Anyone know what social media site this is?Sheila wrote: Yesterday, a most extraordinary report was given on a social media site regarding a hearing at Luton Crown Court that concluded yesterday with both defendants being cleared of theft and false representation.
I only reported it on this board.
My client didn't have a McKenzie friend. I stopped all that and started using solicitors. Their costs are collected the other party, so it costs my client zippo.Sheila wrote: The report itself (written by a McKenzie Friend) is utterly astonishing and frankly; resembles a poorly written fairy story.
Sheila has not received any messages. Nobody from the bailiff forums were in the gallery. It was family members of the accused.Sheila wrote: As regular posters on here will know, I am passionate about providing accurate information and with this in mind (and in response to the many messages that I have received since yeserday),
I was in communication with the accused throughout, except when mobiles had to be switched off while court was in session.
That was my fault, I said it was in Herts. It was actually in Bedfordshire.Sheila wrote: He was provided with the address where the vehicle was located (which was in Hertfordshire)
http://www.villagecarsalesltd.co.uk/ the owner took the stand and gave evidence.
According to the judge, he gave a defendants costs order. In fact the court didn't have a choice once the defendant asks for it.Sheila wrote: According to the court, no costs were awarded.
I doubt Newlyns solicitor will risk giving anything to Sheila because he knows it will come round in another Newlyn proceeding.Sheila wrote: I naturally approached Newlyn's solicitor for clarification yesterday afternoon
The next batch of Newlyn cases ones are detailed assessment hearings about multiple £235 for simultaneous enforcement. His Larnyoh comment at Croydon county court about the OneStep computer software error won't stand. Marston and Equita both use the same software, and they have not charged multiple £235 for simultaneous enforcement. OneStep technical support confirmed by email it is an operator error, and that indicates fraudulent intention to make a gain.
They were there and after they gave their evidence. After giving evidence, the CPS sent the usher into the witnesses room and told them to go home. They missed the verdict. The CPS knew the prosecution was not going well, (the "can of worms" comment) and was concerned they might be unhappy about the anticipated verdict.Sheila wrote: Newlyn Plc were not called as a witness in these proceedings and did not attend the hearing.
Well spotted. The car is not in the name of the debtor.Brass wrote: Wonder if there was any irregularity with the seizure and sale?
Have a guess.Dodge wrote: So was the initial seizure lawful ?
I got them off. How would I have done that if the seizure was lawful?
Thats new?Dodge wrote: Now I am confused.
Of course there is!Bulgaria wrote: Is there any legislation or case law that allows enforcement companies to sell vehicles owned by a company, when the PCN's were owed by an employee of the business ?
You dare mention it on CAG, you are banned and called a FMOTL.
Ownership is his company, and his company has had possession of all along.Bulgaria wrote: What is the ownership of the car now ? Would it have to go back to Mr Kirbys company ?
The police flagged it "stolen" but it was never stolen, the job of the legal professionals is to decide who pay the company for the loss of use of the car from June 2013 to date. Its a toss over the garage who reported it on 999, Newlyn for not following the rules (negligence), the council whom Newlyn acted for, the police force for flagging the car stolen when it was not. It could be shared between all or any of them.
I will assign my client to a solicitor early next week. Let the negotiations begin.
The links anyone?Sheila wrote:Yes, the subject is being discussed on the 'Pied Piper' site
It is also being debated on TWO other social media sites