Jump to content

sailor sam

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by sailor sam

  1. Some of you may be pleased to learn that I will be leaving CAG at the end of the month (being tomorrow). This is mainly due to a "disagreement" with the admin of the site to my style of recent contribution to a thread in the public transport section. Basically I apparently broke forum rules and thus some of my posts were removed to which I took exception to and also to some comments made to me by certain site team members. Needless to say, I stand by my posts and the reasons I made them. Despite having behind the scenes discussions, the matter has not reached an amicable conclusion so I have decided that I am perhaps no longer suited to the site and that I should bow out. Some of you may of also noticed that I am not on here as often as I normally have been anyway. This is due to a new business venture which is taking more of my spare time than will allow me to contribute to the levels as I have done in the past. This is another reason that has lead me to make this decision because I don't see what benefit it is to me to give my free time to help people who perhaps don't deserve to be helped. Unfortunately, those people seem to be growing in numbers, particularly in the public transport section and in other sections which deal with traffic contraventions. While I applaud sites like CAG in offering free advice to genuine people who have "lost their way" and fallen foul of the law simply through making a genuine mistake, I find it hard to show similar compassion to those people who deliberately and wilfully abuse rules which I myself (and no doubt all my fellow CAGGERS) fully adhere to. So to conclude, it's been an interesting almost 5 years and I havn't always seen eye to eye with some of you, but I do sincerely wish those few (and you know who you are) CAGGERS all the best but after 30th April, Sailor Sam will be sailing off on to waters new.
  2. In the light of the above response, I shall consider my position of continuing to be a member of this forum. Clearly despite my almost 5 years of membership and the many "thanks" I have received during that time counts for very little. I feel that I have bought a lot to the forum in certain areas of expertise and have always tried to give sincere advice. But currently it has become more difficult to find too much spare time to afford to the site due to a new business venture. I do not agree with the two members of the site team on this... . my posts were a little sarcastic, yes but they were designed to "shoot" the OP's argument down in flames because had he used the argument to TFL, t hen they will surely prosecute as quite frankly, his explanation and reasons for using his mother's freedom pass are quite ridiculous. If I am the only one who can see this, then clearly I am contributing to the wrong site.
  3. You didn't even have the courtesy to advise me before removing them and I do disagree with your view on them being in breach of the rules. They were not abusive but indicated and high-lighted dialogue that the OP was using which would of prejudiced his argument to either TFL or in court.
  4. I note some of my posts have been removed. I don't see them infringing on any rules so I take exception to this. More so, if you read them properly (and between the lines) you could be forgiven for detecting some text which I highlighted in a way to say the dialogue the OP was using as an "explanation" was unwise and inappropriate. Kindly re-instate them or give good reason for their removal.
  5. I've given him "advice" on what to expect. I doubt very much that TFL will settle out of court from what the OP has said. All he can do is wait for the letter and then possible seek legal advice.
  6. But your not.... your trying to avoid going to court and you've come here to ask advice about how to!
  7. Concessionary pass miss-use is treated very seriously (and quite rightly so) because it is currently a statutory benefit to those entitled to it (i.e. the over 60's and disabled) thus it is entirely funded by the public purse (paid for by tax-paying people like myself). By the sounds of it, you have abused this scheme many times as you say that you cannot remember how long you have been using it. Presumably the pass has been withdrawn and your Mom will have to report the pass as being lost or stolen to obtain a replacement. Should it come to light that she was aware and gave her consent to you using it, then it will more than likely be permanently withdrawn (and quite rightly so). If it also comes to light that you have been using it on a regular basis (and yes, they are able to and will check), then it is highly likely they will not want to settle out of court (and quite rightly so). I always ask the question when someone comes on here saying "I am very sorry for using something I know I am not entitled to" or it was just a "lapse of judgement", if you hadn't of been caught, how long would you have carried on using it for or are you only sorry for getting caught?
  8. Exactly what I predicted would happen. These links may help you; http://www.alternativefamilylaw.co.uk/en/children/ http://www.separateddads.co.uk/how-write-your-statement-for-court.html Obviously I cannot tell you what to put in your statement as I haven't seen the CAFCASS report (it's confidential anyway). But all I can advise is to stick to the facts, keep it brief as possible (don't 'waffle') and number each point/paragraph so it can be easily referred to in court. When the statements have been filed, you should get a copy of the applicant's statement prior to the hearing and vice-versa.
  9. Well as I've pointed out many times on the thread, the Father's argument needs to have some substance to convince the court not to make an order. So far, I haven't seen anything that will do the trick with or without a solicitor i'm afraid. I think I've contributed as far as I can and I am sorry that I cannot provide any good news for the OP. But I would be interested in what happens and would be happy to advise further if necessary.
