We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Backcester Lane and Gresley Row, Lichfield (Excel)
Snakes_Belly
Posts: 3,725 Forumite
The first case from the FB group was listed this week after being rescheduled. It has been re-listed yet again the reason being that the Elms representative had not received the WS from Excel. This was the updated witness statement that contained the scathing comments by Michael Fabricant MP for Lichfield.
The judge evidenced that the WS had been sent to Excel and commented that it was important that the articles contained in the amended WS were included in the WS. She appears to have considered the MP's comments of relevance. This is something to bear in mind for the ongoing cases on this forum.
It's possible also the the Claimant's representative may object to the articles forming part of the WS and ask for them to be disallowed. Excel's rep tried that one on me when I included articles about the Keighley car park.
The judge evidenced that the WS had been sent to Excel and commented that it was important that the articles contained in the amended WS were included in the WS. She appears to have considered the MP's comments of relevance. This is something to bear in mind for the ongoing cases on this forum.
It's possible also the the Claimant's representative may object to the articles forming part of the WS and ask for them to be disallowed. Excel's rep tried that one on me when I included articles about the Keighley car park.
Nolite te bast--des carborundorum.
3
Comments
-
Thanks for the update @Snakes_Belly .
Is there a legal presence for this or that fact it is a public interest issue?
1 -
On this forum there have been numerous incidents when Excel and VCS have said that they have not received documents etc. So make sure that they have them before the hearing.Ed2022 said:Thanks for the update @Snakes_Belly .
Is there a legal presence for this or that fact it is a public interest issue?
The comments by Michael Fabricant are quite powerful and I can imagine that Excel would not want these used as evidence. The judge in the case this week thought that the new evidence was relevant however the rep had not received it. This is typical Excel.
In my hearing Excel was the Claimant but the PCN was from a car park at Burton on Trent. I used an article that related to Excel being kicked off a car park at Keighley. The representative wanted this to be disallowed.
Nolite te bast--des carborundorum.3 -
Absolute disgrace they are wasting the court systems time.1
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.1K Spending & Discounts
- 246.6K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.1K Life & Family
- 260.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards