Part 85 the Civil Procedure Rules ..... Discussion

[Whitely]

DB is perfectly correct..the case I mentioned was heard in Watford, the claimant was in Court as was his solicitor. The matter I speak of was only a small part of the evidence given to the Court from a whole raft of ridiculous claims made against a LA and Enforcement company...all thrown out I believe.

 

A few more details would be helpful. Seeing as you already know the court, the claimant and their representative, this shouldn't be difficult. What are the details of the case and the arguments used?

[wonkeydonkey]

As I understand it.....most ( not all) enforcement sgents photograph the car when clamps are in place.

[Whitely]

As I understand it.....most ( not all) enforcement sgents photograph the car when clamps are in place.

 

And they could also then remove them. The police, it seems, are far too quick to fully believe anything a bailiff tells them.

[wonkeydonkey]

A few more details would be helpful. Seeing as you already know the court, the claimant and their representative, this shouldn't be difficult. What are the details of the case and the arguments used?

 

This would be best discussed when the Jugment is released and all the facts are there to see. (as I am sure it will be given it's importance)

[Whitely]

This would be best discussed when the Jugment is released and all the facts are there to see. (as I am sure it will be given it's importance)

 

Judging by your previous posts I assumed you already had the details of the judgement as you were commenting on the outcomes. It now seems that the judgement has yet to be released.

 

However as I said earlier, Bailiff Advice assured us on Sunday that she would be posting the details 'in the next couple of days'. So that would indicate the judgement has been released. Things appear very contradictory at the moment.

[wonkeydonkey]

And they could also then remove them. The police, it seems, are far too quick to fully believe anything a bailiff tells them.

 

There are many'what if' scenarios.I for one have no intention of entering into circles of discusion on them all I prefer to facts to opinions.

[wonkeydonkey]

Judging by your previous posts I assumed you already had the details of the judgement as you were commenting on the outcomes. It now seems that the judgement has yet to be released.

 

However as I said earlier, Bailiff Advice assured us on Sunday that she would be posting the details 'in the next couple of days'. So that would indicate the judgement has been released. Things appear very contradictory at the moment.

 

Perhapse if I were to replace the word 'released' with 'published' it will make for better reading. Sorry if I confused you, it was unintentional.

[Peterbard]

DB is perfectly correct..the case I mentioned was heard in Watford, the claimant was in Court as was his solicitor. The matter I speak of was only a small part of the evidence given to the Court from a whole raft of ridiculous claims made against a LA and Enforcement company...all thrown out I believe.

 

I wonder who has been misinforming this poster ?

[Peterbard]

Anyway no matter. The truth will out as they say.

[Whitely]

Perhapse if I were to replace the word 'released' with 'published' it will make for better reading. Sorry if I confused you, it was unintentional.

 

County Court cases are rarely 'published'. The only conclusion is that someone who was present on the day has released or fed the details to Bailiff Advice (seeing as she was to be posting the details), who has then passed this info on to yourself.

 

I doubt whether Bailiff Advice or yourself were present, so it can only be from the following list - the judge, the LA, the EA company, the EA's solicitor, the claimant or the claimant's solicitor.

 

I doubt that the judge or the LA would do so, nor would any of the 'losing' parties, so that leaves just the EA company or their solicitor. Going by past evidence I would hazard a guess at the EA's solicitor. I find that a little troubling.

[Whitely]

I wonder who has been misinforming this poster ?

 

The case I'm referring to took place on May 10th.

[Whitely]

The case I'm referring to took place on May 10th.

 

Sorry my mistake - he was given leave to appeal on that date.

[Peterbard]

Sorry my mistake - he was given leave to appeal on that date.

 

Must be the wrong one. This one certainly did not get leave to appeal, not at ll.

[Whitely]

Must be the wrong one. This one certainly did not get leave to appeal, not at ll.

 

I see. So you must have all the details then. Would you share them with us?

[wonkeydonkey]

Or paid for transcript?

[Whitely]

Or paid for transcript?

 

Who?

[Whitely]

Sorry my mistake - he was given leave to appeal on that date.

 

Apologies again, the case I am referring to was on the May 10th. Leave was also given to appeal.

[Peterbard]

County Court cases are rarely 'published'. The only conclusion is that someone who was present on the day has released or fed the details to Bailiff Advice (seeing as she was to be posting the details), who has then passed this info on to yourself.

 

I doubt whether Bailiff Advice or yourself were present, so it can only be from the following list - the judge, the LA, the EA company, the EA's solicitor, the claimant or the claimant's solicitor.

 

I doubt that the judge or the LA would do so, nor would any of the 'losing' parties, so that leaves just the EA company or their solicitor. Going by past evidence I would hazard a guess at the EA's solicitor. I find that a little troubling.

 

I am afraid this is largely incorrect. Cases are of course recorded and anyone can order a transcript from the court office. I have done s on many occasions.

[Whitely]

Or paid for transcript?

 

If you're suggesting that Bailiff Advice paid for a transcript then that would be impossible. The case only concluded just over a week ago and a transcript would not be available that quickly, what with the filing of the EX107, the court sending the recording, the written transcript being made then waiting for it's delivery.

[Peterbard]

I see. So you must have all the details then. Would you share them with us?

 

Don't be so petulant all comes to he who waits. ######

[Whitely]

I am afraid this is largely incorrect. Cases are of course recorded and anyone can order a transcript from the court office. I have done s on many occasions.

 

I'm sorry Dodgeball but you are mistaken. Of course recordings are made and transcripts can be ordered, often at a considerable cost. However, CC rulings are rarely publically 'published' by the courts for everyone to read.

 

Could you elaborate on how my post is largely incorrect? All things considered, I cannot see how the details of this case have been released other than how I explained. If you have an alternative suggestion I'm all ears.

[Whitely]

Don't be so petulant all comes to he who waits. ######

 

Not sure how I'm being petulant. It seems that between yourself, Bailiff Advice and wonkeydonkey, you claim to be privvy to the details of this case, but then claim you don't have the details as the transcript has yet to be released. As I said, on Sunday Bailiff Advice assured us they would be posting the case details in the next day or two yet nothing has surfaced. However it seems that you three are freely sharing the details amongst yourselves leaving not just me, but everyone else on these boards in the dark. I find it very strange.

[wonkeydonkey]

Who?

 

Who pays for them I don't know but many transcripts are used for legal training, especially those that cover matters appertaining to current lectures.

[wonkeydonkey]

If you're suggesting that Bailiff Advice paid for a transcript then that would be impossible. The case only concluded just over a week ago and a transcript would not be available that quickly, what with the filing of the EX107, the court sending the recording, the written transcript being made then waiting for it's delivery.

 

The case I was referring to was heard in February!!!!!

[Whitely]

Who pays for them I don't know but many transcripts are used for legal training, especially those that cover matters appertaining to current lectures.

 

I doubt that would be the case in this instance.