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

[patdavies]

See in red.

 

 

Please stop shouting.

[Bookworm]

I am sure that Stethomas will let us know when the revised POC arrive, I for one will be very interested.

 

MCOL or not, if a case is thrown out with "no reasonable chance of success", you need to have a pretty good argument for a judge to then change his or her mind. I can't help feeling that it is going to cost the PPC a lot more in solicitors' fees than it would have to just drop the original ticket, plus of course the additional fee for submitting altered POC.

[correction999]

MCOL or not, if a case is thrown out with "no reasonable chance of success", you need to have a pretty good argument for a judge to then change his or her mind. I can't help feeling that it is going to cost the PPC a lot more in solicitors' fees than it would have to just drop the original ticket, plus of course the additional fee for submitting altered POC.

 

I agree, but this was not thrown out at all and there was NO mention of it not having a reasonable chance of success ... it was only requested to resubmit the POC within 14-days to show in more detail as the character limit for MCOL did not allow a full explination and the judge considered it not to have enough detail to fully show reasonable grounds to bring the claim.

[JonCris]

BW are you seriously suggesting a 'solicitor' is responsible for this cock up. If so he/she should come with a health warning

[JonCris]

I agree, but this was not thrown out at all and there was NO mention of it not having a reasonable chance of success ... it was only requested to resubmit the POC within 14-days to show in more detail as the character limit for MCOL did not allow a full explination and the judge considered it not to have enough detail to fully show reasonable grounds to bring the claim.

 

 

It was thrown out just what don't you understand about the word 'struck' out

 

Also the court could, if it felt so inclined, which it obviously didn't have allowed the claimant further time to amend their POC WITHOUT striking the claim out

[Bookworm]

Not at all, I am saying that if they want to send revised POC, they will need to do a lot better than what they had previously submitted, and that I would think they'll need proper legal advice to re-write the POC in a way which will convince the judge to re-instate the claim.

[pin1onu]

and that I would think they'll need proper legal advice to re-write the POC in a way which will convince the judge to re-instate the claim.

They'll probably go to their resident legal "expert".

 

This is a direct quote from Perky88's own profile on CAG: "BA Hons Law & FD (Arts) Consumer Protection / Business Owner / Legal Advisor CAB / Consultant".

 

I choked on a few of those terms.........

 

It would appear that they have all the legal advice they need. Of course they'll have to improve on "We Just Do". I think the judge presented the folly of that line by striking out in the first place.

[PPC Buster]

Then calling the judge an arse was probably not the best course of action either.

[rscott101]

Correction999, could you please post up the document you submitted with the defendant's details removed - I for one would be very keen to see it.

[Bookworm]

The case has NOT been discontinued,

Correct

it has NOT been thrown out

Err, incorrect. "struck out" is the correct term, but "thrown out" is what it means.

and the ONLY thing that happened is a revised particulars of claim be submitted within 14-days

Incorrect AGAIN. Date of order on order is dated 19th May, with new POC to be submitted by 26th May = 7 days. The defendant, OTOH, was given 14 days to lodge an amended defence, should the claimant have presented new POC within the above given deadline.

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

In which case, I am sure that Stethomas will be letting us know what these are so we can assist him with an amended defence.

Oooh, this could be quite exciting, maybe we will see a properly defended case at last, which is after all what so many of the arguments have been about. ... Of course, if the promised amended POC don't materialise, of the PPC in question missed the deadline by misreading the court order, it's all going to be a bit of a damp squib, so here's hoping.

[Bookworm]

Correction999, could you please post up the document you submitted with the defendant's details removed - I for one would be very keen to see it.

I took the liberty of saving a copy earlier just in case... Here it is with the names blanked out:

 

[fridgedoor]

Has it really come to this for the great Perky - arguing the difference between "struck out" and "thrown out"? Note to CPS trolls: it is best not to post a document that is not in your favour and try to convince everyone that the words on there do not mean what they clearly mean. It is no wonder that Perky was defeated in Oldham if this was the level of his argument.

[Bookworm]

Actually, just noticed something odd: The order is dated 12th May, but the "date" (at the top) says 19th May, so it may be argued that the PPC was indeed given 14 days to file amended POC. No idea why the 2 dates don't match, though. :-?

[Fair-Parking]

Simple Bookworm.

 

The date of the hearing was 12 May and that would be the day the Order commences from.

 

The date the Order was typed by the court was 19 May.

 

The date the new particulars had to be served by was 14 days from the day the judge gave the Order, so they must be filed by 4pm 26 May.

[Bookworm]

So 2 weeks ago was the deadline, whichever way you look at it... Has anyone heard from Stethomas as to whether he received amended POC?

[Michael Browne]

He was on-line on 6th June, so if he'd had new POC's, I would have thought he'd have posted

[Barnsley Boy]

I'm reading this through, and my head hurts. Can someone help me out with the following:

 

1. I can see from the form that the claim has been struck out. What seems unfair, from the defendant's viewpoint, is that the claimant is allowed to resubmit a new claim based on the same incident.
    
   Where does the defendant stand with regard to recovery of costs - if he has to go to court twice?
    
   Can he recover costs for the first incident?
   
2. If the Judge also strikes out Perky's second effort, will the defendant get to know or would it just remain between Perky & the Judge.
   
3. Surely Perky is not in a position to present new evidence to the court at this stage, not previously seen by the defendant, the best he can do is represent the evidence already given. It would seem that the issues, as far as the Judge is concerned, are somewhat deeper than mere presentation.
   

