Graham White Solicitors pursuing with County Court Claim

cajef

NeverAgain wrote: »

A few forum jackals seized on the link and have been picking at it ever since.

Now hopefully for the last time:

Anyone reading this thread can make up their own mind.

Oh dear, now it is throw the toys out of the pram time, the forum jackals that you refer to are respected posters on this board.

Agreed, anyone reading this thread will hopefully make their mind up as to whether posters who point out to someone that their link is not very good advice are trying to help people rather than someone that is obviously so obstinate that they cannot admit it may be bad advice.

backfoot

NeverAgain wrote: »

Anyone reading this thread can make up their own mind.

Is that right or wrong?

I think they already have. I can't see that you have one supporter. So it's not looking good pal so far.:rotfl:

Can you also learn to use the quotes thing properly. That doesn't look good either.

Try LBC she might be able to advise. Or maybe not, as she seems confused about this £10 offer.

backfoot

The OP has confirmed his intention to defend the claim. He has asked for it to be transferred to his local court in Birmingham.

Apparently that will cost the Claimant a further amount.

murdomaguire

With regard to the substantive matter of the OP's problem, about once a year a private parking company will proceed on a ticket and then endlessly quote it as an example if they win.

The case is usually brought by one of the smaller, less well known companies and it will usually involve something which most of us will find a little unpleasant - such as parking in a disabled bay or blocking a parking place in a church.

They will usually have proof that the person was the driver. Their case will be strengthened if the keeper claims they were not the driver but cannot shown anyone else as insured to drive the car.

The various positions to take will come from the following list:

1. [FONT=&quot]The breach of contract brought no damage therefore claimant is only entitled to nominal damages. [/FONT]
2. [FONT=&quot]Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 s.5 (arbitrary sums claimed) and possibly UCCT Regulations 1999 as well [/FONT]
3. [FONT=&quot]No evidence has been provided and the claimant will be put to strict proof. [/FONT]
4. [FONT=&quot]No harassment, please – Protection from Harassment Act 1997. [/FONT]
5. [FONT=&quot]Registered keeper is under no obligation to identify who was driving at the material time, whether or not he or she knows this. [/FONT]

Lucy would probably write the defence free of charge if the OP asked her.

I would certainly trust her legal qualification and skill to deal with the case more than the people who have previously posted their usual rubbish and misrepresentations in this thread.

lucylucky

murdomaguire wrote: »

With regard to the substantive matter of the OP's problem, about once a year a private parking company will proceed on a ticket and then endlessly quote it as an example if they win.

The case is usually brought by one of the smaller, less well known companies and it will usually involve something which most of us will find a little unpleasant - such as parking in a disabled bay or blocking a parking place in a church.

They will usually have proof that the person was the driver. Their case will be strengthened if the keeper claims they were not the driver but cannot shown anyone else as insured to drive the car.

The various positions to take will come from the following list:

1. [FONT=&quot]The breach of contract brought no damage therefore claimant is only entitled to nominal damages. [/FONT]
2. [FONT=&quot]Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 s.5 (arbitrary sums claimed) and possibly UCCT Regulations 1999 as well [/FONT]
3. [FONT=&quot]No evidence has been provided and the claimant will be put to strict proof. [/FONT]
4. [FONT=&quot]No harassment, please – Protection from Harassment Act 1997. [/FONT]
5. [FONT=&quot]Registered keeper is under no obligation to identify who was driving at the material time, whether or not he or she knows this. [/FONT]

Lucy would probably write the defence free of charge if the OP asked her.

I would certainly trust her legal qualification and skill to deal with the case more than the people who have previously posted their usual rubbish and misrepresentations in this thread.

In what way do you think most people may find your examples "a little unpleasant"?

murdomaguire

lucylucky wrote: »

Perhaps you should re-read the thread and see the useful advice that was given.

Done that. There is no advice apart from "start a new thread at Pepipoo".

They don't have a good record if proceedings are issued - I believe they sent someone as a "McKenzie friend" in the Stephen J Thomas case.

murdomaguire

lucylucky wrote: »

In what way do you think most people may find your examples "a little unpleasant"?

Generally speaking, most people (including judges) will think of able bodied people depriving a person with a disability of a parking space both selfish and arrogant. I gave the church example because it applied in the Stephen J Thomas case.

lucylucky

murdomaguire wrote: »

Generally speaking, most people (including judges) will think of able bodied people depriving a person with a disability of a parking space both selfish and arrogant. I gave the church example because it applied in the Stephen J Thomas case.

If the "disabled" space was in a private car park then as it has no legal standing I doubt a judge would ever get to comment on it.

Anyone can park in such a space if they so wish.


I am not aware of the case you mention or indeed why the parking was "unpleasant" but I understand your reference to it now.

lucylucky

murdomaguire wrote: »

Done that. There is no advice apart from "start a new thread at Pepipoo".

They don't have a good record if proceedings are issued - I believe they sent someone as a "McKenzie friend" in the Stephen J Thomas case.

Having used advice given in pepipoo to my advantage then I would submit that the suggestion to post there is indeed good advice.

Again having no knowledge of the the case you mention I do not understand the comment.

murdomaguire

lucylucky wrote: »

If the "disabled" space was in a private car park then as it has no legal standing I doubt a judge would ever get to comment on it.

Anyone can park in such a space if they so wish.


I am not aware of the case you mention or indeed why the parking was "unpleasant" but I understand your reference to it now.

If proceedings are issued of course the judge gets to comment. The space does have standing and the hearing is based on breach of contract under the terms and conditions.

The question then arises as to whether the contract was properly announced and whether the terms and conditions were fair.

A Judge can go where he likes in his own court and will take into account the nuisance caused to others. He is likely to be much less sympathetic to an able-bodied defendant parked in a disabled bay than some little old lady who overstays ten minutes.

I have to say I have no knowledge whatsoever regarding the latest proceedings. What is clear in the last case brought by a parking company (which the parking company won) the case was carefully chosen because there was no possibility of mistaken identity and the place where he was persistently parking belonged to a church.

The judge appears to have taken a view on that and found for the parking company with costs.