Me and Excel - At war!

Umkomaas · 9 February 2017 at 9:06PM

Brilliantly fought Lami (and CM, BP and other contributors). It's so satisfying to see a PPC royally stuffed, but (reality check) for every PPC stuffed there's a hundred motorists stiffed.

However, kudos to you Lami on a great victory. Wallow in and enjoy your success. You'll be remembered in forum history. Come back and help others once the dust has settled (and your hangover has cleared! :beer:)

Thanks for updating us.

Quentin · 9 February 2017 at 9:07PM

Lamilad wrote: »

As some of you will know this is because my forum posts were being used against me in the case that was adjourned following my victory against Excel/BWL back in November.......

Now that court cases are becoming commonplace maybe this issue should be highlighted in the Newbies FAQ.

So many newbies naively allow themselves to be identified because they seemingly underestimate how the ppcs monitor all posts and threads here

The_Deep · 9 February 2017 at 9:15PM

I am puzzled, how can what one posts on an internet forum be used against one, unless one admits to driving? Even an admission of bilking is not fatal. How come such a simple case wasted so much of everyones' time.

Sometimes I des[air at the stupidity ay some of these parking companies. I am sure that Lamilad will now make their lives hell.

beamerguy · 9 February 2017 at 9:20PM

Lamilad wrote: »

The Result...
Justice served... Claim dismissed!

...A relief, considering this would've cost me £687. I was awarded costs of £104.50.

Is this the end for me and Excel? I'm not banking on it!

Well done again :T

Unsure why they use text from this forum ?

Why would you hear anything more from Excel. all they can do is poop in their nappies.

Don't forget, If Excel don't pay the £104.50, get the court bailiffs to pay them a visit for collection

:beer:

bargepole · 9 February 2017 at 9:22PM

The_Deep wrote: »

I am puzzled, how can what one posts on an internet forum be used against one, unless one admits to driving? Even an admission of bilking is not fatal. How come such a simple case wasted so much of everyones' time.

Sometimes I des[air at the stupidity ay some of these parking companies. I am sure that Lamilad will now make their lives hell.

The forum posting (on Pepipoo) was central to the case, as Excel were arguing that there was an inference that he was driving. The judge found that not to be the case. But we advised him to stay off-forum until it was all over.

fil_cad · 9 February 2017 at 9:38PM

Great Result, :beer: the lengths ppcs go to extort your cash. :eek:

Lamilad · 9 February 2017 at 9:42PM

The_Deep wrote: »

I am puzzled, how can what one posts on an internet forum be used against one, unless one admits to driving? Even an admission of bilking is not fatal. How come such a simple case wasted so much of everyones' time.

Sometimes I des[air at the stupidity ay some of these parking companies. I am sure that Lamilad will now make their lives hell.

In my pepipoo thread I'd stated that I couldn't remember the event or who was driving, but in my WS I'd stated that I definitely was not driving. JB tried to say both can't be true therefore I was lying and not a 'credible' witness.

Problem (for him) was the thread he was quoting from was about my previous case back in Nov, involving a different vehicle and had no bearing on this case whatsoever. Despite this I addressed the comment which was among the first few comments posted, by saying truthfully that at the time of receiving the court papers I could not recollect an otherwise unremarkable event on an unremarkable day. It was only as I investigated further, over the coming weeks and months, that I knew that I couldn't have been the driver and so was able to state as much in my WS.

He also picked up on a comment where I'd said I use the car park regularly yet in both cases I had stated that I had not ever driven either vehicle to the car park in question. This is true as I was referring to the fact that I used to use the car park regularly a few years ago when I owned a different vehicle. Nonetheless he went on about this for ages trying to say my comments didn't make sense and I must be lying. I wasn't, I just hadn't worded it right... but it's a comment on an internet forum not a formal witness statement

catfunt · 9 February 2017 at 9:49PM

Quentin wrote: »

Now that court cases are becoming commonplace maybe this issue should be highlighted in the Newbies FAQ.

So many newbies naively allow themselves to be identified because they seemingly underestimate how the ppcs monitor all posts and threads here

Indeed - I do raise this very issue from time to time as in this post

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5532696

and this case shows exactly why. OK, there was nothing incriminating in Lamilad's posts, but the potential for problems is very clear.

This issue needs raising at the very top of the Newbies thread under a "Before You Post" heading, to try and avoid situations like this.

Lamilad - Congrats! I know you had plenty of help, but you still had to see it through. Good on you mate!

Coupon-mad · 9 February 2017 at 10:18PM

As already said - very well done Lamilad! We enjoyed helping you and we'd like to see you stick around.

What Lamilad hasn't said is that he helps other newbies himself already, based on what he has learned and he immediately obtained the transcript to his first win, at significant cost that he felt was not a problem to give something back to others. He did that in order that other newbies can benefit from using it to show a case well-argued on the ''no POFA, no liability'' point.

Hopefully The Parking Prankster will pick up on this and publish Lamilad's full court report about 'round two' (we haven't heard it all from you yet Lamilad - blow by blow please, once you've calmed down!) and hopefully the Prankster will also host the court transcript of 'Lamilad Round One' at Skipton, from November 2016, in his Case Law pages.

Just goes to show, however Excel happened to come across that pepipoo thread, Lamilad was being honest and the innocent party won. In this case it was vital to take this off-forum; we could see that his cases were attracting interest and becoming a target and we guessed yesterday that Excel would not just send a third party rep.

:T

Lamilad · 9 February 2017 at 10:57PM

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Hopefully The Parking Prankster will pick up on this and publish Lamilad's full court report about 'round two' (we haven't heard it all from you yet Lamilad - blow by blow please, once you've calmed down!) and hopefully the Prankster will also host the court transcript of 'Lamilad Round One' at Skipton, from November 2016, in his Case Law pages.

I'll certainly post a detailed account of events - probably tomorrow. Although after getting the transcript from my previous case it showed how different my recollection was from the reality... but I'll do my best.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

we guessed yesterday that Excel would not just send a third party rep.

:T

Indeed you did, and going up against JB was very different to the bumbling, fumbling, stumbling Mr Pickup. He knows his stuff and is sharp as a tack. He managed to make a very weak argument seem quite credible. He said, towards the end, that he had never had a judge decide against him before, I'm sure thats not true (I think it was a last ditch attempt to sway the judge) but he certainly didn't like losing. He was utterly dejected at the end - but then it was a long and, at times, quite confrontational, hearing.

Me and Excel - At war!

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free