kevinjohnsonmbe

Yes, I get that and it would have been my reposte had the Judge not stopped the baffoon before he'd even got part way into the start of the counter claim sentence with the stern look and a "get back in your box tosser" expression (only my interpretation of the facial expression) and the words "counter claim costs are discretionary and I won't even consider it..." words! Truth be told, there was always the potential for a counter claim and it did sow a seed of doubt. My reasoning was, worst case scenario, 5k counter claim, I could have taken that on the chin but it would have shattered my belief in natural justice (the Magna Carta) and driven me, irrecoverably further down the road to social rebellion and natural justice. Read your post again, second reading, and a moments thought (albeit through a mist of vino tinto) reveals a depth of knowledge and previous experience, appreciate your input

Wether it's work or otherwise, questions that leave a part unanswered do tend to gnaw away... Figured you'd understand!

There must be a way Gary. I tried the moneyclaiminline.com route and it was allocated to small claims Court track. Legislation dictates that SCC track precludes claims for litigation costs. Leaves me wondering, since it was 'by value' allocated to SCC track, should I have insisted it went to an alternative track where litigation costs are permitted - since without that there was very little (£2.50) to actually claim? Possibly, but I didn't know that until during/after the hearing. Im done with it now, it's run it's course. I may, just for peace of mind and the learning experience, discuss it further with some legal heads. Dont like it it when things feel like they are incomplete.

You're appearing to conjoin attending the rally with carrying the flag there Mr E. What if you attended the rally, a perfectly lawful and reasonable right, but didn't carry the flag. (applies equally to all sectors of the political spectrum attending a lawful rally) If a person attended a "Free Palestine" rally would that make them Hezbollah?

I haven't got the brass neck for that Mark...... It was parked and unoccupied!! Maybe if I said I had 40 illegal imm's in the back of the van I could go for a Dianne Abbot commendation??

That was me pursuing the the other party.... It seems it can't really be done via Small Claims.

Right then, I'll have a go at summarising it all.... Case won - correct Costs awarded - correct (but see below) Court fees reimbursed - correct No! Going right back to the beginning, it was because the other party denied liability that I was faced with either picking up the cost of repair or making a claim against my own insurance that I didn't initially give it to the insurance company to resolve. As a consequence of this, I did a bit (but not much) more phone calls / admin than would have been the case if it had all been done by the insurance company. The amount of hassle and admin involved either way was, frankly, staggering so I started to tot up all the time, miles, letters, emails and phone calls. I set an arbitrary rate of £25/hr for time, £0.50 per mile travelled, £0.50 per minute phone calls which all totted up to around £1600 which was the basis of the claim. No big deal and actually, it was never about the money - honestly. The other party engaged a legal firm to deal with it and they were a PITA from the outset making daft requests, asking stupid questions (all of which were rebutted and rejected) and generally dicking around. They declined to engage in mitigation prior to proceeding to a Court listing and on that basis I simply rejected their subsequent requests. They made a "Calderbank offer" prior to Court which I also rejected. It was, what they thought, a clever tactic since if the case had been lost, the refusal of the Calderbank offer can be presented to the Court as an example of "unreasonableness" on the part of the claimant and can be considered in awarding costs and considering the counter claim. I'd included in my Court bundle (papers submitted prior to hearing) details of the witnesses, photographs of the layout of the carpark, details of the D&C constabulary compulsory driver training in place of prosecution etc. The other side's legal team were still maintaining that the accident never happened (and liability was denied.) They started banging on about why the witnesses weren't present and the Judge looked at me.... I simply said "it's a fait accompli! Why drag in witnesses and tie up more time and resources when the D&C constabulary option of driver retraining requires both the victim of the crime to agree and the perp to admit liability and voluntarily pay and undertake the training?" It's done, it's a matter of record, maintaining the denial is indicative of the unreasonableness of the defendant's stance. Anyway's, Judge gave the impression of being pretty much 'on-side' and was showing signs of impatience with the bumbling fool presenting the defence - and a bumbling fool he was! It was like something out of a bad TV drama, grubby suit, stained tie, shuffling papers, mumbling incoherently, etc... (I think I may have slightly unsettled him in the waiting room though.... We're both sat in the waiting area for Court 4, the Usher told him who I was and he came over, hand extended for a shake and asked "is there anything you'd like to discuss prior to going in?" I left him blushing and farting with no desire to shake his hand and simply replied "you can make a settlement in full otherwise there's nothing to discuss" as I return to my book. Wife said it did raise a giggle from the goons sitting nearby ) The bottom line, in the Small Claims Track, you can't reclaim litigation costs and the time/admin associated with remediating the damage was deemed to be litigation costs. The Judge appeared (to me) to be quite sorry about this as he explained that he was bound by government policy in that respect despite what his personal thoughts were. So no, the exam answer is, you can't (in the Small Claims Track) recover your time and effort (or legal expenses if you have a firm do it for you.) What you can however recover are necessary disbursements. Because my insurance company would not release the name and address of the registered keeper of the other vehicle I had to submit form V888 to DVLA at a princely sum of £2.50. This is a necessary dispersement since it was the only means by which I could access the information. So the Judge found in my favour since I had incurred the cost of £2.50 to bring the case to Court. I was awarded £2.50 costs and reimbursed the Court fees since my action had been upheld. The Defence counter claim was dismissed. There's a lot more to it than that summary and I'll expand any points if anyone wants to. Would I do it all again.... Well, most of the work, time, effort would have happened anyway just to get the damaged fixed, all I did extra was tot it up, a moneyclaimonline submission, a few extra letters, prep some Court papers and drive 15 miles each way to have an hour in Court. The wife and nipper came along and sat in at the back - Nipper's first exposure to the legal system which may be the germ of a future illustrious legal career. Has it cost the other driver - yes, cost and ignominy of retraining and (hopefully) increased insurance premiums. Has it cost the other driver's legal firm - yes, much more than it has cost me, albeit probably through insurance, but hopefully that in turn will affect the driver's future policy. Has it been a cracking experience - yes. Would I do it all again..... In hindsight, the find 'em and hurt 'em approach would have been much quicker and more satisfying....

