Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4091
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

#106 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Amy » 22 Apr 2016 11:53

Sheila wrote:I am actually very relaxed about it and take the view that we are merely guests on somebody else's forum and they can decide whether or not to delete a post, close a thread or even remove the thread. That is their decision.
Finally we can agree on something.

Notwithstanding of course that she demanded its removal hence the reason she is now "very relaxed about it."

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6645
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#107 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Pote Snitkin » 22 Apr 2016 11:59

So why does she send Jason emails demanding that references to her on here are removed? He is, as she says, merely a guest on these boards.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6645
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#108 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Pote Snitkin » 22 Apr 2016 12:04

It was confirmed yesterday by his MK that the claimant was unable to provide evidence to support his claim to loss of earnings or even evidence that music masters or a mixing desk were in the boot of the car.
I'd like to see anyone prove in court the contents of their car in this sort of situation. I happen to have a Matisse in my boot, but if the car was taken I don't know how I'd prove it.

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4091
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

#109 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Amy » 22 Apr 2016 12:08

I have about 400 bags for life in mine.

Thegreyman
Posts: 118
Joined: 25 Sep 2015 12:02

#110 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Thegreyman » 22 Apr 2016 12:33

A box of Maltesers broke in my present cars boot, still finding them now, that's the nearest to a Matisse I will get!

Thegreyman
Posts: 118
Joined: 25 Sep 2015 12:02

#111 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Thegreyman » 22 Apr 2016 12:34

Thegreyman wrote:A box of Maltesers broke in my present cars boot once, still finding them now, that's the nearest to a Matisse I will get!

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6645
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#112 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Pote Snitkin » 22 Apr 2016 12:39

Oops, did I say a Matisse? I meant a mattress.

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#113 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Mark1960 » 22 Apr 2016 12:46

Pote Snitkin wrote:
Assneck wrote:I would write a limerick about him but the Guru would probably try to sue me, or denigrate me in the Flame Pit of his benighted site..
There once was a scraggy old hardon,
Who's mansion was in a huge garden,
She sometimes was lax, forgetting her tax,
But was given a nice Royal Pardon.

A hairy old monkey called Pete,
Who ate his food with his feet,
A dodgy old fool, a certified tool,
On block or in his On Sweet.

A rotten old bailiff called Joe,
A woman he tried to elbow,
In her nightgown, she gave him the brown,
From his knee right down to his toe.
There once was a Mancunian duffer
Who found solace on the net as a bluffer
Unable to read or spell
He thought his ignorance would not tell
But once sussed it became tougher and tougher

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#114 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Mark1960 » 22 Apr 2016 18:01

There once was a poster "The Bard"
Who constantly played the fmotl card
He'd failed at school
Was widely known as a fool
Which explains why he found reading so hard.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6645
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#115 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Pote Snitkin » 22 Apr 2016 18:02

These cases are not widely reported in media. It just happens that someone well known to this site is involved and it is felt necessary for there to be a response. CAG is not the place for a Solicitor acting for enforcement companies to have an online platform via some who contribute to CAG. There is no question that a contiributor to CAG is getting information from a source close to enforcement companies who has attended various court cases
At last someone on there is seeing the reality - now they need to ask why this 'contributor' has a direct line to this 'source', and why she delights in posting such misinformation.

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#116 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Mark1960 » 22 Apr 2016 18:12

And also why her lackey came out with this:
Is it suggested that we do not report cases truthfully because they originate from the same cause or because there may be attempted intimidation and name calling
The man does nothing else other than concern himself with what is posted on this forum. He never assists debtors, his money saved for debtors is £0, his success in getting enforcement stopped is 0 and his success in getting fees removed is 0. In fact the only real thing he excels in, is an uncanny knack of getting threads locked. Look at any locked thread on CAG and you can bet your bottom dollar that Dodgeball is in the thick of it.

The man is a total waste of space-A man of limited intelligence who has never been able to assist debtors, so instead chooses to devote his life to criticising those that do. It doesn't end there-He often lies and invents things in order to support his silly claims and accusations.

I would suggest get involved in a few cases of your own before criticising those that do precisely that.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6645
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#117 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Pote Snitkin » 23 Apr 2016 12:02

Oh dear, it seems Fenella is relaying a message from Ron that he never issued an invoice to Tex for £1700. I think I'd want to deny all knowledge of it as well. Once again, she also hides behind 'secret' information:
Unfortunately, in light of information received yesterday (thanks to Fair Parking) it would seem that once again, this case is not all it seems!!!
Come on Fenella, if you have info that exonerates you, share it with us all.

You continue:
FP does not wish to comment himself (as he is recovering from a road accident) but he is very angry indeed at suggestions that he had represented Mr Johnson
Ummm... he's already admitted that he did - post #147:
FP wrote:With regard to the 'unknown' mentioned in BA post of 21st March, I understand that a person on another forum which I have not visited for two years has stated that his 'client' has never contacted me.

My problem is that I keep having flashbacks of 20 emails in 2011 (finally deleted earlier this month), LB Newham, a Mercedes, a personalised registration number,phone calls and a visit to Bow County Court in May 2011 to assist two gentlemen - one being the owner and other stating that used to be the owner.

I withdrew from this case in July of that year due to incompatibility with the claimant and have never been involved since.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/fo ... any./page8
And you even posted a correction on the same thread:
I see that I made an error in my post here:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...=1#post4878498

I had stated this:

He initially sought my assistance after his vehicle had been seized. He then sought assistance from another advisor (FP). In desperation, he visited the 'Last Chance Saloon' and court proceedings were instigated. I would assume that he has informed his MK that a short while ago, he sought assistance from a 'third' advisor !!!

If fact he (TJ) contacted you first and then sought my assistance and advice in 2013.
So Ron acknowledges that he was involved in 2011, yet has no recollection of the invoice. You were involved in 2013 when he paid for your advice via your site (no mention yet of what that cost him). It is very odd that we are in possession of an invoice (complete with overcharging) from Ron at the exact time he was involved. You see sweetie, it can be difficult to keep up with the lies can't it?

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4091
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

#118 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Amy » 23 Apr 2016 12:47

There is a copy of the invoice on page 1 of this thread - she cannot get out of this one.

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#119 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Mark1960 » 23 Apr 2016 12:56

I withdrew from this case in July of that year due to the £1700 cheque clearing
Tidied

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#120 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Mark1960 » 23 Apr 2016 12:58

Amy wrote:There is a copy of the invoice on page 1 of this thread - she cannot get out of this one.
There is nothing to get out of.

Rons rates were published on his web site, even down to how much he required for meals-What is she suggesting? He charged his hairdressers rate?

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13343
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#121 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Schedule 12 » 23 Apr 2016 13:01

Emailed.
On 23 Apr 2016, at 10:10, protectme@fair-parking.co.uk wrote:
Only an idiot would doctor an invoice then stupidly let the cat out of the bag by placing ‘contents’ of it on line.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6645
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#122 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Pote Snitkin » 23 Apr 2016 13:08

Ant or Dec wrote:On a well known FMOTL site you have to lose the name, use 3 letter processes and more. Unless I was barking it is one to forget. The Doggy site is very quiet these days and it can take several days to get a response - so if urgent not really of much use. The other one is referred to above, certainly would make me think twice because if your face don't fit you suffer a tirade of abuse - would therefore think they chase more away than they attract.
Who fancies having a count up of the new cases between us over the past - ooh let's say - 6 weeks?

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6645
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#123 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Pote Snitkin » 23 Apr 2016 13:16

Mark1960 wrote: Rons rates were published on his web site, even down to how much he required for meals-What is she suggesting? He charged his hairdressers rate?
Vehicle Protection Scheme

From £19.95 for TWO years (explained in previous page)

£30 for Gold Scheme (recommended for London and the home counties)


Vehicle Registered After a Penalty Charge Notice Has Been Received
£35


Check Warrant Validity

This service is no longer offered as it has been superseded by Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and thus no longer has any relevance as ALL 'warrants of control' are now invalid.