  10. I'm sorry DD, but you have lost me now. How has the "Father has only just heard that he is in a position to get legal representation"? A free consultation with a solicitor isn't really "legal representation". One side not having a solicitor dosn't necessarily mean that they are disadvantaged by the side which has a solicitor. In my last case (as the respondent) I represented myself while my ex partner had legal representation. I successfully had her application thrown out. It has nothing to do with being 'disadvantaged', the court will no doubt assist the respondent (if they are un-represented) where necessary and will understand that they are totally un-familiar with the process. The court's sole objective is to make a decision purely on the facts presented to it and that fair play is offered to both parties.
  11. Well yes, you could do that but if the other side knows that the Father isn't in a position to get legal representation or legal funding, they may put an argument forward that an adjournment would be non-productive and thus a waste of time. The respondent (Father) would of been advised to seek legal advice in the original application documents so it could be argued he was "trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted" and simply playing a delay tactic. But who knows... it maybe granted but then what does this change? I would almost guarantee that a decent solicitor will simply echo what I have said although I suppose hearing it face to face would better qualify what is what.
  12. Unfortunately you will have to 'go with the flow' tomorrow then. I can only suggest what I've already suggested which I know isn't what you want to do. But if you get in there first with some kind of compromise, at least you have a chance of keeping some control over the situation. The applicant is seeking quite a lot of contact it seems but given the child's age, i'm sure that the court will most likely agree to supervised contact on a less frequent basis. I would expect the applicant's solicitor will approach the Father prior to the hearing to test the water with him and see if there is any movement in his stance. He would be best advised not to say no to any contact at all because the court will see that as being unreasonable and more than likely make an order not to your liking anyway. I know this sin't what you want to hear but at least I have fore-warned you of what to expect. I don't see (from what you have posted) that you have a valid reason for point blank refusing contact, especially as there is nothing on record to suggest that the applicant poses a threat to the child either emotionally or physically.
  13. They are not judges, they are magistrates. To have it heard by a judge, the case would need to be transferred to the county court. In the OP's position, this would not do them any favours although it would favour the applicant if the case becomes complex. Has the OP attempted to seek a solicitor who would give a free initial consultation?
  14. I'm basically with you all the way DD... but that is exactly what I tried myself and was continuously knocked back by my ex and her family. I cant help detecting "more to this than meets the eye" kind of scenario and we have to remember that CAFCASS have produced a favourable report in respect of the grand mother. It is not easy to pull the wool over these people's eyes so you have to wonder why the report supports the application. In any event, the CAFCASS report is crucial to the outcome of the case, especially as there appears to be no other evidence. However, the CAFCASS reporter can be asked to attend the court to answer any further questions. They don't normally attend a directions hearing unless requested by the court but they will almost certainly attend a contested hearing. As I have previously said, moving away will not stop an order being made or being enforced. However, as the order will most likely be worded "to make the child available for contact", that dosn't compel the Father to "deliver" the child to the applicant. My only concern there would be that due to the child's age, it is most likely that a supervised order will be made and that will (by de-fault) mean that the Father will be expected to take the child to the contact venue. I think it maybe useful if the Father does get some free advice (if possible today) from a family solicitor. Most will give an initial free appointment but my money would be on the fact that they will confirm what I have said.
  15. Ok, I need to step in here. DD, I really appreciate that your intentions are really sincere but i'm afraid you should be careful how you formulate your advice here. IMHO you are inadvertently giving the OP false hope. If there was an Olympic sport in these matters, I would be a gold medal winner! I have been through it many times and it seems, very similar circumstances but the other way round (meaning I was the applicant). In my case, I have been accused of everything from child abuse to domestic violence (non of it was true) in an attempt to prevent contact. In my first case involving my eldest son, the process lasted 2 years with 2 dozen hearings during which, my ex-partner took my son out of school in an attempt to make sure I could not see him there. At that point, I changed my application from contact to residence which was a bold move as courts tend to favour the Mother as being the resident parent. In the end and after going through a long, stressful legal process costing thousands of pounds, I was granted residence of my son (who was only 8 at the time). So you see, without any evidence to back up alleged abuse or the likelihood of the applicant posing any kind of threat to the child, it is almost certain some form of contact order will be made. Challenging the application will simply prolong the inevitable and thus causing further stress and inconvenience to all concerned, not to mention loosing favour of the court. Lets look at the facts (as we know them; The Father has no legal representation and cannot afford any (not that that will make much difference at this stage) The applicant has legal representation so will (or should) be well aquainted in the options open to her. The process is already at an advanced stage as the section 7 report has already been filed We do not know the other side of the story or the history of the case We don't know whether the OP is being entirely truthful or is giving all the relevant facts My advice is based on what the OP has told us and from my own vast experience of what the court will consider, how the process works and what the likely out come will be. I said (i think) in my very first post that the OP will most likely not like what I am going to say but I think it is better to be realistic rather than give false hope. Tomorrows' hearing will be of a directions nature most likely in front of a clerk to establish whether any agreement can be reached following the recommendations in the CAFCASS report. No doubt the applicant's solicitor will make some kind of suggestion of contact which the applicant wants and will best be acquainted on how to move the case forward. If the Father continues to resist any form of contact then no doubt the clerk will list for a contested hearing when statements will be requested by both parties. I would guess that this will be listed in about 6 to 8 weeks time and again, all parties will be required to attend. A full contested hearing will no doubt be the point where the applicant's solicitor may well employ the services of a barrister who will cross-examine the Father and any other witnesses either side may want to call. On the other hand, the applicant's solicitor may ask for the case to be transferred to the county court which is better suited to deal with complex cases as it is dealt with in front of a district judge. Now does the OP really want all the above to happen on the strength of their argument and the lack of evidence to back up their case? My advice stands (with the information given); reach an agreement of restricted and supervised contact which is what the court is likely to order anyway.
