Options
    Snakes_Belly wrote: »
    This could turn into another PPI.

    I see no reason why not.

    Maybe Martin Lewis should review this as he zapped the banks with charges and PPI
  • BrownTrout
    BrownTrout Posts: 2,298 Forumite
    First Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    Options
    I think we have to be careful this is only a county court decision and many many other judges will simply disagree with this. Although a lot of courts find the £60 is not recoverable.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.1K Life & Family
  • 247.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards