Perky DEFEATED in Oldham County Court 12 MAY 08 ***won on 2nd Hearing ***

[Geronimoman]

I am receiving news that at preliminary hearing at Oldham CC today, a case taken by CPS was struck out by the Judge. It did not even get to a full hearing. Full details will follow.

[lamma]

OMG ! how could that happen ?

 

oh, yes, I remember its a [problem].

[Geronimoman]

Here are some more details of Perky's court defeat today. The defendant was Stephen Thomas (username stethomas on this site). The case no is 8QT03984. The preliminary hearing was held at 2.15 today at Oldham CC before Judge Stockton. CPS have been refused leave to appeal.

[Geronimoman]

I have now received the following account of what transpired yesterday directly from the defendant. These are the defendant's own words and I have not altered them in any way. I will leave readers to make up their own minds about the status of the case (but it is fairly clear to me at least that this is far from a neutral outcome, as CPS representatives would now have us believe):"There were 4 people from CPS, one of which could have been Perky himself. There were 3 gentleman and a lady, none of which could even look me in the eye. Within only a couple of minutes it was obvious that the judge was not some much on my side as against them as he instantly stuct out the claim. The person speaking for them was very obnoxious and constantly ridiculed the judge and his decision and the judge at one point stated that he was cheeky for speaking in this manner. He constantly quoted law references but the judge dismissed them and blatantly stated that there was no case. The CPS speaker then said that he would be appealing against the judges decision and the judge firmly said that there would be no appeal and that CPS should put it in writing that the claim is now closed. Throughout the hearing I was only asked if I was the registered keeper of the car. The CPS speaker stated that as the registered keeper, I am liable for the charge and when the judge asked if I was the driver to CPS they said yes, the judge then asked how they knew and there pathetic response was "we just do"."

[Tom87]

I'm just a passer by and would like to add to the opinion of the majority that this seems a good victory. Whether or not it's means anything for other motorists - as has been argued on here - it is nice to read of the outcome of this particular case, and I'm sure will give satisfaction to many. Having been the victim of one of these disgusting and illegal PPC schemes once (before I discovered this website so regretfully I just paid them after their harrassment and threats of bailiffs), I am not in the least surprised to read of the defendant's description of the people being obnoxious and rude and thinking they were above the law. A good judgement for morality and makes one have faith in our judicial system that they are not letting these vile thieves win. Well done Mr. Thomas!

[Stethomas]

N/A

Edited September 30, 2008 by Stethomas

[Hobbie]

Ste,

 

I think a congratulations in order to you, if more like yourself stood up and pursued all PPC invoices in the courts, PPC's will do one of either two things

 

A) Shut up shop, and take the defeat

or;

B) Moan and complain to government to get laws changed to assist them. (Which with this labour government, would most likely happen should 10 pieces of silver cross palms)

 

Now that the defentant has showed his face (figure of speach) I have no other choice but to belive his version of what happend, and I will continue to beleive so, of course unless other evidence came to light to the contary.

 

Once again, congratulations!

[Barnsley Boy]

Ste,

 

Any chance of getting costs out of them?

[Barnsley Boy]

Oh, and I forgot to say - many, many conglatulations

[DeafSteve]

Many congratulations.

 

I write comedy for a living, but 'We just Do' beats anything I've come up with lately.

[Rob S]

Regards the CPS attendent's, there was only speaker and he was quite the beauty, he really was the star prize. He also made a few comments to me when leaving the hearing but I couldn't be bothered listening to him.

 

They weren't magnanimous in defeat then:rolleyes:

 

Congratulations Ste, you must be very pleased (and relieved) the matter is concluded.

[PPC Buster]

Congrats Steve. Well done on beating this over confident git.

 

I wonder if Perkys parting shot was "This ain't the last of this. We will appeal"?

Edited May 13, 2008 by PPC Buster

[Barnsley Boy]

I know we should wait for the full story to emerge but I can't help but speculate anyway:

 

Reading between the lines it would appear that the case was struck out in short order on the basis of uncertainty of the identity of the defendant. PPCs have always stated that these things are decided on probability - the registered keeper is probably the driver therefore it is ok to take the rk to court on spec. It rather sounds as if the judge was not particularly impressed by that line of reasoning.

[Bookworm]

OT posts have been moved there:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bear-garden/147642-ot-stuff-parking-forum-10.html#post1558689

[Bookworm]

If your comments have nothing to do with directly discussing this case, please post your comments on the OT thread:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bear-garden/147642-ot-stuff-parking-forum-10.html#post1558780

 

I don't want to have to close this thread, Stethomas has every right to get congratulations on this thread, but it has been made very clear that OT comments will be moved, so don't come complaining when you keep on posting OT and the posts do get moved, it's a simple enough concept.

[correction999]

I have now received the following account of what transpired yesterday directly from the defendant. These are the defendant's own words and I have not altered them in any way. I will leave readers to make up their own minds about the status of the case (but it is fairly clear to me at least that this is far from a neutral outcome, as CPS representatives would now have us believe):"There were 4 people from CPS, one of which could have been Perky himself. There were 3 gentleman and a lady, none of which could even look me in the eye. Within only a couple of minutes it was obvious that the judge was not some much on my side as against them as he instantly stuct out the claim. The person speaking for them was very obnoxious and constantly ridiculed the judge and his decision and the judge at one point stated that he was cheeky for speaking in this manner. He constantly quoted law references but the judge dismissed them and blatantly stated that there was no case. The CPS speaker then said that he would be appealing against the judges decision and the judge firmly said that there would be no appeal and that CPS should put it in writing that the claim is now closed. Throughout the hearing I was only asked if I was the registered keeper of the car. The CPS speaker stated that as the registered keeper, I am liable for the charge and when the judge asked if I was the driver to CPS they said yes, the judge then asked how they knew and there pathetic response was "we just do"."

 

I hope the attached link shows the above comment to be totally false.

 

The case has NOT been discontinued, it has NOT been thrown out and the ONLY thing that happened is a revised particulars of claim be submitted within 14-days as the Judge did not feel the original (as submitted online and within the constraints of the MCOL service) was not sufficient.

 

I understand that a revised particulars of claim have been submitted and this case will continue.

 

I do not feel any type of discussion is needed here - the document attached speaks for itself.

 

[edited. If you want to resubmit, please blank out defendant's personal details first.]

Edited June 9, 2008 by Bookworm
as above

[pin1onu]

I hope the attached link shows the above comment to be totally false.

 

The case has NOT been discontinued, it has NOT been thrown out and the ONLY thing that happened is a revised particulars of claim be submitted within 14-days as the Judge did not feel the original (as submitted online and within the constraints of the MCOL service) was not sufficient.

 

Sorry did I miss something there. The first item. The claim was struck out for having no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim.

 

How do I know that? (I just Do.....)

 

Actually it's there in black and white.

I understand that a revised particulars of claim have been submitted and this case will continue.

 

I do not feel any type of discussion is needed here - the document attached speaks for itself.

 

[edited - see post above]

 

Yes OK, but the original was thrown out because it was did not show privity of contract.

 

But you can have another go by entering a new claim. Assuming that a Judge accepts the new particulars of the claim i.e. that there is a case to answer. No guarantee that it will given the quality of the first claim.

Edited June 9, 2008 by Bookworm
as above

[JonCris]

having read it perky can go on until the cows come home but what the OP stated is TRUE.

 

The claim was struck out as having little chance of success & an appeal WAS refused

 

As for the rest that's normal when a claim is struck out the claimant or the defendant is given an opportunity to re-submit their case.

 

However in this case it doesn't favour Perky as the Judge has not only refused leave to appeal but has also ordered that if the claim is to be resubmitted it must be done within 14 days.

 

Despite the feeble attempt at spin from perky I see nothing inconsistent with the OP's claim that it had been struck out & that leave to appeal had been denied

 

Also if a claim is struck out in the normal course of events there is no further order made & the claimant is perfectly within their rights to submit another later claim provided it's within limitation. Whereas here the court is saying do it now or your going to be struck out for good. In other words the court wants this matter concluded once & for all

[lamma]

"The case is struck out as showing no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim"

 

I wonder what any new Particulars of Claim says. Do you have a copy of that ?

[fridgedoor]

What a load of [edited] from the latest CPS troll. Do these guys have any commonsense? The claim was struck out as "showing no reasonable grounds for bringing" it. Leave to appeal is refused. Although re-filing is allowed any new claim would have to show "reasonable grounds". As CPS found out "we just know" will not work. Clearly from this order the OP told the truth and the other side appear to have been spinning when they implied it was an "adjournment" etc. The order could not really be any clearer and thanks to the CPS troll for elightening us. Keep up the good work.At least we now know why the various recent actions on this thread have happened. It is a pity that we had to find out indirectly from a CPS troll. Regards the "I do not feel any type of discussion is needed here" from the CPS troll which says it all you may be in luck, it appears the mods agree with you.

