Indigo Cardiff Nurses Case: Permission to Appeal Refused

logician

bargepole wrote: »

Funny how we've now got another 'newbie' just registered, yet who seems to have a detailed knowledge of the background to this. Could these 'newbies' be connected to a company which is mentioned in the transcript, I wonder?

Detailed background knowledge no.

Information all gleaned from external newspaper reports, this thread, other threads, Parking Pranksters blogs and the transcripts.

Softwaremad_2

When we say thousands per person - bankruptcy is on the table for some affected - not for the claims that were issued and lost here but for all other tickets that are to follow.

Not sure how WH will play it next whether they will issue one mass demand or go further and continue in the 2 month window for all affected.

As was stated they are chasing probably now much more than 100,000 tickets at a price of £128 each. Some have 50 or more going from vehicle subject requests to the DVLA.

Each claim lost in those 78 will need to be paid - plus a share of the costs - as yet not apportioned.

One lead defendant was there for 1 ticket only - according to WH there are many more coming.

Some staff have left to work in other authority's due to this case. Some love their jobs and will not consider as there is no alternative post in the country.

Had it been me and case being lost- i would have told the health board to stick their job with a sideways permit - rammed far up!

Softwaremad_2

HeatonGuy wrote: »

I see that chain of authority WAS in the skeleton and defence though - was Wilkie simple raising Law of Property Act matters in that context, the same argument he has used with considerable success against MIL according to reports by the Prankster.

If so, then the Judge ought not to have been either confused or annoyed by a Defendant asking a Claimant to put their claim to Strict Proof - is that not what we do to the Parking Companies every day of the week here, lay rep or no.

Out of interest, how much input did you have during the trial - were Beavis and Wilkie talking to you as you were the source of the Defence and Skeleton? Did you attend the trial?

On a whim JW dragged in the property law aspect - misquoted the year etc - was very very unappreciated - like a last ditch clasping of irrelevant straws.
He had been told clearly his services were not required, he refused to stay away - using the fact that the defendant was still a client, despite services paid for having been issued.
It was highlighted the judge had an issue with JW himself, rolling of eyes each time he opened his mouth. He was told to reign it in and be silent as possible. But he could not do that.

Regarding Donovan - the man can barely walk - the assertions that he strolls around the site stalking attendants is another lie told by the INDIGO staff. They did everything to try and diminish a disabled pensioner who had done nothing other than to try and assist. He was not arrested, he was under no order of not being able to enter the site unless accompanied.

Indigo john hawkey is a liar - one who had cocked up his statement and retrieved notes from his pocket to try and correct omissions whilst on the stand.

Totally aware that i may sound like some rabid fruit loop - however i speak the truth regarding their lies and assertions. I speak the truth from what i witnessed first hand - i was there for every awful flipping day of it.

Having seen JW in action - i was impressed with knowledge however he had a shaky way of presenting, this was pre trial - not as professional as i had been led to expect from the pranksters blogs.

I wonder now if those blogs are even written by the prankster as i do feel aggrieved that he was presented as a knight in shining armour for victims of the industry. When in person that description is not a match at all.
Kids just been watching shrek!

Softwaremad_2

logician wrote: »

Detailed background knowledge no.

Information all gleaned from external newspaper reports, this thread, other threads, Parking Pranksters blogs and the transcripts.

Wouldn't believe the press - i was astounded at the inaccuracies they run with as i told piers whatshisface!

I no longer read the prankster blog after that really dodgy one regarding Kristina Kealey

logician

Softwaremad wrote: »

He had been told clearly his services were not required, he refused to stay away - using the fact that the defendant was still a client, despite services paid for having been issued.
!

Now even more confused who advised the lay reps services were not required?

Surely if the Defendant himself did not want his representation, then he would not be there?

Seems he did not object?

Softwaremad_2

logician wrote: »

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.

a) not brought to attention because they made an offer to walk away - defendants pay full claims and a portion of £43k costs ?

b) They had these issues filed they were in the binders to be seen - i had noted them- WH had failed to protect my data as i had asked them to do. so it was brought to their attention of a significant failing. They used other letters to highlight their case - used to get the costs past i believe. Police were not called that is true - they saved this information for their summing up.
Awful they said that this threat was when the two were alone in the room , we offered apologies their witness then stated that other persons were present and heard it! a proof or somewhat goes toward proving the lies and deceit that were used to get their way. Either she was alone or others were present.

I did not hear any such thing - however - it has been pointed out in the past that i didnt hear WH stating there were 100, 000 tickets in their appeal hearing in swansea also.

