Cambridge super case - the facts

waltermitty123

So the Cambridge super-case has now been decided in favor of Parking Eye.

This case was led by Andy Foster - him of peipoo high standing, legally qualified as he would ave you believe.

The was Bargepole, a man who claimed to have a 100% successful track record as he boasted to a parking eye solicitor the other day, I am sure he will change that now.

And the super case - the case to define all parking matters issued by Parking Eye, well that was they WERE reporting until they lost.

Now (that the forums lost) its just a simple county court decision, not binding or persuasive in anyway - what was all the fuss about ..

Talk about damage limitation, I can see threads getting deleted and modified now to try and remove the egg from faces - Think this is a case of being too cocky, too soon.

You can GUARANTEE that if the result went the other way then this would have been the case of the century, everyone saying the end is here for parking companies and the usual twaddle that comes from these people.

But it all went pete tong for them


Did these defendants have a money back guarantee offered by these 2 lay advisers ? - I guess not and now they have a CCJ and lost all that time and effort in court for what ... nowt

What a wonderful Monday its been - Now to make it better we all hope they appeal and will undoubtedly lose and be lumbered with thousands if not tens of thousands of legal costs.
BUT HEY .. a good defense put forward by such legal brains never loses does it, especially when they have 2 of the finest 'on it - CAMBRIDGE SUPER CASE MY A##E :rotfl:

Hot_Bring

Hate to point out to you but the defendant does not have CCJ for number of reasons but you continue with your PPC lies.

EDIT - look at that, the rat spends less than 10 minutes on the board and then scurries away. I'll continue to break PPC made up rules thank you - the court case has no bearing on that.

Ryan_Bryan

First off, you're a !!!!!!!!. Now that's out of the way let's carry on.

I've no legal training and zero legal ability. What I do have is a voice. What little I can achieve is to tell people that the whole ppc model is a scam. Just my voice just a little information. But there are more like me and we will create more noise. Tell more people. They will tell more people until finally the majority of people will know about the scam. Then you and your slimy comrades in slime will find that all of a sudden you have every scamvoice challenged at POPLA. Everyone will screw you on GPEOL. Had you not mouthed off I might have sat here depressed about the result. Instead you have just strengthened my resolve to finally grind your sort into the ground. So nice work !!!!!!!!.

Software won't let me say !!!!head. Shame but then you know what you are.

Iceweasel

waltermitty123 wrote: »

So the Cambridge super-case has now been decided in favor of Parking Eye.

This case was led by Andy Foster - him of peipoo high standing, legally qualified as he would ave you believe.

The was Bargepole, a man who claimed to have a 100% successful track record as he boasted to a parking eye solicitor the other day, I am sure he will change that now.

And the super case - the case to define all parking matters issued by Parking Eye, well that was they WERE reporting until they lost.

Now (that the forums lost) its just a simple county court decision, not binding or persuasive in anyway - what was all the fuss about ..

Talk about damage limitation, I can see threads getting deleted and modified now to try and remove the egg from faces - Think this is a case of being too cocky, too soon.

You can GUARANTEE that if the result went the other way then this would have been the case of the century, everyone saying the end is here for parking companies and the usual twaddle that comes from these people.

But it all went pete tong for them


Did these defendants have a money back guarantee offered by these 2 lay advisers ? - I guess not and now they have a CCJ and lost all that time and effort in court for what ... nowt

What a wonderful Monday its been - Now to make it better we all hope they appeal and will undoubtedly lose and be lumbered with thousands if not tens of thousands of legal costs.
BUT HEY .. a good defense put forward by such legal brains never loses does it, especially when they have 2 of the finest 'on it - CAMBRIDGE SUPER CASE MY A##E :rotfl:

What a load of spiteful inaccurate turd.

Verbal diarrhea.

Nodding_Donkey

Isn't it about time we started an 'Appeal Fund'?

esmerobbo

Where are the "facts" you mention?

Stroma

Pmsl I almost fell off my chair reading that, threads are not deleted unless they contravene mse rules, we have no control over that , mse has I think 120 forums on here, they allow legitimate businesses to come here to represent their companies. Obviously as you are not legitimate or cannot defend your business you come here creating fake accounts as you have no balls to come here openly!

ColliesCarer

Walter Mitty - what an appropriate name you have chosen to hide behind :rotfl:

Walter Mitty is a fictional character with a vivid fantasy life.
In the brief snatches of reality that punctuate Mitty's fantasies well-meaning strangers rob Mitty of his remaining dignity.

The name has come to be used to refer to an ineffectual dreamer, "an ordinary, often ineffectual person who indulges in fantastic daydreams" but even in his own heroic daydreams, Mitty does not triumph.

Dream on Walter !

fil_cad

Must be chorley towers office party tonight.

lescm19

waltermitty123, what a saddo.
The PE profit nosedive speaks volumes about the questionable practices and ethics of most PPCs...

Fergie76

How come it is ok for these s**m companies to mention posters by name (see post 1), but the cry whenever a forum member mentions any of their publicly available names and start sending threatening solicitors letters?