I actually agree with you for once! lol

However, the Scouse magic and I will be monitoring, evaluating and reporting on the current proceedings quietly in the background..................Until Roxburghe are no more I shall not rest.

I sent an email today to Gladstones asking them to confirm that they are now representing Roxburghe, and their thoughts on the previous and current state of affairs..................Will update when/if reply recieved.

There could be lots of cases where a Mckenzies friend is required..........Get in there Kirkby!!!!

According to a Roxburghe Dedt Collectors employee today, Gladstones Solicitors ltd, based in Cheshire now represent them...........We all now wait with baited breath?

Do you good people not find it a matter of concern that this is the 3rd lot of solicitors that they have had this year, with the last ones, GPB being closed down by the Solicitors Regulation Authority for dishonest practice!!!!!!!!!!

Bearing in mind that the OFT have ' Refused to Renew' their Consumer Credit Licience I personally find this most interesting.

Happy Parking People

I personally think you could have a little fun with this one

You could contact the dca and ask them to refer the matter back to their client,(pcn), requesting to see a copy of the contract that authorises them to proceed on behalf of the landowner! which is you my friend.............. Loving it, wish it were me.

Glad it's sorted for you

Congrats to the OP....Well done to you.

And surprise......... No McKenzies friend required! Ha ha ha

Please, please, Kirkby let me know of your next representation and I will get the regulars together on here and we can hire a mini bus and maybe take in a tour of the M25, should we be disappointed and the proceedings are dropped AGAIN! lol .......

CPR 44 doesn't apply to small claims, it's CPR 27.14 which deals with SCC cases.

 

Normally Judges will only award defendant's costs based on lost earnings through taking time off work to attend court. So if there is no hearing, the chances of claiming costs for a discontinued case are between slim and none.

 

And, to repeat what I said earlier, kirkby is not acting as a McKenzie Friend, that is only applicable to the Magistrates' courts. If he goes to a hearing and speaks for the defendant, he is acting as a Lay Representative.

 

It's a pity some of the posters on CAG don't spend more time giving practical help to OPs, instead of indulging in petty (and ungrammatical) point scoring.

I refer you to my post #77 .......and the Judge was refering to costs prior to the court hearing.

4. The claim in fact was discontinued in January of this year. It was not discontinued

on the proper form, there was no confirmation (as the Rules require) that the

Defendant had been informed of the intention of the Claimant to discontinue and

that any costs incurred by the Defendant had been agreed with her.

This was the small claims track

In that case mrs scouse magic why dont you get over to the pepipoo forum

 

Speak to the people on there who have handled lots of PE cases and CEL cases that have been dropped/discontinue by CEL and start correcting them then

 

I am sure they would appreciate your pearls of wisdom !

It is up to the defendant and/or their advisors whether a McKenzies friend or not, ( although i believe McKenzies friend only applies to criminal court, not the small claims track), to claim costs, so I cannot speak about other individual cases, however you clearly do not think costs are relevant, and that is a matter of concern?

Kirkby why dont you just thank me for my useful post, admit you are wrong, accept constructive criticism and be reflective and more knowledgeable in any future representations you should make to individuals going through the court process.

No this is not normally the case. When cases are withdrawn it is a case of the claimiant simply informing the court of their intention to vacate/withdraw.

 

This can be done via post/email/fax etc

Kirkby you are incorrect, please read the following excerpts from my court case in March of this year......This is from a judge, so is fact not opinion.............

4. The claim in fact was discontinued in January of this year. It was not discontinued

on the proper form, there was no confirmation (as the Rules require) that the

Defendant had been informed of the intention of the Claimant to discontinue and

that any costs incurred by the Defendant had been agreed with her.

10. In relation to her costs, there is clearly no difficulty at all. She will recover those.

The Claimant notwithstanding being advised by the Court that the application to

adjourn was not being granted, makes no appearance or indeed any

communication with the Court whatsoever. My reaction to that is that any firm

of solicitors, and it may well be that Mr Sobell is the only solicitor employed by

that firm, but notwithstanding that, any solicitor in practice engaged in litigation

who simply fails to attend Court, does not take notice of a message that was left

on his firm’s answering machine, even if he is hospitalised, as per the 15th March

application avers, must have some administrative staff to ensure that whilst he is

personally unable to work, that the work is going to be covered. The world does

not stop simply because a solicitor goes into hospital.

11. And I am not impressed by the absence of any response to the telephone message

that was left and the fact that he even thought it was appropriate to apply for an

adjournment in the first place when it would have been easy to engage either

another solicitor by way of an agency agreement or simply to instruct counsel to

attend on behalf of the client.

12. So I am dealing with this counterclaim in the absence of anything from the

Claimant and also, as Miss Fever has pointed out, in the absence of any

documents put forward in defence of the counterclaim.

