Jump to content

Haggerty

Registered.
  • Content Count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Haggerty

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Did you provide evidence of this at court? If so, why did the judge ignore it? Seeing as these people are only 'managing' the site on behalf of the gym, the gym remain liable if you have been wrongly ticketed and penalised. To be harsh, you're letting youself get taken for a mug - you can transfer proceedings to your local court, you can apply for a set aside and ask for costs; if not given you can start separate proceedings. You should not be be punished financially if you are not at fault. The debt is too low for a HCEO to be enforcing. You need to complain to everyone you can think of, make a nuisance of yourself.
  2. Not sure how any of that means an update couldn't be provided. A petulant declaration of "we'll appeal this" in the heat of the moment could quickly fade away. It seems that you're implying you have been informed by Newlyn's or Mr Felton. If so, please do share. There would be no sub-judice as no appeal has yet been listed. It seems the joke was lost on you, so lest we forget - [link removed-dx]
  3. Oh I'm sure Peter Felton has updated Bailiff Advice already, so I'm sure her word will suffice. As Colin11 said, this ruling was only yesterday so paper evidence won't yet be available. Oh, and you've already acknowledged it on your blog.
  4. Indeed. When this case went against Mr MH in the County Court, Newlyn's (or their solicitor) ensured this was posted on here without delay. Now it has been reversed, leaving them with a big bill, there seems to be reluctance to update us all. In fact the person who posted the earlier ruling stated that they had been given permission to provide the details. I can only assume permission was not given this time. Not that permission is needed anyway.
  5. County Courts will now be bound by this decision. Well you see, I've approached the person who gave me a copy but they stated to me that they would prefer that I do not share the judgment on here. That is their choice and I have no intention of ignoring them.
  6. What's the aggressive tone all about? Are you not pleased with this outcome? So why didn't you update the forum with the ruling? Bailiff Advice has already confirmed it was 'common knowledge'. You need to ask her why she declined to update the forum with this favourable ruling. I can't fathom why. As this was a High Court ruling, it is of great consequence.
  7. The cases that go against the debtor seem to get posted on here pretty sharpish, sometimes on the same day. I would've hoped the same benefit was given to cases that benefit the debtor. Fortunately, I've done a little digging about. This was incorrect. Mr MH was allowed to appeal to the High Court, and from what I can gather the Judge ruled that a car on HP cannot be taken control of and sold. The case was against Newlyn's (again) who seized a taxi that was subject to HP. This has been a long, drawn-out case that has seen Mr MH lose his employment and being forced onto benefits. As far as I am aware, costs have been awarded in favour of Mr MH, which may be into five figures.
×
×
  • Create New...