Graham White Solicitors - Roxburghe UK Ltd acting on behalf of Excel Parking Services

Guys_Dad

Stroma wrote: »

Guys dad you were obviously not here when he was making references to jimmy saville and garry glitter on here then, or accusing everyone on that previous ID as roxburghe spies. His attitude stunk so much he got banned from here, what does that tell you !?! As I said above perhaps it's not us but him

I know nothing about that and I was not on this sub-forum then, so maybe there is some history with him in another identity.

But I stick by what I wrote re this particular thread. You guys did gang up, disputed his word and didn't give him a fair break.

He, on the other hand, did exactly what he said he would do, said that the summary will take a bit longer, but posted the judgement within his timescale.

What all of us would be grateful for, Scouse Fantastic, would be a brief personal summary of the court events from your point of view. What case he made, what you said in defence, why old Mike held his head in his hands. In some ways, that would be more descriptive than the actual summary.

It would be nice if you could take the time to post your own slant on this if you could, but it's up to you.

Stroma

Guys_Dad wrote: »

I know nothing about that and I was not on this sub-forum then, so maybe there is some history with him in another identity.

But I stick by what I wrote re this particular thread. You guys did gang up, disputed his word and didn't give him a fair break.

He, on the other hand, did exactly what he said he would do, said that the summary will take a bit longer, but posted the judgement within his timescale.

What all of us would be grateful for, Scouse Fantastic, would be a brief personal summary of the court events from your point of view. What case he made, what you said in defence, why old Mike held his head in his hands. In some ways, that would be more descriptive than the actual summary.

It would be nice if you could take the time to post your own slant on this if you could, but it's up to you.

I disagree quite strongly, he came here with an attitude to begin with, he accused everyone of being roxburghe spies when quite reasonable questions were asked, all his posts as 'down with roxburghe' were deleted and he was banned from the site, now they don't do that for nothing normally on here.

If you consider that everything is okay now that he came back here with more user ids that is up to you, but you don't have to have to much imagination as to what he was saying with those references, I find this whole thing despicable and whether he went to court besides the point!

Now down with roxburghe or whatever the hell you call yourself now, are you going to withdraw those statements about being spies and to apologise to those you were calling those names ?

Guys_Dad

Stroma wrote: »

I disagree quite strongly, he came here with an attitude to begin with,......................................Now down with roxburghe or whatever the hell you call yourself now, are you going to withdraw those statements about being spies and to apologise to those you were calling those names ?

As I said, I didn't read these previous posts, and only commented on this thread. In that context, my comments are perfectly reasonable regarding those who ganged up.

Had I read the comments that you referred to that you attribute to a different banned identity, then I may very well have made different comments on those threads - but I didn't.

Now you can either escalate this to a Hatfields and McCoys situation or accept that he is, as he says, on the same side and, in my view, has proved it by going to court.

And, be honest, haven't we all written posts or accusations that maybe in hindsight we might wish we hadn't? All to easy to do on an instant medium such as an online forum.

spacey2012

I Wonder given the failed claim.
A private prosecution in the magistrates court for "Fraud by false representation".
A donation paypal and find a barrister to take the case.
We could strike a very major victory against the directors.
See how they like it ?

How they have got away with it this long beggars me, useless police and trading standards.

How could anyone say it does not fit :
(Fraud By false Representation)

Factors indicating higher culpability of offence

• Planning of an offence
• An intention to commit more serious harm than actually resulted from the offence
• Offenders operating in groups or gangs
• 'Professional offending'
• High level of profit from the offence
• An attempt to conceal or dispose of evidence
• Deliberate targeting of vulnerable victim(s)
• Abuse of a position of trust

Harm caused by the offending:

Factors indicating a more than usually serious degree of harm receiving higher tariff detention sentence

• Multiple victims
• Victim is particularly vulnerable
• High value (including sentimental value) of property to the victim, or substantial consequential loss

Stroma

Guys_Dad wrote: »

As I said, I didn't read these previous posts, and only commented on this thread. In that context, my comments are perfectly reasonable regarding those who ganged up.

Had I read the comments that you referred to that you attribute to a different banned identity, then I may very well have made different comments on those threads - but I didn't.

Now you can either escalate this to a Hatfields and McCoys situation or accept that he is, as he says, on the same side and, in my view, has proved it by going to court.

And, be honest, haven't we all written posts or accusations that maybe in hindsight we might wish we hadn't? All to easy to do on an instant medium such as an online forum.

At the end of the day , he is not saying anything about this, so just ignoring the fact that he was calling people despicable names on here, his first post back on this thread just confirms he's the same person, how would he find a random thread about roxburghe on here otherwise ? He's no better than perky coming here with multiple usernames trying to undermine people!

As I said I congratulated him on his win, now he should have the decency to say sorry !

SodG24

Scouse_Fantastic wrote: »

Basically the charges(breaches of contract) they were applying for, I was not living here. The witnesses gave evidence in person that contradicted the dates in question.

I got a letter before claim from sobell stating "We have written to you on several occassions and You have admitted being the driver and you have offered to pay."

I do not own the vehicle, I was never there at the time.

As for the several letters they claimed to have written to me in their evidence bundle, were all blank template letters..... no name, no addresss, nothing..

The whole thing was an abuse of the court process and against the BPA and CPR Rules. Thats even before we mention PENALTY.... The judge stopped me there... enough was enough and thanked me for the Heatherington Jakneman Case, said it was most helpful and also page 3 of the claimants parking policy on the website clearly states the words PENALTY process.

Even sobell got the dates wrong and im not a solicitor.
And of course i did mention the DVLA suspension and the licence minded to REVOKE by the OFT.

Best Sobell came up with was internet forums and alledged abusive calls to Roxburghe!!!!

I'll apologise now for doubting you but caveat it with ..... I wish you'd posted this much earlier on !

I now await with baited breath the transcript :money:

spacey2012

Let the goading begin !

Stroma

You still not offering an apology down with roxburghe, do you think I'm going to allow you to skirt around what you said ?

Stroma

And no apology, it may be negative but lets not forget who caused this problem shall we ? It was you !

Stroma

So still no apology then ?