Indigo Cardiff Nurses Case: Permission to Appeal Refused

KeithP

Ryandavis1959 wrote: »

Marktheshark wrote: »

The angle of the contract breaking EU consumer regulations must be the lifeline, a new challenge all the way to the EU courts.

Hasn’t Bargepole already confirmed that there is no further right to appeal, including to any European court?

Yes he did. Twice. In posts #13 and#38.

But it looks like Marktheshark hasn't noticed that.

Dr_Crypto

IamEmanresu wrote: »

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.

I worked there years ago but lived within walking distance so didn't park.

Hospital car parks are a huge issue. Go to any staff/management meeting at a hospital and you'll find the car park on the agenda somehow. Doesn't matter if the staff are cleaners or consultant surgeons they've all got the same gripes.
This site seems particularly odd in that parking was only for 12hrs. Given that many doctor shifts are 13hrs and that over-running is a common feature for all NHS staff I do wonder what the arrangements are for staff in that position.

safarmuk

This thread is becoming more bizarre by the hour ...

On the most pressing point though, can we just clear up what was up with the pork in the staff cafe?

Dr_Crypto

HeatonGuy wrote: »

Unfortunately, I don't have access to his email. So no, I can't do that.

I have no doubt, however, that WH will only have produced emails that help their case, and failed entirely in their duty to the court to provide the entire chain of emails, which I also have no doubt will have shown unreasonable conduct by their solicitors.

Then it was open to the Defendants to produce the rest of the emails and make submissions on this point.

Some of the posts are verging on conspiracy theory stuff such as the Judges being corrupt. What I'd value more is an explanation of why the judgments are incorrect without any comments about conspiracy or morals. Just a legal analysis of where the errors lie, mostly so that anyone else can be aware of them.

Reading the judgments as an outsider, albeit one who is sympathetic to my colleagues in Cardiff, I cannot see any defects in the Judges' reasoning. There was a contract to park. The Defendants parked in such a way that the charges laid out in that contract applied. They were asked to pay and didn't. This was on a background of the HB having had one round of charges cancelled so all involved knew full well that the PPC intended to enforce the charges.

The costs order is remarkable but not uncommon. The Defendants persisted in taking to trial an unmeritorious defence and one of them was dishonest on the stand. The conduct of one of the lay reps appears to have been unprofessional and unhelpful.

Coupon-mad

HeatonGuy wrote: »

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

Plenty of failures, e.g. at Brighton recently, according to what I was told - but that wasn't why he went there, apparently.

then you should publicise it.

When conduct is that bad, sensible people don't publicise it, they report it to the Police. Fairly common knowledge that I did.

Threats are not pointless if you are afraid of the consequences of them.

No-one here is afraid of a wooden puppet and their puppeteer. Hence why I wrote 'pointless threats'.

You should either publish and be damned, or avoid the snide innuendo which is clearly your agenda in this thread.

Just my €0.02

What, like the way things are published in the British Library, perhaps?

No need to answer.

HeatonGuy

Plenty of innuendo, no facts. Are you a normal class of keyboard warrior? Or are you somehow special and immune? Lets go "fact" by "fact"

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Plenty of failures, e.g. at Brighton recently, according to what I was told - but that wasn't why he went there, apparently.

Really - is that public knowledge then? Please, show us all where...

When conduct is that bad, sensible people don't publicise it, they report it to the Police. Fairly common knowledge that I did.

So the Lay rep in question has been arrested and charged with some sort of crime involving you, has he? Again, that isn't something I've been made aware of; do you have the evidence of this?

No-one here is afraid of a wooden puppet and their puppeteer. Hence why I wrote 'pointless threats'.

That's a very strange comment - whatever does it mean?

What, like the way things are published in the British Library, perhaps?

No need to answer.

Many things are published in the British Library, again you need to be clearer about what you are trying to say.

Most of your comments, in my opinion, come across as the bitter ravings of a vengeful ex-employee or similar. Perhaps that's the back-story you are failing to tell people when you attack the Lay Rep in question, which, I note, you appear to do regularly in one way or another.

softwaremad

Re costs £43 k was what they were after for their expenses they got £26k well that's all in the pipeline not paid yet

Waiting on a hearing date to see how it is apportioned

Re signage.

Evidence was presented that signage in bundle was not in place in April and may 2016 and was in fact placed the following year.

It was ignored.

Pofa compliance. Not agreed with. Despite changing their groundbreaking bpa accredited (we will pass this forward as best practice to all crooks in the club) NTK very swiftly post judgment.

Nurses paid to park.

Yes we were naive. It doesn't matter that we tried to highlight inconsistencies. They stomped through every argument that for the main part is the same as every other defence fought and won in the courts about the land today.

Sorry hadn't seen all these extras, working way through then now

softwaremad

It is simply wrong how they class the defendant keeper as dishonest. He was asked if his partner had told him about the tickets. He said that they don't talk work at home that they talk about the children and life.

With partner being a shift worker at times and a lot of the time it is a quick hello in. Passing one comes in and the other leaves for work.

A really decent honest chap who had never parked there.

The judge didn't like it. Which is a shame.

One defendant hadn't told husband about the court papers at all was appearing in court and hoping that it would go away.


The report about the £150k is tosh no one person can owe that much for that time period. What is known is when judgment came down fear set in one person present didn't realise the trail of letters for each ticket/charge Levied so thought there were 100's outstanding.

18 years this contract has been in place and ever enforced to their knowledge.

These are medical people no knowledge of the law. Letters come in their 20's and as we know it's so easy to bury your head in the sand.

And let us not forget that indigo have also been paid £10 charges and then still pass on to zzps to chase for further funds regardless.

Lots of issues with this case. Not enough funds to bring in legal professionals in the timescales the courts permit. Unions and health board would not assist in any way.

What happens when the next bunch of claims are issued that staff appealed and the companies ignored and refused access to popla.

Feels like a good old fashioned shafting from those that have to all those that don't.

esmerobbo

Reading the transcripts and what has been said on here it still seems as clear as mud, a lot of accusations back and forth yet no real meat on the bone. It is a pity the lay rep left the hearing without challenging what had been said and having it noted on the transcript.

It is hard to believe that anyone in a court building would say what the lay rep had supposedly said to a witness. It was hearsay at best yet the DJ seemed to give it some credence.

The sad part of this whole episode is many people have been left with costs that are way out of proportion for any parking incident, whilst trying to do their job.

DoaM

esmerobbo wrote: »

The sad part of this whole episode is many people have been left with costs that are way out of proportion for any parking incident, whilst trying to do their job.

And that's the crux of it all.