UKPC lose residential case. Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss

beamerguy

UKPC lose residential case. Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss

UKPC v Mr Aziz Birmingham 9/1/2017 C2HW01A6. DJ Gibson

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/ukpc-lose-residential-case-charge-not.html

And the joke is that the advocate UKPC employed knew he was beaten before the case started ... he was right

"Mr Aziz represented himself. UKPC engaged SCS law who contracted Simon Villae to appear as advocate. Before the hearing Mr Villae confided to Mr Aziz that he expected to get a tongue lashing from the judge due to the awfulness of the UKPC's bundle. DJ Gibson did not disappoint him, and laid into him as UKPC had failed to provide any evidence "

Whilst the County Court does not set a precedent, this case ...
UKPC v Mr Aziz Birmingham 9/1/2017 C2HW01A6. DJ Gibson
can be used as a reference point on similar cases. Judges tend to run with the flow from fellow judges.

We seem to have come in a complete circle on the Supreme Court/Beavis case

"Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss"

Let us be grateful that the incompetence of UKPC will now assist others.
Does not have to be fake pictures or hiding behind a wheelie bin to be shown as being incompetent

Redx

I hope Mr Aziz DOES issue counter claims and take them to the cleaners , the more people that do so may make them think twice about conning people (what is good for the goose is also good for the gander)

someone comes after you with a twig , get them back with a bat , twice

The_Deep

So, all you people who think that GPEOL is a dead parrot think again. Apart from residential cases there are many others, (out of bay, flipped ticket, etc, where it may be argued that the charge amounted to a penaly/had no commercial interest.

Umkomaas

The_Deep wrote: »

So, all you people who think that GPEOL is a dead parrot think again. Apart from residential cases there are many others, (out of bay, flipped ticket, etc, where it may be argued that the charge amounted to a penaly/had no commercial interest.

But someone has to be able to argue the case very eloquently and effectively (and I've read your previous assessments of that likelihood with many of the posters here!). Mr Aziz had BMPA assistance at court.

POPLA knee-jerk as soon as they see GPEOL and press the reject button. There are too many worrying cases of judges believing Beavis beats all, especially if the PPC has employed an advocate who knows their way around it better than the motorist.

For sure, it's no longer the silver bullet it once was. I don't necessarily share your optimism TD.

No doubt you'll explain GPEOL in detail to the next one who comes along who says that even the NEWBIES sticky is too confusing for them! :rotfl:

The_Deep

No doubt you'll explain GPEOL in detail to the next one who comes along who says that even the NEWBIES sticky is too confusing for them! :rotfl:


No doubt