Preparation and sending of letters to Private Parking Companies
£35


Defence Against Being Arrested and Charged for Allegedly Obstructing an Enforcement Agent
£125


Letters and complaint to Local Authorities and Bailiff Companies
£50


Preparation of Documentation to Retrieve Unlawful Bailiff/Enforcement Agent and Other Fees Through Small Claims Court
£99

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6645
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#124 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Pote Snitkin » 23 Apr 2016 13:29

I mean, let's be fair - the person that Sheila is defending, Ron of Fair-Parking offered (or still offers?) a service where, for a fee, you can register your car at a fake address to thwart enforcement for parking offences.

Hmmmm.... I seem to recall someone else doing that.... a mailbox address wasn't it?

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#125 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Mark1960 » 23 Apr 2016 13:32

So they are now claiming that they only want to seek the facts in this case. Here are some that I have discovered:

1. The judge in the 2011 case dismissed the claim because as registered keeper, Tex was deemed the owner, not the other person (Mr "S"). The judge in the 2016 case dismissed the claim because he suggested the claim should have come from the owner (Mr "S")

2. The car was sold for a third of its true value. Somebody got a bargain. Yet again, A1 Environmental appear to have been the benefactors.

3. £1122 of the £4000 made from the sale went to auctioneers costs. This is more than 25% of the total. It appears more than was prescribed and possibly illegal given there was no physical auction, it was carried out online via ebay.

4. There is a suggestion of multiple fees being charged for a single visit. I don't know if this was permitted for PCN's but the LGO had certainly stated on numerous occasions that bailiffs should not do this if only one visit took place (which is what happened in this case)

5. The balance of the money raised paid off the debt, leaving Newlyns to pocket more than £2000

6. Mr Johnson was not given a penny from the proceeds of the sale of a £12000 Mercedes.

Now Mrs Harding-Before gloating and celebrating and talking of last chance saloons, imagine if this story happened to one of your two sons:

2 parking tickets are incurred. A £12000 car was taken and sold for just £4000, conveniently raising just enough money to pay the debt, the auctioneers and the bailiffs. Lies were told about where the auction took place in order to maximise fees. It appears that a fee of £60 was paid to ebay but a claim of £1122 auctioneers costs was made. How would you feel Mrs Harding? Would you take that lying down? I know that I wouldn't.

It could be that TJ & Mr "S" did create a scam in order to try to evade paying PCN's-Is that any worse than the scam that Ron encouraged and profited from? Does it justify Newlyns ruthlessly profiteering, on the face of it, illegally? Certainly, whoever bought that vehicle obtained a bargain and could have doubled his money straight away by re-selling it. It would be interesting to know who that person is and if he has any connections to Newlyn.

So if you want to post some facts, there are some for you to be getting on with.

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#126 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Mark1960 » 23 Apr 2016 21:56

Well its all gone quiet over there! Not so keen on finding facts out now are they? Lets find a few more for them:

Madam wrote:
Yet again, this is yet another shabby case
I'd say the only thing shabby has been the uninformed guesswork posted on CAG:

I withdrew from this case in July of that year due to incompatibility with the claimant and have never been involved since.
Yeah right-Was the date of your invoice doctored as well then?

Given that the McKenzie (The Guru) has been heavily instrumental in leading this entire litigation
No he hasn't

Having seen many of the legal arguments presented by that place, I will bet the judge was not best pleased
You wouldn't know a legal argument if one hit you in the face you prat.

...and for the avoidance of doubt, he concluded assisting Mr Johnston a very long time ago (mid 2011).
No he didn't

According to the 'Guru' he would have us all believe he came to the case 'late' and therefore played little part in the preparation of it!!
Shock horror!!! The Guru was telling the truth-Still you know best eh?

Mr Johnson probably had the post part written as he named the Guru in it
Most men of the world have minds of our own-We're not all as soppy as you, you know?

Given that this thread concerns a different subject, I will refrain from making any further posts.
Just for once, can you do the world a favour and stick to your promise?

If the post is indeed in the wild, then it makes the mods on here look silly for deleting it
They're a complete waste of space-They've looked "silly" for as long as I've been posting on these boards.

All they have done is distract interest away from the fact that another person has been screwed by the court due to bad advice being given on there
Any chance of you breaking the habit of a lifetime and actually pointing us all towards this so called "bad advice"? That's what all your mithering is about in the first place isn't it? Is there any actual bad advice? If so, just point us to It. What could be simpler?