[Michael Browne]

If the Judge also strikes out Perky's second effort, will the defendant get to know or would it just remain between Perky & the Judge.

Any amended POC's must be filed at court and served on the defendant

[Bookworm]

I can see from the form that the claim has been struck out. What seems unfair, from the defendant's viewpoint, is that the claimant is allowed to resubmit a new claim based on the same incident.

I kind of disagree. Some courts have been known to throw out MCOL claims because of the 24 lines/1080 characters limitation, which is unfair considering that it is after all a courts devised system. The over-riding objective however means that anyone should have a chance to state their case in court, so if this particular judge is allergic to MCOL, then it is fair enough that he should allow revised POC. OTOH, if his reason for throwing out the case is that he deems there is no reasonable grounds for bringing the case and it is NOT because of the brevity of MCOL, then the PPC is going to have trouble, as I posted higher.

 

 

Where does the defendant stand with regard to recovery of costs - if he has to go to court twice?

That will depend, if the PPC presents 2nd POC which are just as bad, the judge may not reinstate the case and just confirm the case as struck out. Or he may allocate a date to hearing, and if the PPC goes to court for the hell of it without actually bringing a properly prepared case, then they could be deemed vexatious and the judge could award costs to defendant if he asked.

Can he recover costs for the first incident?

He could ask, but the usual rule is no costs either way, unless the claimant were to be deemed vexatious.

 

If the Judge also strikes out Perky's second effort, will the defendant get to know or would it just remain between Perky & the Judge.

The defendant will know.

 

Surely Perky is not in a position to present new evidence to the court at this stage, not previously seen by the defendant, the best he can do is represent the evidence already given. It would seem that the issues, as far as the Judge is concerned, are somewhat deeper than mere presentation.

Well, that's where the problem is. According to Stethomas, there was a proper hearing and the case was struck out fair and square. According to the posted order, it seems that the POC was the issue and the PPC was given a 2nd chance to redraft their POC. Since Stethomas only gave us the bare bones, it's anyone's guess what actually happened and what was going on in the judge's mind.

[fridgedoor]

We do not know whether any member of CAG or Pepipoo has helped Stethomas with his defence and to what extent. All we have is allegations by the PPC wich appears on the other side of the case - not exactly the horse's mouth. We do not know if an amended defence has been filed or what stage the "revised" claim is at. Basically it seems to me we know diddly squat and I would imagine Stethomas will not enlighten us further, given what has gone on in relation to this PPC over the past few days (I would not blame him for staying well away). I would be grateful mods if for once you could leave this post where it is as it is clearly "on topic".

[correction999]

The facts of the matter are the MCOL service is limited to 1080 characters / 24 lines ... considering 5 of those are for interest leaves 19 lines of approx 40characters long.

 

Some judges do not like the MCOL service and in this case the judge wanted a full particulars of claim, the court now has these (they were served on the court and defendant at the same time) - so in essence this whole thread is a fuss about nothing.

 

Well, not exactly ... It shows a limitation of the MCOL service and for future claims issued by the MCOL service a claimant is advised to serve a full particulars of claim manually on the court and defendant to ensure this does not happen again.

 

It was not a victory or defeat for either party.

 

There is no new claim, just revised/enhanced particulars of the original claim.

[fridgedoor]

There is clearly a complete lack of understanding from our CPS troll about what has happened. Even when it is patiently explained to him on several occasions he does not get it. It has nothing to do with MCOL or limitations on the size of the particulars and everything to do with what the order says - "no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim". The Order is in English and appears perfectly understandable (to me anyway), yet there is this almost desperate attempt to pass it off as some sort of draw rather than a defeat for CPS. The more he asks us not to believe what our eyes and commonsense are telling us the more ridiculous he sounds. My advice to the CPS troll is: spend less time trolling here and more time reading up on the law, clearly some substantial investment in that area is badly needed.

[correction999]

fridgedoor, no matter what is posted you will not agree, If a PPC wins a case then it would have only won because of a badly prepared/presented defence.

If a driver wins it will be 100% proof (to you) that all tickets are unenforceable.

And so the merry-go-round will continue.

 

As you were not there, have not seen judgement transcript (before you ask, I have - you also can by filling in the form and paying the fee) .. you are not qualified to say or comment on what did/did not happen.

 

Here's a novel idea ... lets leave this topic there and not get into a debate that will not achieve anything - lets wait until (1) The court actually throws out/strikes out the full/detailed claim without a hearing and if it decides the revised POC does show sufficient grounds for bringing a claim (2) The outcome of the final hearing. (then you can refer to my first paragraph again for your response)

[fridgedoor]

As you were not there, have not seen judgement transcript (before you ask, I have

 

If you have a copy of the transcript, and it is really as neutral as you say why not post it up? Then we can all see what went on and what line the judge took. Surely you could not have a problem with that, having just posted up the Order?And if you cared to read the many responses to your original post this afternoon, you would see that you are in a minority of one with your views on the Order. Without exception people have told you the claim was struck out (shorthand for thrown out) and the implications of that, yet you persist with this attempt to put a positive spin on it. If we will never agree (and I suspect I agree with you there!) it is because you don't appear to be able to admit what is staring you in the face.

[correction999]

fridgedoor, I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else on here..

 

I did not pay for the transcript and therefore abide by the rules that it was disclosed to me by, If it means that much to you then get it yourself - but trust me, it will not show anything but you are obviously on a mission so feel free.

 

Read into the order what you want to (as I am sure you will), the next update will be factual when I have it.