OT Stuff from Parking Forum

[scottish_mark]

Sorry I have not been active been busy

 

Nevertheless, my information is a part 16 amended claim has today been submitted and served on the parties concerned

 

I understand this thread has been printed and retained.

 

It would now be totally unappropiate to discuss an ongoing claim so all parties should refrain from making comment.

 

I an sure the defendant or his legal adviser will confirm such when they get tomorrows post

[lamma]

WHAAATT !!!

none of the parties here apart from the OP are bound by any court procedures (real, imagined or proposed), and the OP is pretty clear the case was kicked out and clearly feels not bound.

Is it even possible to have sub judice consideration for a civil case - especially one that has been kicked out according the first hand report we have here.

 

Where did you get your information Mark ?

 

How on earth do you think a plea to 'please don't talk about it' will carry any weight - or that anyone will pay attention.

The OP only has concern for papers received from the court does he not ?

I am sure Perky's ego is smarting what with the press being lined up but this can't be the first properly defended case he has faced. And it very likely won't be his last I would guess....I'd even take a bet on that.

Why he even turned up is a puzzle - and mob handed as well. Maybe he was going to get his whole crew in the paper afterwards . Now that is a thought - did the press take pics of the CPS crew ?

 

Is that the best that Perky could come up with to handle the situation after all these hours. "please don't talk about it".

 

Can hardly type this for the paroxysms coursing through my body and for that I thank you.

 

Who cares what Perk posts ? (hey, is that a good logo or what ?)

 

or maybe it could be

"Who knows what Perky 'just knows'"

[Rob S]

And on what basis should we not discuss this matter any further?

[PPC $ cambuster]

 

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.

 

 

 

I suppose this bit has been printed and retained then?

[lamma]

I am sure it has.

[PPC Buster]

What next? Perky and his minions go to court to get an injunction against CAG and an order to disclose ip addys?

 

Yeah Right! :D :D

[PPC $ cambuster]

**

Edited May 13, 2008 by PPC $ cambuster

[lamma]

Thnking about this case - and all the others on Perky's 'informative' legal page... unless I am mistaken in this the Civil Procedure Rules implemented from October 2nd 2006, grants public access to any statement of case, including particulars of claim and defence.

Not only that, this access is retrospective. Civil case records normally kept for about five years..

 

What regular posters we got who live near the courts that Perky documented in such detail for us ? Wouldn't it be good to get the particulars of claim and defense in those cases from the Courts ?

[lamma]

That would be a bit pointless anyway as there is nothing libellous in any posts on this thread

and nothing remotely prejudicial to any pending cases - would the judge read the forum or allow it to colour his opinion ?

Not a snowballs...

[scottish_mark]

It has long been known that forums have insiders who regularly assist with supplying of ip and other details.

 

It is also a fact that some long standing members who are very vocal and seem to be against parking are in fact from ppcs themselves and do an excellent job of obtaining information...

[scottish_mark]

Thnking about this case - and all the others on Perky's 'informative' legal page... unless I am mistaken in this the Civil Procedure Rules implemented from October 2nd 2006, grants public access to any statement of case, including particulars of claim and defence.

Not only that, this access is retrospective. Civil case records normally kept for about five years..

 

What regular posters we got who live near the courts that Perky documented in such detail for us ? Wouldn't it be good to get the particulars of claim and defense in those cases from the Courts ?

 

like most things, there is a world of difference between reading (which I am sure lamma has) and understanding .. You are incorrect in your understanding but thats todays task for you

[GuidoT]

It has long been known that forums have insiders who regularly assist with supplying of ip and other details.

 

It is also a fact that some long standing members who are very vocal and seem to be against parking are in fact from ppcs themselves and do an excellent job of obtaining information...

 

Can you back up these allegations with some facts, viz:

Who are the forum insiders?

Who are the long standing members that are from PPCs?

 

PM me if you like.

 

I am not sure why you post here if you are asking users not to discuss matters, all you do is invite comments by posting.

 

Indeed, I am not sure why any of the PPC lot post here, all they seem to do if inflame matters, it would be a different story if they posted something constructive. It just seems like a lamentable effort to defend their position.

Edited May 14, 2008 by GuidoT
Added link

[scottish_mark]

I would suggest the OP checks his facts or in fact if lamma is correct a quick call to the court and ask them what the order stated will clear all this up.

 

I would expect that once the OP has the real facts he will openly state he was wrong and confirm what I said 2 days ago thus being the original particulars if claim were to be removed/struck off as the judge felt they were not enough and new ones filed within 14days

 

This I undestsnd has been done so the case continues .. No change / no progress / its a non event

 

Over to the OP to confirm

[scottish_mark]

why would anyone advertise the name of a person who helps them ??

 

The moment the names are revealed it all stops.

 

As for posting, I agree it is now upto the OP to next update with the correct version of events and make necessary modifications to posts and title where appropiate as anything else is pure speculation and takes us no further forward so its prob best to end conversation here and let the OP be the next poster.

[Bookworm]

It would now be totally unappropiate to discuss an ongoing claim so all parties should refrain from making comment.

