one in the eye for UKPC

peter_the_piper

SodG24 wrote: »

Given the total is more than £600 it would be great if they didn't pay - I can hear the sheriffs getting prepared already .......

Sorry to be a wet blanket, ""3. UKPC to pay our costs in the sum of £ 1280.26 ( now paid )""
maybe the next time.

SodG24

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Sorry to be a wet blanket, ""3. UKPC to pay our costs in the sum of £ 1280.26 ( now paid )""
maybe the next time.

That'll teach me not to read the links people post !!! That said I do try and avoid reading CAG.

peter_the_piper

I'm afraid I don't either, too confusing and nowhere near as helpful as here and pepipoo. I have started to read links though after making a few boo boo's.:rotfl:

ManxRed

I wonder is the guy willing to post up the judgement and case number?

I can envisage a whole lot of threads on all forums where such a thing would be useful to show an ignorant arrogant Management Company who think they own the land on which they get these parasites to work. It might make them think twice about digging their heels in (which is what they all inevitably do).

spacey2012

Trespass damages take account of the "insult to authority"
If you own land and you specifically forbid someone from entering that land and they desist, this is then seen as a deliberate insult to your character and upstanding and rights of authority to who may use your land..
They could have gone for £5000 quite easily.
It is not the same as ignoring a sign, if you have been instructed not to re-enter the land, then refusal causes damage to the land owners rights of refusal.
You have to own the land or lease.