PPM and BW Legal appealing after I beat them twice

DownwithPPCs

Snakes_Belly said:

At my hearing the Claimant was given permission to appeal.  I did look at what I would have to do if they decided to appeal.  If the right to appeal is granted then you will have the right to respond at the appeal hearing. There are various options open to a respondent.

As the judge in my hearing had given permission for the Claimant to appeal it would have gone straight to an appeal hearing and missed the stage that your claim is at the moment. They did not appeal but I had to prepare for the possibility that they would and I would have responded very robustly. 

That makes sense. The judge in both my hearings denied the Claimant's appeal at the hearings, so as you mentioned earlier I think they are clutching at straws. Hopefully the judge at the application to appeal hearing will see this.

Galloglass

They would be classed as a visitor for census purposes as it is not their main residence.    

Cenus (every 10 years) is not as persuasive as CT. 

CT calculation is based is based 50% on the size of the property and 50% the people living there, so everyone has a CT "residence". It can be evidenced by paying for somewhere else or being part of the calculation for somewhere else. 

So if the OP can demonstrate a CT payment or calculation for CT then there is evidence that the LA considers the domicile to be x rather than y. 

Coupon-mad

@Coupon-mad it's all detailed in both WS.

I know. Means nothing without you speaking.

The Circuit Judge considering whether there are grounds to appeal will NOT READ THAT.  This won't be a case of him/her reading all the papers at all.

And if you are not there, the parking firm will (in my experience and opinion) likely convince the Circuit Judge to allow them leave to appeal, I can tell you now.

This will be all about the verbal argument and they will send a barrister.

I didn't need to attend the 'famous' Southampton case with the Defendant Mr Crosby 2 years ago, which was also an application hearing.  But I went because I knew what would happen if we didn't go, and could see the writing on the wall. Britannia sent an Oxford-educated Barrister to blather on about it being unfair that their case had been struck out by another Judge.

Had I not been there, DJ Grand might have been persuaded due to hearing no other argument in dissent and due to some practised legal rhetoric from the rep.

In the event, when I spoke, I successfully unpicked everything the barrister had said and DJ Grand agreed with me that the application to reinstate the case had no merit. That's what you can achieve by pulling the wool away from a judge's eyes in person.

Unfortunately, a totally unprepared second Defendant also attended who was clearly a pushover. A ticking 'time bomb' for the case.

So, Britannia simply appealed DJ Grand's decision against that second victim only, behind mine and Mr Crosby's back.

Guess what the Circuit Judge decided when he heard their barrister and no dissenting voice?!  Lapped up every word and allowed the appeal.

I tell you this as an example of how a hearing goes WITH and conversely, WITHOUT a well prepped defendant sitting there and speaking against the crap being spouted.

I did already tell you last month, that you are not REQUIRED at this hearing.

What the court is saying is true (you are not required to attend...yeah we know that) but nothing has changed from my advice!

I thought I'd already fully convinced you why you MUST GO.  Does the explanation about the 2 different outcomes at Southampton help you see?

Mouse007

Coupon-mad said:

Unfortunately, a totally unprepared second Defendant also attended who was clearly a pushover. A ticking 'time bomb' for the case.

So, Britannia simply appealed DJ Grand's decision against that second victim only, behind mine and Mr Crosby's back.

I read through those cases the other week, both judges referred to the second "defendant" as a spectator. He was a disaster who merely wanted a proper invoice to pay. The appeal was deliberately engineered to exclude CM and effectively undefended.

Coupon-mad

I met him at that first hearing. He was arrogant and a clueless (Freeman of the Land deluded) perfect victim for PPC World.

Initially, I won him £95 costs and had his PCN case wiped out along with Mr Crosby's. Was the FMOL victim grateful?

Nope. He had no idea what had happened and just grunted at us outside and walked away, only to be virtually tackled to the ground later by a sneaky appeal he never bothered to try to ask for help here for or alert anyone here to. He knew where to find me.  Instead he thought he knew better with his doomed 'wet ink invoice' drivel and he let all my hard work evaporate.