Not any more than it was inappropriate for the press or ourselves to making comments on what was happening or the possible outcome of the OFT v banks case. Not any more than it is for you or me to pick a case, any case, criminal or civil, and discuss it ad nauseam, the pros, the cons, the maybes, the wheretofores and the what ifs.

 

As long as people keep matters civil (as in polite, not as in court! ), they can discuss to their hearts' contents.

 

No offence, dear, but if you're trying to intimidate CAGgers into silence, you've really picked on the wrong crowd. ;-)

[rscott101]

scottish_mark - some simple questions for you:-

 

1. Are you in regular contact with one of the parties in this case?

 

2. If so, can you obtain a copy of the judge's order and post on here?

 

3. If you aren't in regular contact, then how are you getting your information?

[lamma]

dear oh dear Mark. Once again an attempt to pull the wool over the board's collective eyes. Once again not a snowball's chance of it working.

 

See The Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (No. 3132 L.17)) - Statute Law Database

 

plus there is much available commentary about the exploits of jounalists who have used this to trawl through the filed claims to get story information.

 

Anyone who wants to get the particulars of claim as filed by Perky or any other PPC just has to go to the Court.

 

ANYONE can go the Courts that Perky had detailed so kindly for us and get copies.

 

Mark, are you using the same legal team the Perky does ?

 

To make it abundantly clear to Mark and the other PPC posters here the text from the statute says;

(2) Any other person who pays the prescribed fee may, during office hours, search for, inspect and take a copy of the following documents, namely—

(a)

a claim form which has been served;

(b)

any judgment or order given or made in public;

©

any other document if the court gives permission.

(3) An application for permission under paragraph (2)© may be made without notice.

[PPC Buster]

(3) An application for permission under paragraph (2)© may be made without notice.

So no chance for Perky to appeal. I likes it.

[lamma]

I don't follow. that clause just allows immediate requests for other documents.

[Steve__M]

If we are to believe some of what scottish_mark said, it would appear that the judge was not happy with this sort of claim being issued through Moneyclaim online.

 

Since Moneyclaim online only allows 1080 characters for a particulars of claim, perhaps he reasonably felt that the defendant required more information as to the nature of the alleged contract within the Particulars.

 

Based on some of the ropey signs that are seen in some carparks, that's not too surprising:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/144436-how-does-sign-measure.html

 

And if this were generally the case, it would presumably hit Perky's business plan quite hard not to be able to use Moneyclaim online.

[lamma]

Even using Money Claim Online can hurt his business in paid car parks. If the defendant made a 'Part Admission' in response and in that offered to pay any admitted missing parking fee then the clear penalty nature of the rest of claim should clearly fall.

Of course for free car parks its a different game.

[patdavies]

I don't follow. that clause just allows immediate requests for other documents.

That's not how I read it. I understand it as without notice to the parties involved. Since 2© requires the court's (ie judge) permission, I can't see how any demand can be made without notice to the court.

[PPC Buster]

And if this were generally the case, it would presumably hit Perky's business plan quite hard not to be able to use Moneyclaim online.

It would mean him having to get the correct claim forms from the county court office and filling them out himself and doing everything manually. Also the cost of filing said claims would increase.

[Geronimoman]

You do have to wonder sometimes whether all leave of senses is being taken. In the past few days we have had: Weird hints about a forthcoming Oldham case when no-one from here was even aware that it existed, bizarre arrangements being made for local journalists and photographer to attend a preliminary hearing (when the worst it could have got for the defendant was that the particulars were not struck out and a full hearing was ordered), a county court judge twice being called an "arse" and accused of not knowing the law on a public internet forum due to his making a negative decision in the eyes of the claimant (the striking out of the entire particulars of claim), subsequent attempts to portray that decision to strike out the particulars as not negative at all but positive or neutral (if Monday was not a "defeat" I would love to know what a "win" looks like) and now more bizarre allegations apparently attacking the integrity of CAG staff and apparent attempts to frighten or intimidate site members that their identities will be discovered.All this over a court case involving a private parking ticket. Not exactly a matter of life and death. It appears that the PPC has itself elevated the issue to these "hothouse" levels by constant baiting and trolling and statements such as that it could never be defeated in court. Other PPCs in the main just get on with it (although I am no fan) but this PPC seems unable to refrain from acrimonious exchanges with those who legitimately disagree with it and appears to be trying to prove a point in some kind of "campaign". With that in mind and ignoring further provocation, which I am sure will not be long in coming, I will leave it there.

[Steve__M]

Seems clear that both sides are playing their cards carefully - I guess the rest of us will have to wait for the full story and in the meantime, speculate like mad!

 

There was a case in the tenancy forum where a claimant turned up expecting her claim to be heard when in fact it was a procedural preliminary hearing which technically she lost because the judge moved the claim from part 8 (in that instance the defendant later settled in full before the claim was heard).

 

So I would guess that the claimants here were in the same situation - they didn't know that the hearing wasn't about their claim because the defendant is running legal rings round them. Hence the press etc.

 

It probably doesn't add to the argument as to whether tickets are enforceable, but it shows that it's not as easy as CPS claim it is to try and enforce them, and it shows that CPS are no more competent than other PPCs who've resorted to the courts.