Trading Standards vs incarexpress.co.uk

Bamber19

mdbarber wrote: »

...section 48 of the SOGA but for reasons i can't go into just yet it is not applicable

I appreciate that you say you can't go into it...but seriously are you just saying that in some sort of Walter Mittyesque moment?

Other than the question of interpretation and whether an item is faulty before it's been examined that I addressed with regards s48 I cannot see how you could rule out applicability of this section to your scenario. It's sounds more like "and because I can't be bothered to look into it and have trouble reading legalese..."

Especially since you say earlier that SOGA is your main piece of legislation in this case, and this section is the closest to actually dealing directly with your scenario.

mdbarber

Bamber19 wrote: »

I appreciate that you say you can't go into it...but seriously are you just saying that in some sort of Walter Mittyesque moment?

Other than the question of interpretation and whether an item is faulty before it's been examined that I addressed with regards s48 I cannot see how you could rule out applicability of this section to your scenario. It's sounds more like "and because I can't be bothered to look into it and have trouble reading legalese..."

Especially since you say earlier that SOGA is your main piece of legislation in this case, and this section is the closest to actually dealing directly with your scenario.

patience dear sir, it is supposed to be a virtue and hopefully all will be revealed soon enough.
I understand your curiosity may be driving that comment but as i have gone so far to great lengths not to show my hand (in poker speak) and as has been pointed out already by others, doing so would negate the need for a hearing.
Its not a case of being "waltermittyesque" (nice phrase btw) it genuinely is relevant to my case not to cancel out all the arguments my opponents will make.
The way i see it it's because the law is so vast it increases their chance of finding a loophole.
For example if I were to entirely discredit section 48, it would only be to their benefit, allowing them to focus on other areas I have not yet covered in my research and presenting me with a "blindside"

Bamber19

So can it be taken from your reply that what you meant was that it is not applicable, but you are going to use it in court and claim it is applicable so don't want to give away the reasons why it is not really applicable

If, not, then keeping it a big secret really doesn't make sense if you acknowledge it isn't applicable and you are not going to use it in court.

If it is as I've said above then perhaps you should have just left it at a "thanks for the useful suggestion, I will use that" to the user who brought it up.

Although, I have a sneaking suspicion about your reply, and reason for it, one that is no negative on your part, and in fact a pretty good idea in a case like this (someone else suggested doing it on the other thread) I realise this may make no sense, but if you're doing what I suspect you are then you'll understand If not I can always clarify by PM if required, although only to the OP since it's obvious the other party are watching also.

mdbarber

Bamber19 wrote: »

So can it be taken from your reply that what you meant was that it is not applicable, but you are going to use it in court and claim it is applicable so don't want to give away the reasons why it is not really applicable

If, not, then keeping it a big secret really doesn't make sense if you acknowledge it isn't applicable and you are not going to use it in court.

If it is as I've said above then perhaps you should have just left it at a "thanks for the useful suggestion, I will use that" to the user who brought it up.

Although, I have a sneaking suspicion about your reply, and reason for it, one that is no negative on your part, and in fact a pretty good idea in a case like this (someone else suggested doing it on the other thread) I realise this may make no sense, but if you're doing what I suspect you are then you'll understand If not I can always clarify by PM if required, although only to the OP since it's obvious the other party are watching also.

i think that from reading several of your posts you are along the right track,

mdbarber

Well seeing as they presented me with a little surprise over last week end with the vacation of hearing request,, i returned the favour yesterday, unfortunately something completely irrelevant and random occurred meaning i may not get to find out the result as soon as i had hoped for, bummer eh

grayme-m

mdbarber wrote: »

Well seeing as they presented me with a little surprise over last week end with the vacation of hearing request,, i returned the favour yesterday, unfortunately something completely irrelevant and random occurred meaning i may not get to find out the result as soon as i had hoped for, bummer eh

I for one, haven't a clue what that means.

cavycrazy_2

So do you have a changed date, or is the date still classified information?

mdbarber

cavycrazy wrote: »

So do you have a changed date, or is the date still classified information?

It was on the 30th(post 61), don't know now as i haven't had any official mail, just a quick call from the courts offices to say they had asked for it to be postponed for some time, think it was 28 days but that might be awkward, think i'm away then for afamily wedding.

grayme-m wrote: »

I for one, haven't a clue what that means.

Well it was last friday they surprised me with the postponement request, so i wrote a letter to the courts objecting(and more), level playing field and all that

cavycrazy_2

mdbarber wrote: »

It was on the 30th(post 61), don't know now as i haven't had any official mail, just a quick call from the courts offices to say they had asked for it to be postponed for some time, think it was 28 days but that might be awkward, think i'm away then for afamily wedding.

Sounds to me like it's a ploy hoping you'll get fed up and accept whatever they're offering.

mdbarber

cavycrazy wrote: »

Sounds to me like it's a ploy hoping you'll get fed up and accept whatever they're offering.

I think you are right, simple legal manoeuvring, but surely you would think anyone with a crumb of intellect would think, "this guys pursued this for 6 months already, he ain't giving up"