Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


1 Neutral

1 Follower

  1. why would anyone advertise the name of a person who helps them ?? The moment the names are revealed it all stops. As for posting, I agree it is now upto the OP to next update with the correct version of events and make necessary modifications to posts and title where appropiate as anything else is pure speculation and takes us no further forward so its prob best to end conversation here and let the OP be the next poster.
  2. I would suggest the OP checks his facts or in fact if lamma is correct a quick call to the court and ask them what the order stated will clear all this up. I would expect that once the OP has the real facts he will openly state he was wrong and confirm what I said 2 days ago thus being the original particulars if claim were to be removed/struck off as the judge felt they were not enough and new ones filed within 14days This I undestsnd has been done so the case continues .. No change / no progress / its a non event Over to the OP to confirm
  3. like most things, there is a world of difference between reading (which I am sure lamma has) and understanding .. You are incorrect in your understanding but thats todays task for you
  4. It has long been known that forums have insiders who regularly assist with supplying of ip and other details. It is also a fact that some long standing members who are very vocal and seem to be against parking are in fact from ppcs themselves and do an excellent job of obtaining information...
  5. caryl, it is not appropiate for you to discuss or disclose details of an ongoing case in a public forum I understand your comments have been printed but you should refrain from discussing a case or its specific particulars in public.
  6. Sorry I have not been active been busy Nevertheless, my information is a part 16 amended claim has today been submitted and served on the parties concerned I understand this thread has been printed and retained. It would now be totally unappropiate to discuss an ongoing claim so all parties should refrain from making comment. I an sure the defendant or his legal adviser will confirm such when they get tomorrows post
  7. You onviously have not read or understood what has happened In essence the case has been adjourned as the judge wanted a different version of the claim submitted .. So why would anyone (claimant or defendant) have egg on their faces ???
  8. the full picture had been stated.. Within 14 days they need to submit a revised particulars of claim in accordance with part 16. It will then be given a hearing date/time Note to site mods, you may wish to review the posts and title of thread as it is clear the statement is untrue and you have a legal obligation to correct anything that is not correct.
  9. I take the delay (rather unsual) ... as the members are looking through the CPR and will update once they have investigated and come back with their incorrect assumptions.
  10. Sorry to wee on your bonfire PPC Buster !!! I am NOT a CPS employee .... If you search google for other consumer forums you will see a full thread of this... and you will see who the observers were also
  11. How did you (as you have only been a member for a few days) get a discussion with stethomas ??
  12. My understanding is .. When a claim is raised under the Money Claim Online Service, it takes on Part 7e of the CPR in England. Under Part 7e... there are certain guidelines that state (under 5.2 and 5.3) : 5.2 The particulars of claim – (1)must be included in the online claim form and may not be filed separately; and (2)must be limited in size to not more than 1080 characters (including spaces). 5.3 Paragraph 7.3 of the practice direction supplementing Part 16 (statements of case), which requires documents to be filed with the particulars of claim in contract claims, does not apply to claims started using an online claim form. So within the limitations of the CPR, a more comprehensive particulars of claim could not have been possible. Part 16, is a FULL particullars of claim with the statements of case, something that 7e EXPLICITALLY states does not apply. Now if the Judge does not know this ... then he is an arse ... which clearly he was - The whole point of a particulars of claim is to list it .. the hearing should hear the evidence. The order from my information was the original particulars be struck out and a claim compliant with Part 16 be submitted within 14days - now this technically goes against the original part 7e order .. but I am sure will be submitted anyway. The fact the person and his 'legaladviser' is posting such false information is very concerning. I would add to site mods, you are technically allowing a false court judgement post/thread so in order to protect the site .. it may be adviseable to get the real facts from the court and prevent any further damage. I do understand that reporters from the Oldham Chronicle were there, so that may be a goodstarting point .. or even phone the court with the info (case numbers/name supplied by his "legaladviser" and they will advise you of the real order)
  13. My understanding from one of the 3 observers that were there is the judge did not undestsnd part 7e of the CPR and therefore part 16 rules of cpr did not apply to claims brought under part 7e (money claim online) My contact states the order, by the judge who obviously felt intimidated by the witnesses and press attention ordered a part 16 particulars of claim in 14 days Far from struck out, the judge was obvioulsy an arse and did not understand part 7e of the very rules he us supposed to adbide by. Be careful legaladviser .. Sorry geronimonan, slip of keyboard but wait to see the order before posting ...
  14. you are right lamma, a carpark that invites general parking but you overstay would be difficult to class as trespass but a car park that specifically states sonething like ptmit holders for xxx and you go on there most certainly is trespass
  15. hobbie, unwanted person is a trespass. Parking where you are not supposed to is trespass Advising or condoning people doing it is encourging trespass. In Scotland our trespass laws are different, well non existent I will try and find a long post on here to copy without reading and understanding like you have then maybe you will be happy. One other mistake by you ., I called courtel communications today and oldham does not send them any lists for any cases. [EDIT] Please refrain from insulting other users.
  • Create New...