E.Kent Hospital PCN's sobell/white taking me to small claims court **Discontinued**

[lamma]

I agree. "51%" is enough - depending on the view of the judge. . .

[Scouse Magic]

On the balance of probabilities .... They have to totally prove their case....

 

Contradictory. The latter statement is wrong and misleads the OP and general readers.

And PPCs do sometimes win.

 

In these particular cases (Ones ive won and heard of) the rules of the small claims track pre October 2012 were that The Onus is on the claimant to totally prove their case. It was not for the defendant to prove they were not the driver ie Liability / probability.

 

I cant find anywhere (Thank fook) where a PPC has won in court when the identity of the driver was unknown / disputed. Most people cave in when you get the infamous Northampton County Court Claim. (Well bulk Centre,) They rely upon payment for the threatogram or hope the defendant doesnt turn up.

 

The OP's case is different in that they admit being there.. Personally Id offer £2 per notice for the loss of revenue the land owner incurred ie 9 x £2 as for the other £885 or so they can [EDIT] right off as per OFT etc

Edited March 20, 2013 by ims21
circumvent language filter

[Old Snowy]

In these particular cases (Ones ive won and heard of) the rules of the small claims track pre October 2012 were that The Onus is on the claimant to totally prove their case. It was not for the defendant to prove they were not the driver ie Liability / probability.

Please SM, this is still incorrect and likely to mislead. As you have characterised things above you have effectively described the level of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) required in a criminal court where the onus is indeed upon the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt given the presumption that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. This is not what applies in the county county - small claims track or otherwise.

 

Were someone to rely on your assertion and do nothing (which is what it implies) leaving a claimant to prove his case then the claimant is going to win because his is the only case the judge is going to hear.

[ericsbrother]

 

The OP's case is different in that they admit being there.. Personally Id offer £2 per notice for the loss of revenue the land owner incurred ie 9 x £2 as for the other £885 or so they can [EDIT] right off as per OFT etc

 

You are right in that this is a different matter as she is being taken to court by people acting (supposedly) on behalf of her (then) employer and I find it difficult to believe that the circumstances of this dont have a definitive answer. If she was still employed by EKH the answer would be quite simple and remedy could be sought via an Employment Tribunal this would have no doubt focussed the mind of the twonk responsible for this situation and the action by Sobell/White would be dropped like a hot rock.

other than following the employer's breach of implied and written terms in employment law I cannot think of anything that would kill this action before it gets to the court door.

I'm sure that all of our input is helpful to a small degree it doesnt actually offer the OP a consise specific course to follow.

[Scouse Magic]

You are right in that this is a different matter as she is being taken to court by people acting (supposedly) on behalf of her (then) employer and I find it difficult to believe that the circumstances of this dont have a definitive answer. If she was still employed by EKH the answer would be quite simple and remedy could be sought via an Employment Tribunal this would have no doubt focussed the mind of the twonk responsible for this situation and the action by Sobell/White would be dropped like a hot rock.

other than following the employer's breach of implied and written terms in employment law I cannot think of anything that would kill this action before it gets to the court door.

I'm sure that all of our input is helpful to a small degree it doesnt actually offer the OP a consise specific course to follow.

 

That maybe correct to a certain degree, however sobell & co will go for blood in view of the amount, and given the fact that the op states the charge notices were applied during her course of duty.

 

She cannot have an employment tribunal unless she worked there more than 12 months.

 

The charge is the main key here in that it is not an actual pre estimate of loss incurred by the land owner and is an unjustified increase of charges applied by the debt collector as many other regulars have correctly previously stated, therefore it is a penalty charge for non payment.

[diskmandave]

She cannot have an employment tribunal unless she worked there more than 12 months.

 

2 years actually.

[Scouse Magic]

2 years actually.

 

 

Definately 12 months, I had one and won

[dw190]

Qualifying period to claim unfair dismissal

 

You must have worked for your employer for a minimum period before you qualify for the right to claim unfair dismissal at a tribunal. If you’re classed as an employee and started your job:

• on or after 6 April 2012 - the qualifying period is normally 2 years
  
• before 6 April 2012 - the qualifying period is normally one year
  

[Scouse Magic]

On a separate note I was absoloutley wetting myself at an article posted by a trusted member. To read it, go to google and type Daily Mail archives june 2006, family homeless after polish builders turn squatters....... Another quite simply astonishing performace in court from old mikey !!On par with what he said at mine.... "There is no evidence that the car wasn't there.. but there is evidence that it was"........... a statement i will cherish over many pints of beer.Another thing that struck me...maybe its old hat to some of you.... I once got a letter from sobell from a SW19 post code not the usual Graham White" post office" address in west byfleet.It appears that this post code is the same one used by Turnbull Rutherford solicitors of HFO fame

[Sidewinder]

Definately 12 months, I had one and won

 

Definitely wrong (now anyway).

 

Thank the Coalition - and in particularly the 'Business' Secretary for that particular change. Amended to two years as the one year period was felt to be a barrier to small businesses and they wanted to be able to hire and fire people more easily.

 

Exactly as dw190 states

 

Qualifying period to claim unfair dismissal

 

You must have worked for your employer for a minimum period before you qualify for the right to claim unfair dismissal at a tribunal. If you’re classed as an employee and started your job:

• on or after 6 April 2012 - the qualifying period is normally 2 years
  
• before 6 April 2012 - the qualifying period is normally one year
  

[/Quote]

 

Thanks to our glorious leaders, employees will shortly have to pay to take a case to a Tribunal - around £200 to lodge the case and £1000 or so if the case proceeds to a hearing!

[peanutsallergy]

Result!!!!!

 

"Had a letter today from Sobell dated 23rd April stating "discontinuance" which seems to be legal talk for "get you next time". "

 

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=77364&pid=812277&st=0entry812277

[DBC]

Motorists 3 - Sobell 0. Think of all the money that's been wasted by the hospital over these cases. This means less money to spend on patients.

[peanutsallergy]

This was a non starter all the way through.

 

Ticketing an employee for unloading!

[DBC]

It just shows how stupid the hospital and their legal wonks are.

[dw190]

Result!!!!!

 

"Had a letter today from Sobell dated 23rd April stating "discontinuance" which seems to be legal talk for "get you next time". "

 

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=77364&pid=812277&st=0entry812277

 

Send him an invoice for dealing with his correspondance.

[DBC]

The trouble with that might be that he might pass those charges on to his client, the hospital. So even more public money wasted.

[Tony P]

If they do pass it on to the hospital, what a strong, headline story for the media showing the bullying, moneygrabbing, antics of PPCs work against sence, reason, fairness and the public good.

[ericsbrother]

did you put in a counterclaim when you submitted your defence form? If you did then they owe you money. Write to the court and explain that you dont want the matter dropped and send them your bill.

If you didnt then they have got off lightly as you could have asked the judge to have the summons struck out as vexatious and you would have stood a good chance of that happening and got a few quid on top of your expenses.

Pleased that you got the result you did though as it will save you a lot of stress, inconvenience and time wasting.