On the basis that it is the "Left" rather than the "Right" generally, that tends to favour unfettered immigration, and that racial tension is born from the tensions between different races trying to live in the same space, and that the "Left" are generally more inclined to support this insane concept of "multiculturalism", I'd say it is absolutely the fault of the "Left" for promoting and inflicting an insane concept upon the unwilling. Others may differ, but they would clearly be radical, Lefty, sandal wearing friends of Jeremy.....

Bloody Brexit!

Case won! Costs awarded and Court fees reimbursed. After some celebratory bacon sandwiches, and catching up on some work, I'll post a summary of, what might be, interesting and relevant reflections in case anyone finds them self in similar circumstances in the future. PS no stocks Mr E! Beak was very decent chap!!

TV cameras in attendance! Not for me (not yet at least!) This case is also being heard at 10:00. Hopefully, I'll get a chance to shake his hand.... http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/police-called-shots-fired-near-north-cornwall-hunt-609380

Gary, your wisdom and insight do you credit! (it's better to be inside the tent pi55ing out, rather than outside the tent pi55ing in!!) I'm flattered! Eggs, Mmmmmm.... Your grasp of reality is, as ever, a little hash but on the money!

cheers Mr E! If all all goes quiet, I'm banged up in Bodmin Gaol for abusing the beak! Came pretty close to contempt of Court at the last HMRC hearing!

16 August 2017, 10:00 Bodmin County Court. 1 more whiskey (yes - Irish) then off to bed pondering on the potential outcome of tomorrow's proceedings.....

The Lefties' book of protest chants!

Everyone needs to embrace behavioural change which delivers more efficient working practice - The Planning Portal (in this instance) is a great example. Public sector departments are riddled with inefficiency, ineptitude, idleness and lack of imagination - the spotlight is on them and the money tap is off, for that we can THANK "the Tories" and we should live in dread of the prospect of Labour promising to write cheques our bank balances can't cash.

Since EA website went "dot Gov" it's been dreadful! from memory, any "treated" timber - fence posts, panels, painted, treated, tantalised, is "waste" and subject to carriers licence at higher tier. "Green" arisings direct from the tree, is lower tier. Is a tree "waste" if it's being moved from A to B for processing into logs? No - if it were then all timber lorries would be carrying waste rather than saw logs. I apply the same logic to chip. If it's going for conversion to compost or top dressing, it's not waste it's 'product.' Haven't had a run in with EA whilst on the road yet, but I'll be ready if it ever does happen. There may may also be a matter of scale too. Doesn't trouble me but may be important in larger scale ops.

There's SO much (some outrageously funny, some head-bangingly frustrating, some heart-stoppingly dull, some adrenalin pumping - let's take it outside angry, some are you 'king kidding me incredible) to tell you about! And that's after 2 meetings!!!