JW has the ability to be and offer such awful phrases, i am unsure as to the actual truth here

c) Unreasonable to fight on two points mainly permits as they were issued by health board not by PPC - the details of this were not entered into or raised in court. 2nd point i believe was code of practice. However case was lost so all 7 were unreasonable! go figure

d) barry beavis agreed with their reasoning, this was a first time case of this style and size, everyone on defence side was out of their depth - as for the costs this substantial demand never encountered previously.

e) all three defences as lead cases were different. D2 had utilised a bulk defence which raised many points of issue - due to the limited time scales on offer and there being 200 claims issued, there was little else that could be done in the timescale permitted.

f) Costs are for all parties that defended - not simply D2 and D3, points raised were applicable in all cases - Permits - apparently issued by health board - documentation available to staff showed that it was Indigo and previously Da vinci that issued the cards not the health board - Vinci never bothered updating their documents for the staff there.
Signage - many new signs were put up in march 2017 they were not there in april 2016 for the tickets that were in court.
POFA - same as always - no duration noted upon the ZZPS NTK etc etc

g) All correspondence that was debated by R Hocking was the despicable communications made by JW in relation to D1's case without his consent or knowledge.

h) Bargepole took control of the paperwork to be issued - Bargepoles documents are highly regarded and often given praise from the courts

Softwaremad_2

logician wrote: »

Now even more confused who advised the lay reps services were not required?

Surely if the Defendant himself did not want his representation, then he would not be there?

Seems he did not object?

Defendant was pushed into accepting this - was a very tough position as D1 was very much aware that a win was required for all the others claims riding on the success of this one. He wanted the experience but also realised that presentation was not best.

It should be noted that when i requested Bargepole and Beavis to lead the cases for all of the staff affected- JW had already booked his slot - he was then informed not required - cleaner cut reps required ..... then the fight started!

Bargepole said they were all lay reps and there was to be no argument JW was standing his ground and so BP stood down - devastating for us as we had our hopes set upon the King of fight leading this forward.

Nurses affected had little money spare - so a collection was made amongst the staff and many still did not contribute - all within the cases as filed did but overall that money would not stretch to legal assistance. we failed and i am so sorry for that, a terrible injustice for decent hard working stressed out NHS workers. Bloody awful

StickToTheFacts

Can't see much wrong with Bargepole's skeleton, but it needed backing up with appropriate evidence and (concise and to the point) argument.

According to the judge no non-compliant Notices were produced by the defence, leaving it open to the claimant to win the point with (inevitably compliant) "example" documents.

Why mention persuasive authorities on forbidding signage and then p|ss the court off by failing to provide transcripts?

If the signage in the claimant's evidence post-dated the charges, was any evidence presented to this effect?

If breach of the BPA Code of Practice is being cited this needs to be done in the context of Beavis where the Supreme Court presumed that the CoP was binding on the operator, even if it isn't statute.

And so on and so on and so on....

Maybe the case would still have been lost but if the points in the skeleton had been stuck to, properly evidenced, and argued well then I simply cannot believe that this unreasonable behaviour costs issue would've arisen - and maybe an appeal would've been on the cards.

Ryandavis1959

Softwaremad wrote: »

Defendant was pushed into accepting this - was a very tough position as D1 was very much aware that a win was required for all the others claims riding on the success of this one. He wanted the experience but also realised that presentation was not best.

It should be noted that when i requested Bargepole and Beavis to lead the cases for all of the staff affected- JW had already booked his slot - he was then informed not required - cleaner cut reps required ..... then the fight started!

Bargepole said they were all lay reps and there was to be no argument JW was standing his ground and so BP stood down - devastating for us as we had our hopes set upon the King of fight leading this forward.

Nurses affected had little money spare - so a collection was made amongst the staff and many still did not contribute - all within the cases as filed did but overall that money would not stretch to legal assistance. we failed and i am so sorry for that, a terrible injustice for decent hard working stressed out NHS workers. Bloody awful

The Circuit judge has said that all of the points were unwinnable, so again the Lay Rep is being used as a fall guy it seems when in reality the case was never winnable from the start. No appeal would have succeeded. The nurses were not let down by a Lay Rep devoting his time to fighting the good fight, but by nasty NHS managers and unions instead.

logician

logician wrote: »

Now even more confused who advised the lay reps services were not required?

Surely if the Defendant himself did not want his representation, then he would not be there?

Seems he did not object?

Softwaremad wrote: »

Defendant was pushed into accepting this - was a very tough position as D1 was very much aware that a win was required for all the others claims riding on the success of this one. He wanted the experience but also realised that presentation was not best.

It should be noted that when i requested Bargepole and Beavis to lead the cases for all of the staff affected- JW had already booked his slot - he was then informed not required - cleaner cut reps required ..... then the fight started!

Bargepole said they were all lay reps and there was to be no argument JW was standing his ground and so BP stood down - devastating for us as we had our hopes set upon the King of fight leading this forward.

Nurses affected had little money spare - so a collection was made amongst the staff and many still did not contribute - all within the cases as filed did but overall that money would not stretch to legal assistance. we failed and i am so sorry for that, a terrible injustice for decent hard working stressed out NHS workers. Bloody awful

No sorry I do not get the impression from either transcript that D1 was pressurised in any way to having his Lay Rep. In fact he positively states he believed the rep was acting in the best interests.

D1 speaks a couple of times in the costs hearing and does not make any advserse comment re his lay rep or the services provided at all.

What is your role in all of this ?

Why would you request Bargepole and Barry Beavis to lead this? Are you a Defendant in the case?

So funding was being sourced for the case?

Given that there are about 100,000 tickets in the background ( a huge amount!) it is a shame the nurses didn't or couldn't say contribute 50 p per outstanding ticket they had. That should have secured enough for a barrister of their own to be instructed for the case.

Seems like this was very poorly organised from the off.