the fun will start

pappa_golf

logician wrote: »

PG you are asking a question, I cannot answer.

So As I am NOT PPA, why don't you ask them. ??

dont need to ask , the daily court sheets show a true reflection of daily actions

unless you are calling me a lier , ?

Coupon-mad

It's astonishing, but there are some people in life, who you can Google with the word 'liar' after their name and actually get lots of results.

logician

pappa_golf wrote: »

dont need to ask , the daily court sheets show a true reflection of daily actions

unless you are calling me a lier , ?

I don't think I called you a 'lier' or even a 'liar'
- The Daily Court sheets do indeed show the daily actions, however you seem to have just put the date and court.

Question is why would there be an automatic presumption with PPA as a Claimant that the Defendant would be a customer.

pappa_golf

OK , I lie ,sussed me out

it was the bloke that supplies them with envelopes ,

logician

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I doubt he charges for his services. Any evidence for that?

Yes but why don't you ask him about his "£75 finders fee" arrangement offering to handle all letters and court claim documents

logician

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Seems like you have an issue with him:



I doubt he charges for his services. Any evidence for that?

and:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73304631#Comment_73304631

and:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73708452#Comment_73708452

Seems like something of a vendetta against Barry Beavis, to any right-thinking reader:



The only thing that 'appalled' the right-thinking regular posters here, were the reports of the aggressive conduct of the other lay rep, as recorded in transcripts that are in the public domain.

Yes Barry was well out of his depth in that case wasn't he.


AS the outcome for that costs hearing had not been determined when published in the public domain.

Seems like there was a vendetta about the other lay rep though as widely reported, given that the 'aggressive conduct' had not been determined in court or the lay rep having any opportunity to respond.

I wonder what provoked any emails which were not supported by any witness statement or why Hocking did not mention those at the start of the trial, which would have been the correct procedure.

Hearsay evidence at the best.

The threads have confirmed the 'lies' told by the Claimant during the trial'.


Tell me what is the current status of that costs order?

Coupon-mad

As the outcome for that costs hearing had not been determined when published in the public domain. Tell me what is the current status of that costs order?

You tell us, you obviously know?

Someone was certainly floundering in that case, and posters have agreed it was an utter disgrace.

Barry did his best.

logician

logician wrote: »

AS the outcome for that costs hearing had not been determined when published in the public domain.
Tell me what is the current status of that costs order?

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You tell us, you obviously know?

Why would I know?

Perhaps you should ask your friend Brian.

He is quite a card, co-incidentally having attacked completely different people away in various other fora.

There was a cost order hearing down for September according to the 'public file' so flippantly put about in the public domain prior to any determination.

All seems to have gone very quiet about any variations to such an order or any outcome to any hearing.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Someone was certainly floundering in that case, and posters have agreed it was an utter disgrace.

Barry did his best.

Which posters were these?

Were you at the court hearing then?

I am sure that Barry did try do his best - he was out of his depth.

However, only going on the transcript available - i cannot fathom why he agreed with the Claimant that the Defendants had acted unreasonably in defending the claim. These were after all points which were mutually agreed apparently at the case management hearing by all parties and sanctioned by the Judge.