Thank you so much for your replies. Its been some years since I used CAG - I had forgotten how fast you respond and I am really immensely impressed. Sorry I had to attend to some personal issues but please note the following
1. Honeybee - I will complete the template you suggested and have it up for your ASAP
2. Ericsbrother - Yes thank you - my feeling is the same. If you could let me have a suitable wording that would be wonderful.
do we submit an affadavid or witness statement saying
The Plaintiffs case should be struck out
The Defendents counter claim be accepted.
followed by statement of truth
signed and date?
In the meant time I was surprised that they did not respond on the correct date. Are we missing something here? The date they were to respond is stipulated very clearly.
Yes - exactly
In the industrial zone, there are two car parks. My wife has to enter first, the Car Park owned by Lancashire City Council (LCC) to reach the Private car park owned by the Landlords of the company for whom she worked. They are two separate car parks and the solictors of the Landlords have issued a cease and desist order against Lancashire County Council.
This what the solicitors for the landlords sent to LCC
"... As your client has failed or refused to instruct CEL NOT TO ISSUE CHARGES for parking on the Carp Park (the car park outside my wife's office), despite the fact that such action constitutes a derogation from grant and/or a breich of the covenant of quiet enjoyment under the Lease, we have today (03 December 2019) sent a formal cease and desist order...... It remains our client's view that the current system is unlawful in that it seeks to restrict or limit the ability of our client to excercise its rights to park on the car park, which in turn is causing our Client issues with its own sub-tenant. "
As for CEL Managing the LCC's Car Park, let me then rephrase - LCC employed CEL to police the car park and obviiusly issue parking tickets but they transit into issue parking tickets on cars parked in the private car park.
Only problem with that is assuming Johnson gives a damn about 'legalities when theres always 'interpretation..
.. and I've not a single shred of doubt that Suella Braverman will agree with whatever Boris says however much what he says changes or flies in the face of established precedent and law.
ESPECIALLY as handcock has already said they can and will
I'll see if I can sort out a youtube VID of him actually saying it.
hightail isn't the only one to think that. From this article:
It is not yet known whether use of the app would be mandatory or voluntary. “A mandatory smartphone app would be a significant measure, both legally and culturally,” the lawyers said. “Our view is that there would need to be a clear and detailed legal basis for a mandatory system, set out in specific legislation.”