Edited June 9, 2008 by Bookworm
Swearing edited.

[PPC Buster]

He is now to late at this stage.

[JonCris]

& if he's daft enough to reissue apply for another strike out on the grounds that he has failed to comply with the order of the court.................. & don't forget to ask for a wasted indemnified costs order:)

[correction999]

having read it perky can go on until the cows come home but what the OP stated is TRUE.

 

The claim was struck out as having little chance of success & an appeal WAS refused

 

IT DOES NOT STATE IT HAS NO CHANCE OS SUCCESS IT STATES NO REASONABLE GROUNDS - THIS IS BECAUSE OF THE TEXT LIMITS IMPOSED VIA THE MCOL SERVICE - NO REASONABLE CHANCE OF SUCCESS IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT.

 

 

As for the rest that's normal when a claim is struck out the claimant or the defendant is given an opportunity to re-submit their case.

 

INCORRECT - IF A CLAIM IS DISMISSED IT IS DISMISSED - THEY MUST APPEAL.

 

However in this case it doesn't favour Perky as the Judge has not only refused leave to appeal but has also ordered that if the claim is to be resubmitted it must be done within 14 days.

 

Despite the feeble attempt at spin from perky I see nothing inconsistent with the OP's claim that it had been struck out & that leave to appeal had been denied

 

IF A CLAIM IS DISMISSED THEN A CLAIMANT HAS TO APPEAL, HE CANNOT BRING THE SAME PROCEEDINGS TWICE.

 

Also if a claim is struck out in the normal course of events there is no further order made & the claimant is perfectly within their rights to submit another later claim provided it's within limitation. Whereas here the court is saying do it now or your going to be struck out for good. In other words the court wants this matter concluded once & for all

 

I AM UNSURE WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO POINT OUT ... THE COURT ASKED FOR A REVISED (MORE DETAILED) PARTICULARS OF CLAIM WITHIN 14-DAYS .. IF THIS IS NOT DONE THE CASE WILL THEN BE STRUCK OUT.

A REVISED PARTICULARS WERE SUBMITTED AND THE CASE CONTINUES.

 

 

See in red.

[correction999]

What a load of [edited] from the latest CPS troll.

 

PLEASE LEARN HOW TO CONDUCT YOURSELF.

 

Do these guys have any commonsense? The claim was struck out as "showing no reasonable grounds for bringing" it. Leave to appeal is refused.

 

LEAVE TO APPEAL REFUSED ON THE GROUNDS THE ORIGINAL CLAIM WAS SUBMITTED VIA MCOL AND THEREFORE NOT SUBJECT TO THE SAME DETAIL

 

Although re-filing is allowed any new claim would have to show "reasonable grounds".

 

THERE IS NO NEW CLAIM ... JUST REVISED PARTICULARS OF THE NEW CLAIM.

 

As CPS found out "we just know" will not work.

 

Clearly from this order the OP told the truth and the other side appear to have been spinning when they implied it was an "adjournment" etc. The order could not really be any clearer

 

YES IT IS CLEAR - A REVISED PARTICULARS OF CLAIM REQUIRED WITHIN 14-DAYS ... THIS WAS DONE ...

 

and thanks to the CPS troll for elightening us. Keep up the good work.At least we now know why the various recent actions on this thread have happened. It is a pity that we had to find out indirectly from a CPS troll. Regards the "I do not feel any type of discussion is needed here" from the CPS troll which says it all you may be in luck, it appears the mods agree with you.

 

WHY NOT JUST WAIT UNTIL THE CASE REALLY CONCLUDES ...

 

IF CPS WIN THEN THE DEFENCE WILL HAVE BEEN BADLY DONE / PRESENTED .. IF THE DEFENDANT WINS IT WILL SHOW THAT ALL TICKETS ARE UN-ENFORCEABLE .. AND THE WHOLE SAGA WILL START AGAIN !!!

 

 

See in red.

Edited June 9, 2008 by Bookworm
swearing removed.

[lamma]

the court did not ask for revised claim. it set a short deadline for any revised claim. very different things. already explained in the thread.

 

I take it this flurry of activity means a revised claim is due to be heard soon. so soon we will know the actual detail.

I have to love the whole the last was stuck out because it was MCOLs fault. Besides the sheer illogicality of this (whoever drew it up maybe should have spotted it...) I find it hard to tally with cases that Perky crows about on his site when apparently MCOL wasn't a problem

.

 

I think it may have been a proper defense that was Perky's problem but as I said, if it has been refiled we will find out soon.