Jump to content



Locked in car park


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3360 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The allegation that Fred admitted criminal damage before the judge on 1st July at the directions hearing is false , as the transcript can show.

The other side's representative tried to trap him into so doing, but he refused to be trapped. Methinks someone is getting desperate.;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hahahahahahahaha,

 

The old Part 36 offer.

 

Last resort to try to scare Fred.

 

If he can't afford the £4000 they are after, he won't be able to afford the associated costs either :D

 

I think they were meant to offer him '£1750' to drop the case :p

 

Jogs

Link to post
Share on other sites

So the CLAIMANTS are offering to withdraw the case in exchange for ONLY £1750 + costs? :lol: :lol: :lol: How very generous of them! :rolleyes:

 

Oh, btw, maybe someone should mention to them that 10% base rate? Maybe they need to have a look at the STATUTORY interest as set by the County Courts Act, which has been set at 8% for ages?

 

Oh deary me, the whiff of desperation... Reminds me of the banks in the early days, they used to use exactly the same scare tactics just before folding altogether rather than take the risk of explaining themselves before a judge. :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Would it not be an act of great kindness for someone to confiscate their spade?

:lol: Yes it would be, but then again what kindness have they shown?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Spade & holes :D:D

Edited by foolishgirl
addition

Any knowledge I possess or advice I proffer is based solely on my experiences in the University of Life. Please make your own assessment of legality, risks & costs before taking any action.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"falic" symbols stitched to ther foreheads kind of springs to mind:p

 

cab

Cab1ne-Lombard-Shoosmiths **Claim Recieved**

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?181761-Cab1ne-Lombard-Shoosmiths-**Claim-Recieved**/page25

Summary Judgement 01/02/2011 **REFUSED** set for trial "May 23rd To June 30th 2011"

DISCONTINUED 3rd MAY 2011 **WON**

 

santander" Responsible Lending!!!!!!!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?219431-quot-santander-quot-Responsible-Lending!!!!!!!

 

Capquest "V" Cab1ne

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?262962-Capquest-quot-V-quot-Cab1ne

 

"STAYED"

 

CAB "Sittin Tight"

Link to post
Share on other sites

A Part 36 has to be made 'without prejudice', that's the point of it.

See x20's excellent explanation here Post #2

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/159980-36-offers-w.html

  • Haha 1

Any knowledge I possess or advice I proffer is based solely on my experiences in the University of Life. Please make your own assessment of legality, risks & costs before taking any action.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thks for that, FG, seems I was way off too with my 8% stat interest. You learn something new every day, although I am unclear as to why they could do this against the interest set by an Act of Parliament, but hey-ho, let's not derail this thread any more... :razz:

Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't wait to see what TLD thinks of today's offerings.:D

 

TLD has just arrived home and seen this and the bundle.

 

TLD is thinking exactly the same as everyone else who has followed this thread thus far either in whole or in part and this quite obviously includes those from the claimants side be it PCAD or Lyons Davidson.

 

It appears that the claimant has finally woken up to the concept that their case is the biggest crock of [-----censored by the Cag swear filter----], and [-----censored by the Cag swear filter----], fairy tale [-----censored by the Cag swear filter----],[-----censored by the Cag swear filter----], fabricated [-----censored by the Cag swear filter----], tenuous [-----censored by the Cag swear filter----][-----censored by the Cag swear filter----] chancers [-----censored by the Cag swear filter----] how much trouble they are now in the [-----censored by the Cag swear filter----][-----censored by the Cag swear filter----][-----censored by the Cag swear filter----] just desserts[-----censored by the Cag swear filter----][-----censored by the Cag swear filter----] Fred needs a Judicial decision so that he can sue their [-----censored by the Cag swear filter----][-----censored by the Cag swear filter----] and [-----censored by the Cag swear filter----] them over the [-----censored by the Cag swear filter----][-----censored by the Cag swear filter----] jokers[-----censored by the Cag swear filter----]is criminal and they should be hoisted by the [-----censored by the Cag swear filter----][-----censored by the Cag swear filter----] throw away the key.

You have the right to food money.

If you don't mind a little investigation, humiliation, and if you cross your fingers rehabilitation..............

Link to post
Share on other sites
TLD has just arrived home and seen this and the bundle.

 

TLD is thinking exactly the same as everyone else who has followed this thread thus far either in whole or in part and this quite obviously includes those from the claimants side be it PCAD or Lyons Davidson.

 

It appears that the claimant has finally woken up to the concept that their case is the biggest crock of [-----censored by the Cag swear filter----], and [-----censored by the Cag swear filter----], fairy tale [-----censored by the Cag swear filter----],[-----censored by the Cag swear filter----], fabricated [-----censored by the Cag swear filter----], tenuous [-----censored by the Cag swear filter----][-----censored by the Cag swear filter----] chancers [-----censored by the Cag swear filter----] how much trouble they are now in the [-----censored by the Cag swear filter----][-----censored by the Cag swear filter----][-----censored by the Cag swear filter----] just desserts[-----censored by the Cag swear filter----][-----censored by the Cag swear filter----] Fred needs a Judicial decision so that he can sue their [-----censored by the Cag swear filter----][-----censored by the Cag swear filter----] and [-----censored by the Cag swear filter----] them over the [-----censored by the Cag swear filter----][-----censored by the Cag swear filter----] jokers[-----censored by the Cag swear filter----]is criminal and they should be hoisted by the [-----censored by the Cag swear filter----][-----censored by the Cag swear filter----] throw away the key.[/quote

Is that succinct enough for you, LD and PCAD?:D:rolleyes::cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites
[

quote=Toulose LeDebt;2371394]TLD has just arrived home and seen this and the bundle.

 

TLD is thinking exactly the same as everyone else who has followed this thread thus far either in whole or in part and this quite obviously includes those from the claimants side be it PCAD or Lyons Davidson.

 

It appears that the claimant has finally woken up to the concept that their case is the biggest crock of [-----censored by the Cag swear filter----], and [-----censored by the Cag swear filter----], fairy tale [-----censored by the Cag swear filter----],[-----censored by the Cag swear filter----], fabricated [-----censored by the Cag swear filter----], tenuous [-----censored by the Cag swear filter----][-----censored by the Cag swear filter----] chancers [-----censored by the Cag swear filter----] how much trouble they are now in the [-----censored by the Cag swear filter----][-----censored by the Cag swear filter----][-----censored by the Cag swear filter----] just desserts[-----censored by the Cag swear filter----][-----censored by the Cag swear filter----] Fred needs a Judicial decision so that he can sue their [-----censored by the Cag swear filter----][-----censored by the Cag swear filter----] and [-----censored by the Cag swear filter----] them over the [-----censored by the Cag swear filter----][-----censored by the Cag swear filter----] jokers[-----censored by the Cag swear filter----]is criminal and they should be hoisted by the [-----censored by the Cag swear filter----][-----censored by the Cag swear filter----] throw away the key.

Is that succinct enough for you, LD and PCAD?:D:rolleyes::cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3360 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...