13. The way in which the claim was being pursued is quite frankly a mess.

No McKenzies friend required!

Scouse:

 

With the number of defences done against the the likes of cel and pe it is not possible to do it on an open forum or tl discuss issues bought up.

 

It is more prudent to discuss these by email.

 

Indeed there is an email list that a lot of the helpers belong that bounce ideas and ketterd etc from parking eye each day.

 

Something you couldn't and wouldnt want to do on any of the 3 main forums

And suddenly the shop keeper appeared!

when's peanut allergy coming back then......

 

same ole rubbish.

 

dx

I agree............

Ok All, a update on the saga that is Cobham Services after a Polite e-mail sent to Extra, I have a reply via e-mail from a Ms Perry who I presume is the public relations officer for Extra, she states the sign complies with the BPA code , you really cant make this up, I will attached my e-mails plus the reply redacted so no details are showing but don't think that it will be hard for them to guess who it is grrrrrrrr Surrey TS were notified but with their track record I suppose nowt will come of it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! now i'm thinking to be the Devil;s advocate here and get one just for the hell of it, Oh boy would I love a court hearing with that, do you think I should advise Extra to bring their toothbrushes ????

Ha ha ha...Yes absolutely.......Might take a visit there myself! :brushteeth:

If you don't or if you don't appeal as the rk they will just stall and could risk not getting a popla code

 

I personally don't subscribe to the whole writing appeals in the third person. But that's just my opinion ,knowing tht I'll win at popla.

 

How you play it is up to:) I just like to get the popla code asap rather then wasting time

 

I could of course be wrong....

In my opinion everything that you say is WRONG.

Who's appealed then? I appealed as reg keeper,they want driver,I have no obligation to give that,so they have to chase reg keeper,who has already appealed... So they cancel charge or give POPLA code.

Nice one armadillo!

This is the best site for advice........Together we are a force to be reckoned with!

This is one of our favourite's ...enjoy.........

TCP parking/ Smart Parking ( same)

Links at the beginning are broke, but i copied and pasted further down the thread.

Now how many people can say they turned the tables on the PPC, and demanded reinbursment?

I have the photo copied cheque on my wall, amongst others.......Makes my day!

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?390860-Tcp-send-cheque-to-apologise!!!!&highlight=tcp+send+cheque+apologise

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?388582-Roxburghe-Graham-White-lose-Again-in-court(1-Viewing)-nbsp

 

Hope this works? If not please help site team?

Yep seems to work, thanks.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?388582-Roxburghe-Graham-White-lose-Again-in-court(1-Viewing)-nbsp

Hope this works? If not please help site team?

They will proberly claim they never got the papers and go for a set aside

Oh so much negativity.......AGAIN

They would do exactly the same so go with plodder toms's suggestion.......You never know, it may be on the next series of The Sheriffs are coming......Sheriffs like cars !!!!!!!

Yes , nice and shiny cars

Or failing that, your laptop, and dodgy TV will do!

I agree with Homer................

Instead of derailing a thread guys, if you have a problem with a poster, dont reply, just hit the report button and let the admins deal with it.

Yes apologies to the original poster, but the site team really need to sort this out.....Its getting beyond ridiculous..........

Myself & SM were reported for being the same poster when in fact all our details our clear to see in "Successful defence against private parking charge," sticky, where our idenfiable information has not been removed at our request and "Roxburghe / Graham white lose again in court"....You see WE have nothing to hide.............

TCP now trading as Smart Parking.............Are they having a laugh?????

Hi guys.

 

I'm a long time user (occasional poster) and have been daft and obtained a notice which was affixed to my car the other week.

 

On the 18th August, I went to Lincoln and parked in a Smart car park (T/A T&C) and paid for 4 hours parking. Stupidly, I went over the 4 hours by a few minutes and as I returned to my car, saw a yellow striped plastic bag stuck to my windscreen, stating "PARKING CHARGE NOTICE.... Unauthorised Removal is an offence". I opened it and there was an invoice for £35 rising to £70 if I didn't pay within a week.

 

Now, I know I'm at fault for going over, but surely £70 is a bit steep for 16 minutes???

 

I know the old advice was ignore/ignore or ignore, but have things changed?

 

I don't want to end up being a living breathing puppet for these guys in a courtroom.

 

Thanks in advance.

Please see thread ' TCP send cheque and apologise'.

( same company)

Nice try Kirby to try and convince us of your good intentions?????

If I ever need a litagant friend I wont be calling on you.

Sorry mate you have been rumbled!

Caggers on here do not take kindly to being slated either on here or over on mse ( pcn NW ltd taking me to court).

Cag, mse or pepipoo is supposed to be about the general public asking for advice on individual matters and genuine threads, posts and replies.

Your negative and sometimes abusive comments are not welcome.