Parking Eye lose again in court

spacey2012

I say what I say, the day I let people who are losing it put words in to my mouth will be a very cold day in hell I am afraid.

Go have that cup of tea.

bazster

Your refusal to answer speaks volumes.

Hot_Bring

bazster wrote: »

In that case what are you suggesting?

I'm suggesting the barrister is incompetent.

spacey2012

Ok I will answer your question.

I am not aware of any factual information that either proves or disproves the allegation of this phone call, therefore I an unable to verify or deny if any such call took place as i am not a partie to any proceedings today.

In comment I shall state it would be highly unusual that if such call had taken place notwithstanding the previous SIC comments the information conveyed in such call would be checked with an accurate source before instigating action.
All information conveyed is my personal opinion and not a true statement of fact.

Next question please.

James_N

The consequences for Parking Eye or "ourselves" of pulling a stunt like this are too bad to contemplate, so the conclusion must be that a misguided idiot pulled this stunt, and not one of those involved.

Any other analysis is both very unlikely and may cause repercussions on those levelling the accusation. On the Parking Eye side, it's hardly credible that a highly paid professional will deliberately do this for a claim like this, and on "our" side, we wanted this to come to a head.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Hot_Bring wrote: »

I'm suggesting the barrister is incompetent.

Cases get cancelled and rescheduled regularly. If someone chose the right identity to impersonate, why would you check? If you had an appointment at a client, and someone rang up, spoke to someone else saying, meeting postponed, will ring on Monday to reschedule, the chances are you would accept that at face value. After all, how often do people ring up impersonating other people?

Nothing to do with incompetence. The barrister is just doing his job and would not be a PE lacky but an expert in the relevant legal area. The better he is, the sweeter the victory where we know that they do not have a valid legal argument.

spacey2012

From what I am lead to believe, the judge had ordered a stay of all further proceedings and requested that all other cases filed within district chambers be declared and placed on hold baring the outcome of this hearing.

If this is the same case that was for hearing today, what do you think could have happened if they had lost.

Answers on a postcard.

Hot_Bring

IanMSpencer wrote: »

Cases get cancelled and rescheduled regularly. If someone chose the right identity to impersonate, why would you check? If you had an appointment at a client, and someone rang up, spoke to someone else saying, meeting postponed, will ring on Monday to reschedule, the chances are you would accept that at face value. After all, how often do people ring up impersonating other people?

Nothing to do with incompetence. The barrister is just doing his job and would not be a PE lacky but an expert in the relevant legal area. The better he is, the sweeter the victory where we know that they do not have a valid legal argument.

This isn't just a business meeting though - it's a court hearing. Assuming the call took place ( which I believe it did ) wouldn't you expect the barrister to at least say "who are you" ? I get lots of calls about PPI refunds - I challenge them each time to identify themselves and I'm not a legal expert. I trust nobody until the prove it.

ColliesCarer

If it was me - I might have believed that it had been postponed but I'd have been pretty P**d off and got straight on the phone to find out why and in wanting that explanation no reason why I wouldn't have discovered the hoax.

James_N

Dear Spacey & others

It would be wise to stop implying that a party to the case had devious hand in the phone call, because that's potentially libellous, as well as most unlikely. It's not just you who bears the responsibility for the implication - it's the whole forum and the site that would be dragged though it if a party to the case took exception to comments on here. Given that you are dealing with experienced professionals (I believe that to be the case on both sides) and that the barrister is "up for" the challenge, it would be wise not to poke any more.

spacey2012 wrote: »

From what I am lead to believe, the judge had ordered a stay of all further proceedings and requested that all other cases filed within district chambers be declared and placed on hold baring the outcome of this hearing.

If this is the same case that was for hearing today, what do you think could have happened if they had lost.

Answers on a postcard.