I think, that ship sailed long ago.
Oh the irony

Anyone that knows me will know that I have only ever told the truth
:lol: So for clarity, when you told me that you got fined for "road tax" and paid it because you didn't want to face bailiffs, you were telling the truth? Was this a separate "road tax" offence to those reported in the papers then?

FP has also sent me a copy of the invoice that he sent to the motor trader in 2011. It is not for the amount of £1,700
We believe you FP-Thousands wouldn't.

This case deserves it's own thread tomorrow and I will naturally provide an accurate account.
"accurate" :lol: That went well for you didn't it?......Naturally.

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#127 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Mark1960 » 23 Apr 2016 22:53

I think, that ship sailed long ago
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#128 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Mark1960 » 24 Apr 2016 02:17

Further facts regarding this case have now been confirmed. For the benefit of Caggers, I will post them below:

There were two separate PCN's ie two separate accounts.

On 11.01.2010, ONE visit was made but a charge was made twice (once for each account)
On 19.01.2010 ONE visit was made but a charge was made twice (once for each account)
On 28.01.2010 ONE visit was made but a charge was made twice (once for each account)

This was known as "multiple charging" The bailiff charged twice for doing the work once-Nice work if you can get it, you might think. Worse still, the following happened:

A further visit took place. This time, the vehicle was parked in a secure area, belonging to a lady friend of Mr Johnsons. The area was protected by electric gates. It transpires that the bailiff broke into this private, secure, gated area and seized the car.

Now once a car is seized and secured, it is in the custody of the law and secured against that debt. On this occasion, the bailiff secured it against 2 separate debts, which although illegal, meant he bagged a massive commission. He charged two separate van fees and two separate levy fees, all four fees earning him separate bits of commission.

If ever an example was needed to justify bailiff reform and the introduction of Schedule 12, then this case is it (and we haven't even covered the sale scam on ebay which netted £1122 for the bailiffs)

Sheila Harding has had plenty to say elsewhere about this case, her latest quote being that it is a "shabby case". At last we agree on something Mrs Harding-So seeing as you are so concerned with the truth and the facts, perhaps you could tell us all, why, when Mr Johnson contacted you (paying for the privilege on your premium rate phone line), you did not assist him in challenging these multiple fees or the ATR & Levy fee, being totally illegal for the second account? Can you also tell us what you discovered regarding the sale of the vehicle? You are quick enough to distance yourself aren't you? Triumphantly sneering that Mr Johnson was forced to go to the last chance saloon. This is no triumph Mrs Harding.

The exact same questions go to you Mr Clark. You invoiced for work in this case. I don't care how much or to who. The fundamental issue, regardless of ownership is that illegal fees have been added to this account-

Before gloating and sneering and then distancing yourselves, Mr Clark and Mrs Harding, you both need to take a hard look in the mirror at yourselves. Then you both need to hang your heads in shame for the manner in which you have let this man down. Then by added dimension, you criticise someone who tried to help Mr Johnson for no other reason than a genuine wish to do so.

I don't expect for one minute that either of you will be ashamed of your actions. Your over inflated opinions of yourselves mean that you are way past that of questioning your actions. I'll leave it to others to decide whether you're both deluded or not-I made my own decision on that some years ago.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6645
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#129 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Pote Snitkin » 24 Apr 2016 10:03

Fenella wrote:...........
Chimp wrote:..........
Oddys wrote:..........
Assneck wrote:............
*tumbleweed*

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#130 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Mark1960 » 24 Apr 2016 10:59

They're a bunch of sheep-None of them know what to do.

They're all waiting in the shadows for Sheila to say something.

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4091
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

#131 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Amy » 24 Apr 2016 12:14

Maybe they're all moderated.

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#132 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Mark1960 » 24 Apr 2016 18:27

Well if that's the case, at least it will stop Peter bullying further members to such an extent that they feel the need to leave the forum.