You're spot on Gary! for this one, it has no impact / stress directly for me. Just a mild frustration that "local" governance seems irrelevant and regional governance seems incapable / unwilling. The most frustrating part has been the attempts, by those that should know better, and are paid / empowered to do so, to attempt to flannel & waffle their way to the course of least resistance - either with the knowledge that they aren't fulfilling their civic and professional duty with diligence, or that there is a deficiency of appropriate knowledge. Im a reasonable guy (no, honest, I am!) if someone had said, "not sure, leave it with me" I'd have been like, "yeah, no worries dude!'

Was a great post that! Meant to say that earlier!!

I did, quickly and roughly this morning, in my own time and at my own expense / initiative.... Don't tell me, I made an error? I don't mind too much if I did, the bottom line is, it should have been done properly and it hasn't been and nobody seems to care... Making waves Gary, or having a reasonable expectation that those in authority should be expected to be sufficiently knowledgable, professional and diligent to exercise said authority appropriately? They work for us.... "...They have long memories..." (or to put it in management speak - corporate knowledge, because they are in the job for so long. After all, how would such ineptitude be tolerated anywhere else?) And, I'm a black belt in long memories Gary... This one is going on the record! If / when those trees fall over in 10 years time, I'll just pop up out of the woodwork and remind everybody of this little balls up!! I've got an old man's 9'10" long board, wish there was more time in the waves though!!

Easy enough for us to see that Tom, I wonder if they will agree? I'm at a (LA sponsored) planning CPD event next week, it would be too much to hope for that this case officer will be in attendance.... Wouldn't it?

Feel your pain!

Just to clarify, it's not a job. It's a parish council / community issue.

I didn't comment personally Gazzer, I highlighted the deficiencies in the application form to the PC who agreed to change from 'support' to "support subject to TO consultation on site / application.' There's a classic line from Trainspotting.... to misquote - "For all the good that did I'd just as well stuck it...." (you know the rest!) Raised the issue as an enforcement query (I know that's not ideal, but it seemed the least bad way of raising it.) Once again.... For all the good that did I might as well.... On 3 Aug 2017, at 11:36, Planning Enforcement <[email protected]> wrote: Dear Mr Johnson Thank you for your enquiry to Planning Enforcement. As you have advised the trees are not referred to within the decision notice and therefore there are no conditions which are being breached by carrying out works which affect the trees. I have checked and there are no Tree Preservation Orders on the property and it is also not in a Conservation Area therefore we wouldn’t seek any consent for works to be carried out to trees on this property. Therefore we would not seek to investigate this matter as no breach of planning has occurred. Kind regards X Senior Development Support Officer Planning and Sustainable Development Cornwall Council Dear X, Thank you for the email and telephone conversation earlier. To summarise the points regarding trees, please see extract of email exchange Johnson / Stevens (Planning Case Officer) 09:49 3 Aug 17: (earlier post) ..... Also attached the map extract of the site and surrounds previously forwarded to the PO. Separate to the matter of the trees, the DN states in Condition 4 that no work should commence until after written approval has been received from the authority in response to the submission of detailed plans. As I think you confirmed, there are currently no additional details registered with the authority as submitted by the applicant and work HAS commenced. Unless I’m mis-reading the DN, this would appear to present a potential breach. You may have sensed a degree of frustration during our telephone conversation. This is entirely attributable to the difficulty I have experienced in attempting to highlight this issue, starting with the input to Parish council consultee comments (which appear to have been disregarded) and culminating in the number of perceived attempted ‘brush offs’ now that the issue is ‘live.’ Both yourself and the case officer have verbally stated that where not in a CA or subject to TPO protection, trees in development sites are not a material consideration in the granting of consent - I beg to differ, would highlight s197 of the Town & Country Planning Act which states otherwise and request a copy of Cornwall council’s policy to support the statements made. You mentioned forwarding the details as a complaint and I appreciate if you would - but I’m also mindful that the turn-around-time for receipt, investigation and deliberation on such matters will reach it’s natural conclusion a considerable time after any potential damage to the trees has been inflicted and the longer term consequences have become irrecoverable. It’s of particular note that the TPO’d trees just off site are in the stewardship of Cornwall council and I was very disappointed in your initial verbal response that “…since they were not on site, they wouldn’t be affected…” Please note within the attached map the Root Protection Areas (as defined in British Standard 5837:2012) applicable to the trees in question. This submission is as a private individual but is copied to the Parish council and the Rector St Clarus for info. Best regards, Kevin PS (for Arbtalk Massive) in case anyone is wondering, no, I have never been in the Liberal Club!