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

[Scouse Magic]

Whether or not this person admits liability is irrelevant, the problem is with the employer not making reasonable provisions for that person to carry out their duty across three sites.

 

The charge being issued by White is totally disproportionate to any loss the employer may have incurred and thus is a penalty charge for non payment and thus irrecoverable in law

[Scouse Magic]

There is also an argument in court that the PCNs were issued incorrectly if the photographs (if any for each event) does not show clear close up shots of the dashboard which clearly shows no permit or pay and display

Edited March 16, 2013 by Scouse Magic

[Scouse Magic]

Because he issues so many claims Michael White is obliged to take an occasional one to court. I believe once he is faced with a determined defence - he backs off.

 

He personally is unlikely to turn up due to age.

He turned up to mine with all guns blazing and lost !!!!!!!

[Scouse Magic]

Unfortunately he jumped on a long standing thread using several usernames but was kicked off each time and his posts removed. Saying that he didn't really explain what his defence was, he said he was going to pay for a transcript and post it up. Until I pointed him to the fees for transcripts.

 

I think I can recall some of the usernames I will see if I can find anything.[/quote

 

I have the transcript £235 to be precise.... money well spent, Im not going to post it to people who called me delusional and gave unhelpful comments. I was asked for the judgement and supplied it... now are we going to all help each other or be rude ???

[Scouse Magic]

Admitting you won't adhere to their terms and conditions admits you accept they offered a contract, your choice in that case should have been not to use the parking facility.

No one forced the op to park, it was quite clear what the t&c's were at the time the permit was purchased.

The charge isn't a penalty for none payment, the op paid, and at least part of the charge is clearly defined in the link the op posted.

It's a penalty for parking where they shouldn't have.

 

That fact needs to be addressed to fight the charges.

 

It's not worth the op trying to claim they had a permit, as they admitted they haven't, they would have to lie in court, and their employment records would clearly show they hadn't at the time.

 

In the absence of photographs close up to the dashboard the entire claim is invalid, the same principle applies to public highway and traffic wardens when appeals are heard

[Scouse Magic]

Ooops just read that through and it sounds really rude. Apologies, but I never seemed to find the time at work to faff with a system that seemed determined to waste more NHS time. I was working part-time 4 days a week as both parents were ill, but was actually fitting the same job into the four days and on top was covering for girl who was pregnant and could'nt lug heavy gear and then off on maternity leave. I have attached my calendar over 2011. Each pink day is a day out if it has anything but KCH in title. Each of those days I had to load and unload either that day or day before or after, meanwhile trying to avoid getting a parking ticket. I think I did pretty well considering, but there were obviously 7 days that year when I took too long or got distracted

 

If this goes to court you should get a bundle off White 14 days before the hearing. The hearing is the small claims track and more informal so represent yourself..... Make sure Sobell has declared any witnesses (Usually the parking attendant etc) on the allocation questionaire.

 

Your argument should be that there are no close up photographs of the dashboard, thats even before we get to the fact that the charge is a penalty and not recoverable in law.... hetherington - jakeman mansfield county court 2008. Be careful what you post on here, roxburghe print it off.... not that it is a crime to use social networking

[DBC]

Are you sure that some of the regulars on here are not "Sobell spies" as you alleged over on MSE?

[Scouse Magic]

Are you sure that some of the regulars on here are not "Sobell spies" as you alleged over on MSE?

 

Just helping that particular lady....... not interested in anyone else or their comments

[peanutsallergy]

Just helping that particular lady....... not interested in anyone else or their comments

 

So if you're not interested, it's only fair to point out to the op the "demand for proof" that no ticket was on display is nearly worthless, as on the balance of probabilities, if one hadn't been issued to the op, it's unlikely one would be on display, so not really a lot of need for a photograph if the employer states that, and the op has already admitted it?

Or that a contract exists, so the original charge will not be argued as a penalty by the PPC, and indeed isn't in the claim they've made.

 

This isn't MSE, and if you read my earlier comments, you can make your own opinion of me.

I have no idea what was on the papers you received, or if you were an employee or a member of the public, but a copy of the transcript would be helpful to the op in this case.

[Scouse Magic]

So if you're not interested, it's only fair to point out to the op the "demand for proof" that no ticket was on display is nearly worthless, as on the balance of probabilities, if one hadn't been issued to the op, it's unlikely one would be on display, so not really a lot of need for a photograph if the employer states that, and the op has already admitted it?

Or that a contract exists, so the original charge will not be argued as a penalty by the PPC, and indeed isn't in the claim they've made.

 

This isn't MSE, and if you read my earlier comments, you can make your own opinion of me.

I have no idea what was on the papers you received, or if you were an employee or a member of the public, but a copy of the transcript would be helpful to the op in this case.

 

On the balance of probabilities the op was there at the time whether a contract exists or not....The court will ask the claimant for close up photographs of the dashboard to determine whether or not a permit or a pay and display ticket can be seen.... They have to totally prove their case.... sadly they always lose..... in either case the charge is a penalty not recoverable in law.....I would advise the op to complain to the chief exec of EKH and the SRA about the anticts of the old vampire

[peanutsallergy]

.... They have to totally prove their case....

 

No, that's criminal court. Civil is always "balance of probabilities"

 

And no one else would say they always lose. They should, but they don't always.

 

The op needs the truth, even if it's not what we want to hear.

Then they'll be properly prepared.

[Scouse Magic]

No, that's criminal court. Civil is always "balance of probabilities"

 

And no one else would say they always lose. They should, but they don't always.

 

The op needs the truth, even if it's not what we want to hear.

Then they'll be properly prepared.

 

It is not criminal law it is the small claims track..... The onus is on the claimant to totally prove their case ie close up photographs of the dashboard which they will never have..... Take it from someone who has beaten the old vampire......The more letters that go in to the SRA, OFT and Chief Exec, the more Roxbirghe stand to lose their contract with EKH....... If you telephone the number for GW you are advised to call Roxburghe..... All bogus

[EmainMacha]

Hello All

I do get travel expenses which includes parking for all other sites, apart from Kent and Canterbury, where I load and unload the equipment. The travel expenses are suposed to cover petrol and depreciation I think (even though they haven't changed in about fifteen years!).

[Scouse Magic]

Hello All

I do get travel expenses which includes parking for all other sites, apart from Kent and Canterbury, where I load and unload the equipment. The travel expenses are suposed to cover petrol and depreciation I think (even though they haven't changed in about fifteen years!).

 

EmainMacha I am local to you, read my posts, I have beaten these clowns, they are totally in breach of the BPA and OFT the old vampire only takes on dead cert cases. If you telephone GW you will never get through to sobell because he is never there

[Scouse Magic]

EmainMacha I am local to you, read my posts, I have beaten these clowns, they are totally in breach of the BPA and OFT the old vampire only takes on dead cert cases. If you telephone GW you will never get through to sobell because he is never there

 

Also sobell registered as Graham White in 1962 with the SRA, since then he worked for the housing department at Hackney Council where the the lead was a Graham White (Strange Coincidence) When is your court date, I can help you more than anyone else on here

[ericsbrother]

I think the key thing here is that the OP was employed by the claimant and had to use her vehicle to perform her duties and is now being sued for doing her job. If it can be proved that the hospital has prevented her from doing her job by not providing her with the means to perform her duties then they have breached her employment contract and is entitled to take the hospital to court. Being precise on how much she has lost and is entitled to recover from the hospital may well focus their minds on whether they would wish to continue this action. If the OP still has to visit this site then a complaint of harassment may be a way to progress.

[Scouse Magic]

I think the key thing here is that the OP was employed by the claimant and had to use her vehicle to perform her duties and is now being sued for doing her job. If it can be proved that the hospital has prevented her from doing her job by not providing her with the means to perform her duties then they have breached her employment contract and is entitled to take the hospital to court. Being precise on how much she has lost and is entitled to recover from the hospital may well focus their minds on whether they would wish to continue this action. If the OP still has to visit this site then a complaint of harassment may be a way to progress.

 

Thats a brilliant point, as long as she has been employed for 12 months or more.... In this County Court scenario, although the official papers state EKH, it is actually roxburghe and sobell hiding under the guise of EKH..I bet the chief exec knows nothing about this case whatsoever.One thing is guaranteed and I can vouch for this... If the district judge cant see close up photographs of the dashboard then the case is not proven, even if on balance of probability the op didnt buy a pay and display ticket or have a permit. Courts are not soft... they are not going to see a law abiding person banged for £978 for going to work, even if the best solicitor in the world was bringing the case

[Scouse Magic]

The other thing that strikes me is that the op is being charged £778 before costs... Roxburghe charge £78 per alleged event so that would be ten tickets and the claim is for nine.

[Scouse Magic]

Therefor, the Northampton County Court Claim is wrong, add to that the op is being charged a penalty for non payment which is not recoverable in law, plus there will be no close up photos of the dashboard even if there are some of the vehicle..........remember the onus is on the claimant to provide "Absoloute proof" .......... case dismissed

[citizenB]

Also sobell registered as Graham White in 1962 with the SRA, since then he worked for the housing department at Hackney Council where the the lead was a Graham White (Strange Coincidence) When is your court date, I can help you more than anyone else on here

 

Why exactly, do you believe that you are more qualified to advise, than any other CAG member?

[Scouse Magic]

Why exactly, do you believe that you are more qualified to advise, than any other CAG member?

 

All advice is good advice, I live near the op and have had personal experience with Sobell Face to Face and I do feel I can help the op in this particular matter. I do not wish to disrespect any other cag member as I am a northerner and I say it how it is, sometimes it may come across as arrogant and for that I appologise, but I have been inside the courtroom and these people will tell any sort of lie that may secure a judgement so im just trying to do my part as we are all on the same side....

[citizenB]

No problem, SM, we were just wondering if you were "legal".

[lamma]

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.

[dw190]

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.

 

While "totally prove" is more like beyond doubt in criminal matters, the Claimant will still have to show an element of proof to swing the balance.

[Surfer01]

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.

Generally only if it is not defended or the defence is poor.