Luckily this OP's destiny is in his own hands!  There are times when you just HAVE to go along, stand up and be counted and this is one of those times.

DownwithPPCs

Coupon-mad said:

@Coupon-mad it's all detailed in both WS.

I know. Means nothing without you speaking.

The Circuit Judge considering whether there are grounds to appeal will NOT READ THAT.  This won't be a case of him/her reading all the papers at all.

And if you are not there, the parking firm will (in my experience and opinion) likely convince the Circuit Judge to allow them leave to appeal, I can tell you now.

This will be all about the verbal argument and they will send a barrister.

I didn't need to attend the 'famous' Southampton case with the Defendant Mr Crosby 2 years ago, which was also an application hearing.  But I went because I knew what would happen if we didn't go, and could see the writing on the wall. Britannia sent an Oxford-educated Barrister to blather on about it being unfair that their case had been struck out by another Judge.

Had I not been there, DJ Grand might have been persuaded due to hearing no other argument in dissent and due to some practised legal rhetoric from the rep.

In the event, when I spoke, I successfully unpicked everything the barrister had said and DJ Grand agreed with me that the application to reinstate the case had no merit. That's what you can achieve by pulling the wool away from a judge's eyes in person.

Unfortunately, a totally unprepared second Defendant also attended who was clearly a pushover. A ticking 'time bomb' for the case.

So, Britannia simply appealed DJ Grand's decision against that second victim only, behind mine and Mr Crosby's back.

Guess what the Circuit Judge decided when he heard their barrister and no dissenting voice?!  Lapped up every word and allowed the appeal.

I tell you this as an example of how a hearing goes WITH and conversely, WITHOUT a well prepped defendant sitting there and speaking against the crap being spouted.

I did already tell you last month, that you are not REQUIRED at this hearing.

What the court is saying is true (you are not required to attend...yeah we know that) but nothing has changed from my advice!

I thought I'd already fully convinced you why you MUST GO.  Does the explanation about the 2 different outcomes at Southampton help you see?

I realise that, I know their behaviour by now! I'm not saying that I'm now not goin, I'm just concerned why their stance is that I'm not required and why they're citing CPR at me. I just hope that they will allow me to say my bit.

Coupon-mad

I'm just concerned why their stance is that I'm not required and why they're citing CPR at me.

Because that is all correct and it is (sadly) the way county courts deal with ordinary people.  IMHO many are quite arrogant/rude, like you should know stuff you can't possibly know.

It was always true that you aren't required. It's the other side's application. We knew this all along. 

But go... 


 "I just hope that they will allow me to say my bit."

I felt the same trepidation travelling to Southampton. We went there not knowing if the Judge would listen to us.  He did.

Look up the Overriding Objective, if you are unaware if it.  It underpins everything and it's why I mentioned it in my earlier reply suggesting some words for you.

Snakes_Belly

 In my opinion this scatchcard business is out of order. For all they know you could be staying with an elderly relative whilst they were ill. What if there was a carer going in regularly? 

DownwithPPCs

Snakes_Belly said:

 In my opinion this scatchcard business is out of order. For all they know you could be staying with an elderly relative whilst they were ill. What if there was a carer going in regularly? 

@Snakes_Belly it's all a money making scam. And my guess is the director of the MA is benefiting financially. Which would explain why he is digging his heels in and refusing to do anything even though I have told him I will be serving an injunction on him and his agents. 

There is also no grace period for stopping on the development so people can't unload their shopping. I have canvassed one block of the development so far and every single resident is against the parking scheme.

Le_Kirk

DownwithPPCs said:

Snakes_Belly said:

 In my opinion this scatchcard business is out of order. For all they know you could be staying with an elderly relative whilst they were ill. What if there was a carer going in regularly? 

@Snakes_Belly it's all a money making scam. And my guess is the director of the MA is benefiting financially. Which would explain why he is digging his heels in and refusing to do anything even though I have told him I will be serving an injunction on him and his agents. 

There is also no grace period for stopping on the development so people can't unload their shopping. I have canvassed one block of the development so far and every single resident is against the parking scheme.

Then they should get it and the PPC kicked out!