Indigo Cardiff Nurses Case: Permission to Appeal Refused

Coupon-mad

Ryandavis1959 wrote: »

Dr: They didn’t have to follow the advice though, you can hardly blame the Lay Reps; the nurses are all professional adults after all and were free to listen to whatever advice they wanted to.

The nurses were let down by their managers, not people like Bargepole and the Lay Reps. Barry Beavis has done more for parking than anyone else on here except Bargepole

You would say that, wouldn't you.

and the other Lay Rep...

Let's not go there.

I get yet another nasty, pointless threat when I post anything much. So I won't, because life is too short to waste.

Dr_Crypto

Ryandavis1959 wrote: »

Dr: They didn’t have to follow the advice though, you can hardly blame the Lay Reps; the nurses are all professional adults after all and were free to listen to whatever advice they wanted to.

The nurses were let down by their managers, not people like Bargepole and the Lay Reps. Barry Beavis has done more for parking than anyone else on here except Bargepole, and the other Lay Rep is one of the best around according to lots of Pranksters blogs down the years.

Aye. But they’re not professionals at dealing with this kind of thing. Some anti-PPC activists can be very convincing especially to someone in a tight corner. But yes it was their decision.

I’m not sure what the managers could have done. Ultimately this isn’t a dispute with the HB. It also seems that the HB (I guess with the help of the unions) secured an ex-gratia settlement of a first round of tickets but some staff persisted in breaching the rules.

Leaving that aside I still don’t understand what their defence was and how the Judges have messed up. That’s significant for the many people who use information from MSE to fight charges.

System

but some staff persisted in breaching the rules

That's the issue.

and how the Judges have messed up.

IMHO they didn't but they did play the judge's card in relation to costs.

Normally the costs attached to defending all the tickets in one go is no more than £100 on the small claims track but in this instance, "exemplary" costs were awarded over and above the £100 per defendant so some reason which we can only guess at.

Ostensibly it was the behaviour of certain people but there is no penalty on the small claims track for a defendant defending themselves. So it is the exemplary costs and the reasoning behind it, that long term observers have questions about.

Going forward though anyone at the site wishing to defend themselves should only ever see the face value of the ticket (£20) and costs of £100 per claim. Tactics such as one claim/one ticket which we see Gladstones using can be negated under the principal of Res Judicata. So not the extraordinary amounts that are being banded about here.

As regards the HB if you are a genuine medical professional and not just a troll, a visit to the site and a discussion with the staff about how the site operates would be educational. There is a staff cafeteria on site opposite the car park but don't have the pork.

The_Deep

There is a staff cafeteria on site opposite the car park but don't have the pork.


Are you saying that they do not serve bacon at breakfast?

HeatonGuy

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Let's not go there.

Why not - if you have valid criticism of the other Lay rep, who, as has been pointed out by others is regularly successful in court, then you should publicise it.

I get yet another nasty, pointless threat when I post anything much. So I won't, because life is too short to waste.

Threats are not pointless if you are afraid of the consequences of them. You should either publish and be damned, or avoid the snide innuendo which is clearly your agenda in this thread.

Just my €0.02

Ryandavis1959

Thank you to the mods for removing the hatful message that was aimed at me.

No one was criticising the Lay Rep before this case. The Prankster has been rightfully praising him for years. He has been made the fall guy by some people on here who for whatever reason (they don’t have the guts to spell it out it seems) seem to be jealous of his reputation. Lest we forget that Indigo have probably thrown thousands at this case and a fully trained legal firm? Why are some jumping to conclusions about a man who has the best record of anyone in the country for beating Parking firms in court? A man who had the courage to help when others hide behind keyboards?

The way I see it he deserves praise for giving up his spare time for free to help out the nurses when no one else on here had the courage to stand up and help them (other than Bargepole). The nurses were abandoned by their union and managers. Anyone sniping here could have offered to Lay Rep for them but they didn’t so should keep stum!

The_Deep

it he deserves praise for giving up his spare time for free to help out the nurses when no one else on here had the courage to stand up and help them


That is a bit harsh Ryan, some of us have property companies to run. Others have families to look after.


If this chap has fubared, then he must man up to it, no matter how good were his intentions.

HeatonGuy

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Ostensibly it was the behaviour of certain people but there is no penalty on the small claims track for a defendant defending themselves. So it is the exemplary costs and the reasoning behind it, that long term observers have questions about.

I've read the entire transcripts now.

I have to say that this costs assessment (of unreasonableness) appears to not consider the judgment in Dammermann, and indeed, seeking to load costs on the Lay Rep is entirely inappropriate.

Even considering the claims made of Wilkie threatening to go to ZZPS, which frankly are not credible, it appears that her ran the case he had, and simply lost.

Was Wilkie involved in writing the defence and conducting the proceedings prior to trial, or was he just wheeled in as a Lay rep "on the day", so to speak? My understanding is that the defence that Wilkie was running was written by Bargepole

HeatonGuy

So I've done a little investigation here.

District Judge Claire Coates, the judge who both heard the initial hearing in Indigo v Dadswell, and the judge that decided to join 80 cases and reserve the matter to herself...

Previously worked for Glamorgan Law, and was involved in a number of property cases involving an NHS Trust.

Our Team | Glamorgan Law solicitors in Cardiff, Pontypridd and Cowbridge, Wales

Clare Coates
Clare Coates Clare Coates is a solicitor based in our Cardiff office. She has extensive experience in civil litigation, and specialises in complex, high value claims for personal injury, clinical negligence and professional negligence. She has wide-ranging experience in employer liability and public liability claims, those arising from road traffic accidents, and industrial disease claims. She was the in-house legal advisor to an NHS Trust for 3 years, acquiring considerable expertise in health law. She has
acted for both claimants and defendants. Clare qualified as a solicitor in 1996. She was appointed as a Deputy District Judge in 2011.

Is this something that needs examining at a higher, or more importantly, a Criminal, level?

bargepole

HeatonGuy wrote: »

Was Wilkie involved in writing the defence and conducting the proceedings prior to trial, or was he just wheeled in as a Lay rep "on the day", so to speak? My understanding is that the defence that Wilkie was running was written by Bargepole

I did indeed provide the Defence, and Skeleton Arguments as requested at an early stage of the proceedings.

However it is disingenuous to say that Mr W was just 'wheeled in' on the day, as the transcript shows, he was emailing the Claimant's solicitors with threatening messages prior to the hearing, some of them utterly ridiculous, and not instructed by the Defendants. And nowhere in any of the documents which I produced, is there any mention of an argument based on the Law of Property Act 1925, which Mr W raised to the annoyance of the Judge.

My advice was clear: stick to the arguments in the skeleton, and don't go off piste. Unfortunately, that seems not to have happened.

Attached is the skeleton I produced for two of the defendants: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ydmv67z7zriqkqh/Booth%26Round_Skeleton.pdf?dl=0