Real Court cases and what happened next!!

Orrin

bazster wrote: »

Odd is it not? Still, far from the first time that a district judge has come up with a somewhat idiosyncratic analysis of a loss.

The judge refers to "an attempt to estimate.. the number of hours engaged in pursuing these particular issues" but it's not clear without seeing the evidence what the "particular issues" are.

It was over a year ago now so I assume he didn't appeal? Would have been interesting to shed some more light on that genuine pre-estimate of loss.

It certainly cost Napier more than they recovered but also cost the motorist more than if he'd paid up straight away.

Guys_Dad

nigelbb wrote: »

Napier Parking is owned by the de Savary family who until a couple of days ago were also the owners of Whitecap Leisure Limited which has just been sold to the Parks Trust which is a charity that owns and cares for many of Milton Keynes parks and green spaces. http://www.mkweb.co.uk/News/Business/The-Parks-Trust-secure-future-of-Willen-Lake-with-acquisition-of-Whitecap-Leisure-20130708162459.htm

And don't hope for any charity from that mob either. They are raising rents round MK now and even, in this week's paper, are now going to try to implement this lunacy.

Milton Keynes had a Buddhist Pagoda with a car park near to it known locally as the Pagoda car park. It's used during the day and evening and it's free. But this mob want to make it chargeable so that - wait for it - they can put in lighting. No one needs to be there after dark (although it seems to draw courting couples etc).

Now this has absolutely nothing to do with the original OP, but it just shows that if there is an opportunity for any body - even a charity - to grab some money off the motorist, they will go for it.

bazster

Guys_Dad wrote: »

No one needs to be there after dark (although it seems to draw courting couples etc).

Stand up for the rights of courting couples! Keep the pagoda dark! :rotfl:

Guys_Dad

bazster wrote: »

Stand up for the rights of courting couples! Keep the pagoda dark! :rotfl:

Absolutely correct! ( It is also rumoured that some "adult activities" of a canine description , but strangely without any potential members of the kennel club, also take place there too. )

Kite2010

Guys_Dad wrote: »

And don't hope for any charity from that mob either. They are raising rents round MK now and even, in this week's paper, are now going to try to implement this lunacy.

Milton Keynes had a Buddhist Pagoda with a car park near to it known locally as the Pagoda car park. It's used during the day and evening and it's free. But this mob want to make it chargeable so that - wait for it - they can put in lighting. No one needs to be there after dark (although it seems to draw courting couples etc).

Now this has absolutely nothing to do with the original OP, but it just shows that if there is an opportunity for any body - even a charity - to grab some money off the motorist, they will go for it.

It's so the courting couples don't sue if they fall over in the dark :rotfl:

24 hour charging time and if they are really evil they won't bring in a "evening/night" rate (i.e. £1 for parking between 8pm and 6am)

Traindriver4

This guy "Ming Rider" on pepippo has recently lost his case against PE. The Judge apparently threw out his argument about civil contracts and imposing penalties.

The big question therefore is, does this loss change the situation for the rest of the guys who are being sued by PE (and these appear to be in their hundreds)

zzzLazyDaisy

Traindriver4 wrote: »

This guy "Ming Rider" on pepippo has recently lost his case against PE. The Judge apparently threw out his argument about civil contracts and imposing penalties.

The big question therefore is, does this loss change the situation for the rest of the guys who are being sued by PE (and these appear to be in their hundreds)

No, because the decision of once county court judge cannot bind another. Every CC case is decided on its own facts, and on the arguments as presented to the judge on the day by the parties - so a case can be lost because a particular line of defence is not adequately presented or argued on the day. Also the strict rule is that if the judge is not referred to a particular case, then he cannot consider it (athough that does tend to be a bit flexible in the SCC as the Judge will help an unrepresented defendant on legal issues, neither party can expect the judge to do their research for them). It s only when cases go to appeal that the decisions in the higher courts bind the lower courts.

momindoll

See my post on pepipoo. The decision is so bizzare on the contract point alone as to be Wednesbury unreasonable. What a coup for PE. A defended case with a pepipoo defence so spectacularly lost. I wonder how many turn away from seeking help from pepipoo and just pay up. I wonder what defence was filed,if any. This is just an attempt to discredit pepipoo. Or am I just a cynical and suspicious person.

Custard_Pie

momindoll wrote: »

See my post on pepipoo. The decision is so bizzare on the contract point alone as to be Wednesbury unreasonable. What a coup for PE. A defended case with a pepipoo defence so spectacularly lost. I wonder how many turn away from seeking help from pepipoo and just pay up. I wonder what defence was filed,if any. This is just an attempt to discredit pepipoo. Or am I just a cynical and suspicious person.

They rely upon intimidation or ignorance in getting people to pay up.

If someone was trying to get money out of me in this way then I'd use every resource available to check my options and fight back. Beggars belief that people don't do the same and would rather pay the scam.

Orrin

momindoll wrote: »

See my post on pepipoo. The decision is so bizzare on the contract point alone as to be Wednesbury unreasonable. What a coup for PE. A defended case with a pepipoo defence so spectacularly lost. I wonder how many turn away from seeking help from pepipoo and just pay up. I wonder what defence was filed,if any. This is just an attempt to discredit pepipoo. Or am I just a cynical and suspicious person.

I'm not sure you need your tin foil hat just yet. I saw on the pepipoo thread several people offering to contribute to an appeal so perhaps a good first step would be to pay for a transcript to see exactly what was said.