I notice that immediately after the vehicle was removed, Tex was referring to his "legal consultant" in correspondence. This presumably would have been Ron Clark AKA "Fair Parking". Rons legal consultancy led to the car being sold. Still Ron denies any blame should be apportioned to him. Can you imagine the uproar if Jason had represented someone who ended up having a car sold?

Ron thinks none of this is down to him. Having successfully cashed his cheque (after failing to save the car from being sold), he simply walked away and doesn't seem to feel one ounce of guilt.

A truly vile, odious man. Utterly revolting. Wouldn't it be ironic if his car crash was down to someone being parked illegally? Hopefully, his own car crash has brought home to him just what a car crash his own advice has been over the years.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13343
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#133 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Schedule 12 » 26 Apr 2016 11:41


Given that you made a great and disrespectful play of me NOT responding to your unilateral tirade about the invoice you allegedly saw in a trial bundle, when can I expect to receive a copy in order to be able to comment on it?

R.J. Clark

From: protectme@fair-parking.co.uk [protectme@fair-parking.co.uk]
Sent: 24 April 2016 10:43
To: jason@dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk
Cc: protectme@fair-parking.co.uk
Subject: FW: <Empty Subject>

As I do not have a note of any ‘invoice’ either addressed to your client or for £1700, but which you claim to have seen, for the sake of clarity would you mind forwarding me a copy as this would then surely make your rationale inarguable?

R.J. Clark

From: protectme@fair-parking.co.uk [protectme@fair-parking.co.uk]
Sent: 23 April 2016 18:47
To: 'Jason Bailey - Dealing With Bailiffs'
Cc: protectme@fair-parking.co.uk
Subject: RE: <Empty Subject>

Who gave you permission to pass my personal note on?

From: Jason Bailey - Dealing With Bailiffs [jason@dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk]
Sent: 23 April 2016 11:17
To: protectme@fair-parking.co.uk
Subject: Re: <Empty Subject>

Amy@bailiffhelpforum.co.uk

Sent from TypeApp

On 23 Apr 2016, at 10:10, protectme@fair-parking.co.uk wrote:
Only an idiot would doctor an invoice then stupidly let the cat out of the bag by placing ‘contents’ of it on line.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13343
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#134 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Schedule 12 » 27 Apr 2016 14:55

On 27 Apr 2016, at 13:54, protectme@fair-parking.co.uk wrote:
In the absence of any reply, I will have to continue on without you.


R.J. Clark


From: protectme@fair-parking.co.uk [protectme@fair-parking.co.uk]
Sent: 27 April 2016 09:25
To: jason@dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk
Cc: protectme@fair-parking.co.uk
Subject: RE: <Empty Subject>


I’m still awaiting the courtesy of a reply.


R.J.Clark
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4091
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

#135 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Amy » 27 Apr 2016 15:59

What is he on about? Sheila has the invoice, they all have the invoice - it's in plain view, what is his problem?

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#136 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Mark1960 » 11 May 2016 17:30

There was an old crank called Ron
Who once started would waffle on and on
He refused to budge
On claims he knew more than a judge
Despite working in a hairdressers salon


:lol:

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13343
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#137 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Schedule 12 » 28 Jul 2016 12:39

Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Tuco
Posts: 1838
Joined: 29 May 2016 13:06

#138 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Tuco » 28 Jul 2016 13:16

Speaking of dear old Ron, a little bird tells me he's delivering cars to and from auctions these days-Working for minimum wage. :lol:

I wonder how many of those cars have been seized in connection with PCN debts? :lol:

Ron appears to have gone from having more knowledge than solicitors to delivering cars for minimum wage. :lol: What an absolute crank.

I hope he still finds time to post now & again-Next to Dodgeball, he is my favourite poster.

Tuco
Posts: 1838
Joined: 29 May 2016 13:06

#139 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Tuco » 28 Jul 2016 14:27

Correction:

He actually drives them inside the auction houses.

There was an old crank called Ron
Whose marbles had long since gone
The TEC was not a court
Or so he thought
Until his clients car had a clamp put on

:lol:

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6645
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#140 Re: Johnson v Newham & Newlyn, Case dismissed

Post by Pote Snitkin » 28 Jul 2016 16:05

I know how you know that.

Post Reply