Indigo Cardiff Nurses Case: Permission to Appeal Refused

HeatonGuy

And that is why the Judge's background is relevant to this matter.

Snakes_Belly

Apparently some of the staff involved have left. That is a cost to the NHS to recruit quality staff.

My understanding is that many of the nursing and medical staff in the NHS work unpaid overtime. For this they are supposed to get time off in lieu but in reality this rarely happens. The hospitals are going to lose the goodwill of their staff which they can ill afford to do.

I did wonder if Indigo is one of those companies that are not paying tax in the UK.

Whatever the legalities of the case the general public are disgusted by the treatment of the nurses.

softwaremad

They were going after £43k for costs. On day one in the afternoon they put an offer on the table where all defendants pay ful claim plus a portion of £43k. We rejected that straight off

So even now they are better off.

It beggars belief that anyone can refute anyone's right to defend a claim in this manner.

I had been led to believe that all parking charges are perceived debts until proven in court.

Anyone know why they are fighting so hard to keep their default judgments in place despite claim forms being served at incorrect addresses ? They are defending every set aside applied for and issuing costs for those also. !

I had read elsewhere that Wright hassall had a good reputation. To me it seems very very unfortunate that they are defending companies who have not adhered to their codes of practice. Blindly chasing decent folk when the companies they are working on behalf of via the despicable zzps are in fact a jail sentence from being crooks

beamerguy

Snakes_Belly wrote: »

Apparently some of the staff involved have left. That is a cost to the NHS to recruit quality staff.

My understanding is that many of the nursing and medical staff in the NHS work unpaid overtime. For this they are supposed to get time off in lieu but in reality this rarely happens. The hospitals are going to lose the goodwill of their staff which they can ill afford to do.

I did wonder if Indigo is one of those companies that are not paying tax in the UK.

Whatever the legalities of the case the general public are disgusted by the treatment of the nurses.

What happened was a complete disgrace and probably
requires a complete investigation led by the press.

What is a worry is that there are people on this thread
who seem to be not who they say they are.

More disturbing is that there is a vendetta running against
a certain member ????

This forum is not for bully's and in future if these bully's
continue, I will report them

Snakes_Belly

One of the nurses in Scotland was specialised in the treatment of breast cancer. I am not picking her out as a special case but the chances of a women developing this illness at some time in her lifetime are one in eight. Can the NHS afford to lose these specialised people who are dedicated to their role?

beamerguy

softwaremad wrote: »

I had read elsewhere that Wright hassall had a good reputation. To me it seems very very unfortunate that they are defending companies who have not adhered to their codes of practice. Blindly chasing decent folk when the companies they are working on behalf of via the despicable zzps are in fact a jail sentence from being crooks

You are right, these solicitors have got in a bad habit and have
destroyed all their credibility and are not professional

Look, the BPA thought it a good idea to give Wright Hassall
the power of being a "so called" POPLA status.
As we all know, Wright Hassall failed beyond belief

Until government wake up to this, and yes a prison sentence
would be in order, they will continue to think that
harassment is normal.

In the meantime, we fight those who get involved in the
Great Parking Scam

beamerguy

Snakes_Belly wrote: »

One of the nurses in Scotland was specialised in the treatment of breast cancer. I am not picking her out as a special case but the chances of a women developing this illness at some time in her lifetime are one in eight. Can the NHS afford to lose these specialised people who are dedicated to their role?

Yes, my first wife died from breast cancer

But where is this so called Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt ???
All I ever see is his supercilious grin on P.M's question time

logician

esmerobbo wrote: »

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.

Yes just reading this thread and the documents demonstrate this is about as "clear as mud" as it gets with accusations not clear or even proven. the lay rep does state that this is "lies" which is recorded on the transcript.

I have read the threads and transcripts regarding the case and also a number of newspaper reports and blogs on Prankster.

I recall a blog by the Parking Prankster that the Claimant tried to get this moved to multi-track. According to "softwaremad" post 124 on this thread, The Claimant's attempted an offer of the claims plus proportion of the full costs of £43k after the first afternoon - what a delightful offer that appeared to be.

It would appear that the Claimant were determined to get "costs" by any means available, fair or foul and chose foul (IMHO)

What I cannot understand is :

a) why weren't these purported emails brought to the attention of the judge prior to the commencement of the trial. Surely Hocking had a duty to the court if there was any doubt regarding the lay rep.
The lay rep could then have made any reasonable explanation regarding what led to those apparent one-sided emails, and left it to the judge and/or his client if the lay rep could still be there.
It is noted on Prankster's blog that there was no objection to the lay rep's right of audience at the Appeal hearing but clearly their failure to get this moved for multi track and therefore full costs must have had an impacted the desire for JW to be implicated. Any reasonable person could possibly interpret that to be the case.

b) Why didn't Hocking bring to the judge's attention immediately the allegation re ZZPS and why were the police not notified?? It seems very contrived and spurious that such an allegation is magically provided at the costs hearing.


c) I am trying to get my head around why the judge agreed that the 7 defence points which she, herself laid out as being the issues to be argued with the consent of both the Claimant and Defendants, that she then agreed with the Claimant that these were suddenly deemed unreasonable to argue after finding judgment at the end of the trial in favour of the Claimant.

The Claimant appear to have made no objections pre-trial that those points could not be explored - it would appear therefore very underhand to claim costs for unreasonable points which had been concurred by all parties to explore

d) I find it more unclear as to why Barry Beavis apparently then concurred with the Claimant that running those arguments were unreasonable. More shocking is that he confirmed he was well out of his depth in the costs hearing and this was milked for all to see by the barrister.

e) it seems the Claimant is complaining of the bulk defences in two of the Defendants and all other Defendants on the Schedules.
According to the transcripts and this thread bargepole supplied the defence for the D1 which the lay rep criticised was representing and this was not a stock or 'bulk defence.

f) Therefore it would seem the main or substantial costs for the Claimant in preparing for trial lies with the two other Defendants and not D1.

g) Additionally 'bargepole' confirms that he also prepared the skeletons for D2 and D3 and not the lay rep. Barry B seems not to have corrected Hocking or the court that paperwork was not prepared by Mr W.

h)There appears to have been a 'group' consensus including 'advice' by bargepole into the running of the case. It is therefore difficult how one controlling person can be determined.

Castle

beamerguy wrote: »

Yes, my first wife died from breast cancer

But where is this so called Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt ???
All I ever see is his supercilious grin on P.M's question time

He's only the health secretary for England; the health service in Wales is controlled by the Welsh assembly.

beamerguy

Castle wrote: »

He's only the health secretary for England; the health service in Wales is controlled by the Welsh assembly.

Should have said
UK Government’s Secretary of State for Health, Jeremy Hunt