Graham White Solicitors pursuing with County Court Claim

backfoot

Coupon-mad wrote: »

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.

(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).

I think you will find that it is only the 'pay a tenner' advice that any of the posters have really objected to.

I have read all of Murdo's posts on the HJ and this thread and it is his tone and disrespect for the regular posters which is most apparent.That is very troll like imho.

Why did he feel the need to defend his friend on this thread?

Another poster, apparently, introduced LBC and a few posters, including myself, pointed out that the Pepipoo forum offered free advice and the OP took that route. Using LBC (or any other Solicitor) was likely to involve the Defendant in additional legal fees, so to me was an unnecessary expense. Indeed why don't we list all relevant possible solicitor's not just this 'online lawyer'.

MSE obviously felt the same and removed his post this morning, presumably on the basis that it was spam. It is now repeated again here accusing people of abuse towards LBC, where there is no such thing.

Murdo feels he can dish out his own abuse to the regular posters with impunity. He has accused me of abusing LBC in this thread and so did the poster NeverAgain. He described me as a clown and apart from size 10 shoes, I don't think the description fits :rotfl:.I didn't abuse or deride her at any point in this thread.

Clearly,there is loads of knowledge. It is how it is being presented which rankles with me along with the constant references to this lawyer as being the source of all things correct.

I don't mind Murdo posting law stuff or his opinions. I do mind if it dismisses with the same breath opinions and guidance of other regular posters, who are essentially saying much of the same thing.

The main thing here is that the Defendant Adinuff is going to defend this case and I think he has an excellent chance of success which will be great news for all but the PPC's and the GW outfit.:D

murdomaguire

backfoot wrote: »

Can't recall slagging anyone off. I don't know who your mates are?

backfoot wrote: »

I think you will find that it is only the 'pay a tenner' advice that any of the posters have really objected to.

I have read all of Murdo's posts on the HJ and this thread and it is his tone and disrespect for the regular posters which is most apparent. That is very troll-like imho. Why did he feel the need to defend his friend on this thread?

The reason I felt the need to defend my friend is that the thread offered (almost) no constructive advice but had become kicking competition about a named person who neither posts nor reads here and was also entirely based on false information.

Then to cap it all -- in the absence of evidence -- someone (from here - you know who you are) posts on the "This is Staffordshire" site - no log in required - purporting to be "LucyBC" and it is falsely reported back here by "Quentin" as proof that this is her opinion to try and confirm your prejudices. Misrepresentation is bad enough - deliberate character assassination is much more serious.

What is particularly shameful about all this is that it was Lucy Bonham Carter who framed the various defences used in all the major private parking cases most of which concerned Excel Parking Ltd. As her junior I was the person who wrote the advice that Backfoot parroted back. Furthermore all the work was done Pro Bono.

To have her slagged off on a site which purports to support the consumer interest is thus particularly galling. Lucy is not a Mother Theresa figure - she is a very hard-nosed commercial lawyer - but she uses her fee-paying work to handle cases which may well not be billable and this is precisely how we worked in 2007-8.

That may be indeed a long time ago "Quentin" but if you knew anything about this issue you would also know that it was the loss of the Mansfield cases by Excel, the subsequent involvement of Alan Meale MP (and others), the threat of legislation and railroading the various Parking Companies to sign up to the BPA parking code that set the current landscape of Private Parking Law.

The BPA code is flawed but if it did little else at least it resolved the issues of ever-escalating charges then routinely-used by PPCs to pressurise people into settlement.

When I worked on the Law Answers helpdesk we would routinely see 2-3 cases a week where claims were being made and money demanded in the sum of £1500 or more. To an elderly person these can play on the mind and some - debt free throughout their lives - were greatly troubled and borderline suicidal.

I don't believe that is the case now.

However unlike some of the "Parking Taliban" and Corner Boys who occasionally visit and post on this site I personally think a landowner has rights to charge and set conditions as to who parks on their property. But I also have my own view as to how we need to regulate this so the regime is both fair and equitable.

That may be a subject for a more constructive thread.

Law Answers is no more. I no longer work with Lucy and despite claims to the contrary, I don't think any of my posts could be construed as "spamming".

But I do think that defending one's friends against fraudulent attacks is an honourable position and I am sorry if I have offended "Backfoot", "Quentin" or anyone else who thinks to the contrary.

Quentin

murdomaguire wrote: »

.... it is falsely reported back here by "Quentin" .......

Please don't post lies, seems designed to cause trouble.

I haven't "falsely reported" anything at all!

murdomaguire wrote: »

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

And don't know what all this is about either.

You well know we don't use "real" names on the forum, so what is your point? And what is this "feed"?

