Urgent help please. Small claims court summons from Horizon in scotland

Bourbon1967

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You should be asking for a stay due to the CEL criminal case, and you should be involving Trading Standards.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5209913

HTH

Delayed due to the beavis case outcome at the moment. Thanks for your advice regarding CEL and trading standards.

stoatwblr

ManxRed wrote: »

If defended, they'll run a mile.

I am not a lawyer.

Having said that:

My suspicion is that if it can be shown that parking companies are issuing proceedings and repeatedly losing, and/or settling and/or discontinuing at the last moment, then it would be a slamdunk to have them declared vexatious litigants

Vexatious litigants are generally defined as "members of the public who have habitually and persistently instituted vexatious legal proceedings without reasonable ground"

My reading of the various forums indicates that many parking companies would fail the "sniff test" on this should their list of failed/withdrawn actions be brought to the attention of the courts. Perhaps a lawyer would like to weigh in?

https://www.gov.uk/vexatious-litigants

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/the-courts/court-of-session/coming-to-court-of-session/about-the-offices-of-the-court-of-session/general-department/vexatious-litigants


Note that there are a couple of companies on the list, but the restriction is generally applied against company directors (this is to ensure they cannot dissolve and reinstate)

enfield_freddy

stoatwblr wrote: »

I am not a lawyer.

Having said that:

My suspicion is that if it can be shown that parking companies are issuing proceedings and repeatedly losing, and/or settling and/or discontinuing at the last moment, then it would be a slamdunk to have them declared vexatious litigants

Vexatious litigants are generally defined as "members of the public who have habitually and persistently instituted vexatious legal proceedings without reasonable ground"

My reading of the various forums indicates that many parking companies would fail the "sniff test" on this should their list of failed/withdrawn actions be brought to the attention of the courts. Perhaps a lawyer would like to weigh in?

https://www.gov.uk/vexatious-litigants

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/the-courts/court-of-session/coming-to-court-of-session/about-the-offices-of-the-court-of-session/general-department/vexatious-litigants


Note that there are a couple of companies on the list, but the restriction is generally applied against company directors (this is to ensure they cannot dissolve and reinstate)

looking at the number of times CEL have failed to turn up in English courts , (and judges are !!!!ed off) how come cel just carry on

stoatwblr

Marktheshark wrote: »

Anyone can sue you for anything at any tome in any county court or Sheriffs court.

Indeed. however the courts can also ban vexatious litigants for a 2 year period or for life.

The fun part is that even _hinting_ at legal action once such a declaration is made becomes contempt of court. Everything which looks even vaguely like "legal stuff" must be reviewed and approved by the court (which has associated costs.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation

stoatwblr

enfield_freddy wrote: »

looking at the number of times CEL have failed to turn up in English courts , (and judges are !!!!ed off) how come cel just carry on

As far as I can tell: Because noone has formally brought it to the attention of the courts.

An application to declare the litigation as vexatious and the litigant as vexatious needs to be made in the UK.

In Scotland, the Lord Advocate has to make the application - if someone spends time putting the cases together and submits to the LA then it may be a trivial thing to obtain.

stoatwblr

WRT vexatious litigation, this is the accepted state of affairs in the UK:

http://www.centrefoi.org.uk/portal/images/Eugene_Creally.pdf

„Vexatious litigation is frequently accompanied by complex pleadings,
a widening circle of defendants as litigation proceeds, frequency of
striking out of part or all of the statements of claim, inability to accept
unfavourable decisions, escalating extravagant or scandalous claims
(frequently involving allegations of conspiracy or fraud) and _failure to
pursue proceedings once instituted_. The authorities cited to us from
other jurisdictions demonstrate the consistency with which
characteristics such as these are present in vexatious litigation.‟

I've emphasised the most relevant point: Litigants which repeatedly do not show up in court or which consistently withdraw cases at th e11th hour can be characterised as vexatious.


I believe that in every such case the respondent should ask the judge for a declaration of vexatiousness.

Many judges are loath to do things which will result in sanctions against lawyers - because for the most part most sitting judges are practicing lawyers too, however the practice is egrerious enough to damage confidence in the court system and as such needs to be stomped on - hard.

enfield_freddy

another problem is actually finding CELs bosses , not who we think they are , but actually WHO they are


there must be 50 people who have come on this site , gone thru the hastle , turned up in court and in a lot of cases the judge has offered compensation for there wasted time , but non have tried this or the judge suggested this.


does this actually work against them for ALL CC claims or just the same court , or even just the same person?

enfield_freddy

maybe we should start with a Ms ratchel ,,,,,,,, then

MothballsWallet

DoaM wrote: »

Obvious troll is obvious.

Aye, someone must have found it under the flagstones at Fittie :rotfl:

Bourbon1967

Have now had the case postponed again due to beavis appeal at Supreme Court . Will update when hearing is finally held .