We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Roxburghe, Graham White & Mr Sobell - Latest Escapade.
HO87
Posts: 4,296 Forumite
This thread on Pepipoo makes for interesting reading
A MCOL claim is raised by Graham White's (Michael Sobell, no less) which is then followed by what is reported as a fake letter from Roxburghe's themselves (referring to a non-existent agreement to settle by instalments).
This is then followed by an N244 through Northampton applying for an Order under CPR 31.16 (not applicable to the small claims track in any event - and how many times is this still thrown into the mix) amounting to an Norwich Pharmacal Order which is being sought without a hearing??!?
I suspect the application will be refused (I can't see how it can be granted) and the case will then describe a slow-motion, nose-dive into the sand and stay there like the last case they attempted to start.
But what will this pair think of next?
A MCOL claim is raised by Graham White's (Michael Sobell, no less) which is then followed by what is reported as a fake letter from Roxburghe's themselves (referring to a non-existent agreement to settle by instalments).
This is then followed by an N244 through Northampton applying for an Order under CPR 31.16 (not applicable to the small claims track in any event - and how many times is this still thrown into the mix) amounting to an Norwich Pharmacal Order which is being sought without a hearing??!?
I suspect the application will be refused (I can't see how it can be granted) and the case will then describe a slow-motion, nose-dive into the sand and stay there like the last case they attempted to start.
But what will this pair think of next?
My very sincere apologies for those hoping to request off-board assistance but I am now so inundated with requests that in order to do justice to those "already in the system" I am no longer accepting PM's and am unlikely to do so for the foreseeable future (August 2016). 
For those seeking more detailed advice and guidance regarding small claims cases arising from private parking issues I recommend that you visit the Private Parking forum on PePiPoo.com
For those seeking more detailed advice and guidance regarding small claims cases arising from private parking issues I recommend that you visit the Private Parking forum on PePiPoo.com
0
Comments
-
If that letter could be proven to be faked it would surely be the final nail in Sobells coffin! Besides the date of the first due payment has not arrived yet being 10/10/11
What a strange claim, claiming the charge against the keeper and then asking for the drivers details to be ordered disclosed! Then on the N244 claiming the car was parked illegally?
How much are these NHS trusts wasting on these claims? Even if they win they are in the negative, what are they trying to prove?0 -
Why they still use them is a mystery to me. Our local hospital uses pay on exit, simple.I'd rather be an Optimist and be proved wrong than a Pessimist and be proved right.0
-
I'm begining to wonder if claims like this (which are bound to fail) are being put in as part of a strategy.
I.E. BPA memebers put in these sort of claims which fail on them not knowing who the driver is ....and not being able to easily ascertain who that driver is.
They then offer up these to parliament as evidence of why the keeper's liability provisions in Schedule 4 of the Freedom Bill MUST be enacted !!
Just a thought.
I can't believe that GW/SOBELL actually think they can use CPR 31.16 in this way.
If you read CPR 31 from the start apart from it not applying to Small Claims it also says
" This Part sets out rules about the disclosure and inspection of documents."
Don't know about anyone else but I ceretainly don't keep any documentary records of who drives my car and when. !0 -
which is being sought without a hearing??!?
Yet in the "time for hearing" box they have put 30 mins ....true clowns this lot ! Credibility less than zero..why does anyone use them ????0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards