Graham White Solicitors pursuing with County Court Claim

Quentin

murdomaguire wrote: »

As I have said before I worked with Lucy Bonham Carter.....she was the person who formulated the now accepted consumer view regarding private parking companies pushing it out on Watchdog, Working Lunch, You and Yours, Face the Facts and Second Sight. These appearances resulted in posts on CAG and Pepipoo and eventually even on MSE.

We do remember her posts here.

She came here in a (failed miserably) attempt to self promote, and get her website some free advertising (which also failed), using as her "credentials" that she provided the legal advice for HJ!

backfoot

The same post was removed earlier today by MSE. Sort of diet of spam for breakfast and spam for tea.

If you look at the thread carefully, what is this Murdo poster trying to do other than self promote himself or his 'mate' as he calls her. What relevance is it to OP's case?

There are many Solicitors around if people want to use one. Why are we being bombarded with the credentials of this one over and over again.

Never again? Why was he doing the same thing on this thread where the OP had already got help from the Pepipoo advisors.

Not a good diet all this spam.:rotfl:

lucylucky

murdomaguire wrote: »

In that case can I be permitted a (very uncharacteristic) Daily Mail "Aaargh"

Unless there is some qualification how is anyone supposed to decide who has a disability (and hence is permitted to park in a disabled space) or not?

This is becoming very much like a David Lynch film...

First the Moonies, now a David Lynch film, whatever medication you are on I think you should lay off for a while:cool:

If you cannot understand something feel free to ask about it rather than conclude that everyone apart from yourself is working in some sort of parallel universe.

They are not as it happens.

lucylucky

Why did you feel the need to repost #71?


It was fairly irrelevant when you started a thread (which I can no longer see?!) with it earlier and is even more so now.

EDIT - I see backfoot has mentioned that the thread was removed.

murdomaguire

Are you the same Quentin (or Justin, or whatever your real name is) who gave us a feed on this?

backfoot

Forum users mustn't post the same forum post more than once on the forum (the only exception is members of the MSE team; when needed). It's called spamming and most internet forums forbid it. Where spam is reported to the Forum Team posts are deleted and the user's Posting Privileges may be removed. Please don't quote any post that you believe is spam, as this causes the team more work.

ripped_off_driver

The purpose of the murdomaguire intervention appears to be to disrupt and divert the thread from its purpose of offering advice to the OP. From his rants against site posters, who unlike him give freely of their time to help others, and management it appears that murdo is something of a sad individual, with some chips on his shoulder. If he actually knows anything at all about the legality of these unenforcable begging letters, which is doubtful given his posts to date, he should apply that knowledge to the benefit of the OP and curtail his immature hissy fits.

lucylucky

murdomaguire wrote: »

Are you the same Quentin (or Justin, or whatever your real name is) who gave us a feed on this?

Has anyone any idea what on earth this post might refer to or mean?

Coupon-mad

Murdo used to work with Lucy Bonham Carter and as I see it, he has come here to defend her point of view, which I can understand. On a previous thread I welcomed Murdo as - unlike us armchair lawyers! - he actually has some industry-related info, having worked on defending cases v. PPCs (the odd case where they chance their arm).

I don't know why Murdo gets such a bad reception here. He is not from a PPC, not a troll.

Murdo, what interested me is that you said 'in the last case won' then referred to the Thomas case. But AFAIK there was also a case won by OPC last year (being appealed) and possibly two cases won by UKCPS (one with a non-disabled person whose car was in a disabled bay, if it was a real case).

These could be considered hearsay as they were just cases reported on pepipoo...do you know whether they were real, Murdo? Genuinely interested in your answer and in your background info.

I also don't understand why on earth lawyers representing a genuine disabled person harassed in the way we have seen on threads here, do not counterclaim against the service provider under the Equality Act, in a case where a Motability car is enough for the landowner and their agent to 'know' about the disability? In fact even without a Motability car the PPC usually 'knows' about the disability very soon, as often our newbie posters here tell us they have sent in a copy of their badge with what they believe is an 'appeal'.

But still PPCs ride roughshod over the DDA and say 'tough, look at our t&cs, you should have shown a BB on the car, now pay up'. Why has this been allowed to continue, it's shocking and illegal?

I don't get why you didn't understand the point about 'restricting disabled bays to Blue Badge holders only' being discriminatory, as it clearly is IMHO? A person who meets the DDA definition of disability has the right to use a private disabled bay (and other reasonable adjustments they may need) from the very moment of diagnosis. They are not going to suddenly, magically have a Blue Badge on the way home from hospital having just been diagnosed with a longterm condition(!) but the retailer/landowner has to let them use the reasonable adjustments unharassed.

Why has no-one kicked this discrimination into touch ages ago and stopped disabled people being easy prey on private land when they forget to show their badge (which may be against sign t&cs, so may technically 'breach the contract')? A hefty claim under the Equality Act on behalf of a disabled person harassed for using a reasonable adjustment they are legally entitled to use, would soon send out the message to the PPCs that DDA entitlement in a retail/service provision/private residents' car park isn't as simple as 'displaying a badge' any more than it would be to insist they 'use a wheelchair' or whatever!

Any lawyer who brought such a case would have my deep respect. I find it shocking that disabled people are discriminated against and harassed by PPCs who have no right to do so.

(BTW I have never to my knowledge slagged off LBC...I have said Honest John's advice to pay a tenner was pretty stupid though).

Quentin

lucylucky wrote: »

Has anyone any idea what on earth this post might refer to or mean?

Not a clue!