  16. I understand what you are saying DD but the arguments about the break down of the relationship between the applicant and the Father of the child concerned will mostly be irrelevant to the court unless they can be convinced the applicant poses a potential threat to the child. There is no historical record of any physical abuse to put forward for a start. Also, as the section 7 report has already been published, that suggests that the process is already at an advanced stage. No doubt the Father (and possibly the OP) has already expressed their reasons to be against the application to CAFCASS. If CAFCASS were concerned, then the report would not favour the application. We also have to consider the child's age. Yes, there has been no contact with the applicant as yet thus the child dosn't know her. BUT the child is only young so the court will no doubt be likely to order a restricted contact such as a supervised one on an interim basis. As I've already said; I doubt the applicant will get anything like what she is asking and from the information provided, the Father would be far better proposing (to the applicant's solicitor) an interim arrangement of supervised contact (via Spurgeons) on a once a week basis. The only possible argument to put forward as an objection under the circumstances would be to suggest that the applicant may impose a negative attitude in respect of the Father to the child if the contact were to be unsupervised.The problem with that however, is that the child would be regarded too young to understand such comments I think. I'm sorry to say that I havn't seen anything here (so far) that makes me think that the applicant should not achieve some form of contact order. So the Father may just as well as grit his teeth and say that he will agree to supervised contact at a frequency of an hour a week to be reviewed after 3 months.
  17. You can apply to have the matter transferred but it would need a hearing in front of the mags to get it moved. Normally such a request would be made due to the 'complexes' in a case. You can indicate that you would like to request for the transfer at the directions hearing. You can also ask to make a statement of response to the CAFCASS report which will no doubt be asked for by the court anyway. That answers those questions but I have to say that the OP hasn't really given any real reason that the court will want to hear for objecting point blank to the application. I'm sorry to say that from where i'm sitting it sounds like that there is a lot of animosity between the parties concerned (I know how it feels because that was the problem in my cases). But you will need more than that to convince any court (mags or County) that they should reject the application. I have outlined this previously in the thread and the dangers of using the child as a weapon. No court will look favourably on this tactic... trust me, I know because I was on the receiving end and it simply assisted my position. I therefore see little reason in asking for the case to be transferred, you would be far better reaching some form of agreement which your partner has some control over. If you don't do this (assuming we know the whole story here and that the applicant poses absolutely no risk to the child), then it is inevitable a contact order (probably in interim supervised order) will be made.
  18. They normally only deal with criminal cases. If the OP wants a solicitor (which won't make much difference TBH), then he/she should try and speak to one tomorrow. First thing a solicitor new to the case will to ask for time to get acquainted with the case. BUT as I have mentioned before, the OP will not get any legal funding so a solicitor will be quite expensive. I am going to be busy this afternoon but will come back later to advise further. But I have covered most of what will happen already!
  19. A directions hearing is normally dealt with by a clerk who will decide what needs to be done next. This normally only lasts 20 minutes. For a CAFCASS to be involved, one of these would of taken place already. A full (or contested hearing) is when decisions/orders are made and when both parties get the opportunity to question each other (cross examination) and provide reasons why (or why not) the application should (or not) be granted. Normally you have barristers to represent you at a full hearing but that is unlikely these days due to legal funding being removed from such matters. In my case(s), I was in and out of court over 20 times!
  20. Ah, magistrates court! The application would be far better being dealt with by the County Court as you deal with a qualified district judge rather than not-so qualified JP's. I doubt if a duty solicitor will deal with a non-criminal matter. You should of sourced a family solicitor who would of givne you an initial free consultation. However, they would only tell you what i'm telling you.
  21. Very much doubt it. Normally only your legal representative is allowed in and the parties themselves and of course, the CAFCASS reporter.
  22. Sounds like a directions hearing then. They will probably ask for statements and then list for a 'contested hearing' unless no agreement is made. A contested hearing will be around 4 hours and normally includes cross examination etc. That will no doubt be about 6 weeks away.
  23. Havn't got time to look now, but there is a bus lane in B-ham that was recently bought up on here which we found to be non-compliant due to inadequate signage. Apparently if you appeal on that basis, the LA cancels the ticket. Mind you, that was a few weeks ago so maybe they have corrected the signage.
  24. It could be that Tuesday is a directions hearing then when the court will ask for statements from both parties. If so, no order will be made then. How long is the hearing listed for?
  • Create New...