But whoever/whatever justin is I have no idea.

Anyone who has had the pleasure will tell you that I am never justin, when I'm in, I'm in to the hilt!

lucylucky

"Money Savers have even impersonated her on other boards so as to misrepresent the views as her own views back here."

What proof do you have of this?

If it is the case has your ex colleague taken steps to have the "bogus" posts removed? If not why not?

You continue to pour scorn and abuse on posters on here who have gone out of their way to help people, why is that?

lucylucky

"I personally think a landowner has rights to charge and set conditions as to who parks on their property. "

I think that you will find many people in agreement with you. People do not come here to advocate abuse of people's land. What they do is give pertinent advice as to how to avoid being fleeced of monies that they have no need to pay to companies that use scare tactics deceit and coercion to extort money.

backfoot

murdomaguire wrote: »

The reason I felt the need to defend my friend is that the thread offered (almost) no constructive advice but had become kicking competition about a named person who neither posts nor reads here and was also entirely based on false information.

But I do think that defending one's friends against fraudulent attacks is an honourable position and I am sorry if I have offended "Backfoot", "Quentin" or anyone else who thinks to the contrary.

Your paranoia is still painfully apparent. There was no such kicking of her on this thread. Out of the blue, another poster introduced her again to a case where good advice had already been given.Why her? Is it because there may be some mileage in this one?

It is constructive advice, however simple, to revert to people who could help draft a robust defence. At that stage, what else was there to do,other than offer moral support?

If you can do better, I am sure Adinuff will welcome your input.

As for the Sentinel thread, you again make dangerous accusations that someone from here falsely posted under her initials.I certainly didn't but I did respond that that the 'pay a tenner' advice should be ignored.You and the real LBC would agree with that...yes/no?

You make no apology for the gay abandon which you throw about your insults despite people asking you to substantiate them.You entered the HJ thread with a totally immature and childish rant about 'put up or shut up', then expect readers to listen to your ongoing rant about about imagined injustices to your friend.

Get over it.:o

murdomaguire

Quentin wrote: »

Please don't post lies, seems designed to cause trouble. I haven't "falsely reported" anything at all!

See your post 40 which refers to the This is Staffordshire thread. MSEers created a bogus post on This is Staffordshire and then reported this back here with a view to representing that as Bonham Carter's opinion with a view to discrediting her. A number of people from here were involved. Not difficult to work out who they are.

As I have told you many times Lucy has expressed her opinion many times as to how to deal with private parking tickets and formulated most of the defences which this site advocates.

Thus it is particularly galling that she should be subject to repeated ad hominem attacks (should that be ad fenimam) attacks in this forum - as indeed is any person (me, NeverAgain) who deigns to speak up for her.

Quentin

murdomaguire wrote: »

See your post 40 which refers to the This is Staffordshire thread.

Here is post 40 in full:

Quentin wrote: »

NeverAgain wrote: »

HO87 wrote of offering to pay £10:...Nevertheless, the fact remains that whilst LB-C makes it clear that the advice is from HJ himself she can hardly be described as distancing herself from it and, indeed, by offering it in an unqualified form...

LBC's most recent post on the topic on her forum on Jan 11 this year, referring to the private parking companies: "The guidance is never connect with them, never answer any post, don't even read it if it bothers you - just put it in the bin."

Seems as though they either get their names mixed up when answering questions, or they are one and the same. LBC's advice on this occasion (in November 2010) was send them the £10:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2830880

So where did I "falsely report" anything?

My "reporting" is accurate.

You being a legal expert will know that one can't go round claiming someone is falsely doing something when its not true.

My report regarding the posts was accurate. Have the decency to stand corrected.

murdomaguire

backfoot wrote: »

There was no such kicking of her on this thread.

There is abuse and kicking in this thread and there always is at any time her name is mentioned - along with gross and fraudulent misrepresentation of her position particularly in relation to Festival Park.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2830880

Lucy's position has always been clear re parking charges as she formed the accepted consumer route back in 2007. I can testify to that as I was the person who wrote the advisory - which earlier in this thread you quoted back to me.

If you can challenge on that substantive point then do so.

She would not have posted a contrary position re Festival Park - neither is she "dumb" or "in the pockets" of the parking industry.

backfoot

I took the initials at face value on the Sentinel thread.

Whoever,posted under the initials LBC, got the response from me and others that it was bad advice. It doesn't matter to me who LBC is, was or has been. The tenner advice is still rubbish.

No one on this thread, has slagged her off and why you keep saying they have is just pathetic.

I am not sure you can see the words being written because you seem to ignore the substance of what people are saying.Grow up, please.:o