OT Stuff from Parking Forum

[Geronimoman]

It is far from a [problem], there was an Oldham cade today and it has resulted in a humiliating defeat for Perky and CPS. I have been contacted by the defendant (the same one as was referred to in a February thread) to spread the news. Will post full details in a little while. The case has very major implications as the claim was struck out at a preliminary hearing - it did not even get to a full hearing.

[green_and_mean]

zzzzzzzzzzz yawn!! Why is this even mentioned? Cases are heard in Court every day some are won some are lost. The Crown loses cases every day so its not really surprising is it that 'Perky' may lose the odd one to?

[Geronimoman]

You are entitled to your opinion g&m. Clearly it matters to Perky as he has had a claim struck out at the preliminary stage when faced with the first proper defence. It matters so much I am told there were no less than 4 (yes that's right 4) representatives from CPS there today. It also matters because the case was struck out at the earliest preliminary stage due to a RK/driver argument.

[PPC Buster]

Excellent news. Back to serving chip butties in his café now for Perky.

[patdavies]

Remembering of course that no county court decision can set precedent

[green_and_mean]

You are entitled to your opinion g&m. Clearly it matters to Perky as he has had a claim struck out at the preliminary stage when faced with the first proper defence. It matters so much I am told there were no less than 4 (yes that's right 4) representatives from CPS there today. It also matters because the case was struck out at the earliest preliminary stage due to a RK/driver argument.

 

Unless you have some inside knowledge how do you know this was the 'first proper defence'? Apart from the court costs factor do you really think one case really matters to CPS let alone anyone else? You are sounding as deluded as those that win at adjudication and carry on as if anyone working at the Council really cares who wins or loses.

Besides I thought it was the opinion/advice of the 'all PPCs are **** brigade' on here that PPCs NEVER go to Court so just ignore the letters???

[PPC Buster]

I am advised no less than 4 CPS reps turned up

A third of the CPS workforce.

[Geronimoman]

g&m we will agree to disagree. You can attack me all you like but many will celebrate this news on here. Perky cares about the case so little that I am told he had a journalist and photographer lined up to record his victory. Or his defeat as it turned out. It is the first proper defence because perky has been so kind in the past to show example defences, and lamentable they are. I have just received from the defendant a copy of the defence in the case today and it is a very different order

[scottish_mark]

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 ...

[green_and_mean]

g&m we will agree to disagree. You can attack me all you like but many will celebrate this news on here. Perky cares about the case so little that I am told he had a journalist and photographer lined up to record his victory. Or his defeat as it turned out. It is the first proper defence because perky has been so kind in the past to show example defences, and lamentable they are. I have just received from the defendant a copy of the defence in the case today and it is a very different order

 

 

Why would he get a journalist to attend a preliminary hearing? I have no interest in forum members personal vendettas against individuals and find it all a bit bizarre but no doubt it makes you happy so I'll leave you to it.

[Hobbie]

Wonder why he took 4 of his possie along with him? was he worried for some reason?

 

The reporter that he took along with him, any idea who the reporter was, what type (Paper, TV, Radio, Online News, Other?) Did he still give a story to them or burry his head in the sand?

[Geronimoman]

Why would he get a journalist to attend a preliminary hearing? I have no interest in forum members personal vendettas against individuals and find it all a bit bizarre but no doubt it makes you happy so I'll leave you to it.

 

I don't know what you are on about g&m. You will need to ask perky why he had a journalist lined up - presumably to record his victory. I am only recounting events as they have been related to me. It is ridiculous to suggest I have some vendetta against CPS or perky (but for some reason you seem to have one against me) for relaying information provided to me and I think it is of interest to many on here that the result of this case is publicised. CPS trolls, who I now see have come out and admitted their affiliation, have been posting about the case for days and how the defendant would get "caned". IMHO it is correct and proper that people know what has happened today and can then make up their own minds.

[Geronimoman]

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 ...

 

Oh dear, IMHO calling a judge an "arse" is not very clever. And for the record I am not "legaladvisor" but if it pleases you to think that I am it doesn't really bother me.

[scottish_mark]

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)

[scottish_mark]

How did you (as you have only been a member for a few days) get a discussion with stethomas ??

[PPC Buster]

You have now confirmed yourself as a CPS employee.

[scottish_mark]

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

[scottish_mark]

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.

[Geronimoman]

I am merely relating the facts as relayed to me by the defendant. He contacted me today because he noted I posted in a thread which had mentioned his case. It was CPS trolls as we now know them who mentioned the case first on pepipoo and then over here. I did wonder when scottish mark kept insisting the case was happening and now we know. I genuinely believed it was a try on by them. But rather than carry on a pointless debate with clearly very disappointed CPS reps I will leave it there.

[PPC Buster]

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

You seem to be very closely connected to CPS if you have access to these details so soon.

 

Could you provide a link?

[Hobbie]

You have now confirmed yourself as a CPS employee.

 

PPC Buster, It was almost clear from the outset of the majority of his posts that he was, I still have my thoughts, which I will reserve.

 

Of course these trolls from PPC's are going to continue to troll the internet and internet forums, as it is the lively hood at risk, they'd be fools not to be concerned.

 

I'd also suspect, banks, dca, credit card companies and other businesses that this site impacts on come looking to see what is going on.

 

But what singles out the PPC trolls though, is how it is done, and how obvious these people standout, and for a business to boast so openly about on going legal matters against people.

 

Again I could continue on but Im reserving my thoughts for now.

Edited May 12, 2008 by Hobbie

[PPC $ cambuster]

A GREAT RESULT

 

The whole rotten [problem] that the PPCs try and con people with is falling apart, Perky/ scottish_mark, and all their PPC mates will soon be on the dole and looking out for a new way to [problem] a living.

The sooner these parasites are hounded out of business the better, keep up the good work spreading the word about their unenforcible "invoices" and we will rid of these cheats for good!!

[Hobbie]

Sniff Sniff..........

[Barnsley Boy]

This sounds great news, although I think that the dust needs to clear a bit before we can see the full picture.

[green_and_mean]

I fail how any of this is ever going to be a victory for motorists? There will always be 'private' p&d car parks, there will always be selfish drivers who think parking on private land is acceptable and there will always be a need to manage these issues. If the law is changed, which is very unlikely, to make the issuing of invoices/parking charges an offence all that will happen is clamping will return in force and instead of a bit of paper on the windscreen you will have a nice shiny wheel clamp to contend with.