Marston loses "Manchestergate" court case.

[Mark1960]

The CAG administrator says Kari didn't return the activation email, as are the CAG keyboard warriors.

How else would Ron FP get her details to pass on to TT? Kari certainly wouldn't have telephoned a website about parking tickets. On that note, I've just had a bunch of very angry "keep your mouth shut" emails from him.

One of the highlights of the net for me is reading Rons angry outbursts. he cracks me up at times. I may even do another Hitler video with Ron as Hitler.

[Syd Snitkin]

Just seen that I'm now supposed to be GlennQ. I've been banned too many times to bother!

[zeke]

Who has accused you? (for what better word) Kari and I were discussing last night who this could be but we are stumped as to who GlennQ is.

[Syd Snitkin]

Fair-Parking:

I've now managed to uncover a 'Glenn Q' who is a character in Family Guy known as 'Glenn Quagmire' so called because he gets himself into situations he finds difficult get out of. He is also a fictional commercial airline pilot.

Such obtuse characters are the hallmark of one person posting on forums other than the well known small mouthpiece - and such as 'Panaka' and 'Pote Snitkin' - obtuse Star Wars characters few people would know about - vbut which might well include one who claims to play science fiction themes on his organ.


Mind you, reading it again it could well be that he's saying it's you Nigel, 'the fictional air-line pilot'!

[zeke]

He's been on the google again. Erm, Syncopates?

I have better things to do than be a CAG warrior.

Speaking of which, I'm wondering why the CAG has so many warriors sidelining Marstons judgment and try to rubbish the fact it lost a case. On Thursday, the 14 day deadline Marston has to pay, risks another £400 court fee being added to the sum for a third party order to be applied. Their bank accounts become as useful as a wet paper bag.

[Andy]

Kari - congratulations on winning your case, I hope your case will serve as a bench mark for people who have been robbed by marstons and want redress. I doubt it will change the industry but hopefully it is a start.

[Syd Snitkin]

And as is the normal practice over there, the thread has been closed - can't have Marstons attacked can we?

Someone created a new account 'sweetlaw' to praise the words of tomtubby & fair-parking (my guess is WD), changing the font as well (because if someone writes in a different font, it can disguise who they are, don't you know).

Sweetlaw praises the 'good name' of tomtubby AKA Sheila Harding (two convictions for cheque fraud). Strange how she is now silently battling cancer as soon as she was aware that Kari had undergone treatment. I would have thought she'd have thrown that into the ring long ago.

Hey, we were all thinking it.

[zeke]

New and multiple names is a common trend of the CAG forum. They shill for TT in some way or another. There are the one-post names. A few minor exceptions such as Mr. Walkers Crisps (fletch70). Interesting posting history.

[Mark1960]

In fairness to Sheila Harding, I have had conversations with her in the past where she has mentioned the treatment that she has been undergoing. I don't think it's the kind of thing that someone would make up.

Likewise, just because someone is ill, doesn't mean they should roll over for bailiffs, as Kari has bravely demonstrated. I don't use the term fraud very often regarding bailiff fees but in this case, fraud seems to be the appropriate description of what has taken place.

CAG have definitely walked away from this one with their tails between their legs-Hopefully someone will read this who has been charged storage fees by Marston and start doing some delving. Marston may have deep pockets and prefer to shell out 3 grand to fight over 2 grand. Wouldn't it be nice for them to have to do this 10 times over?

[zeke]

What doesn't sound right about TTs health problems, it was her husband that had the same problems she describes. When she speaks over the telephone to my clients, she makes repeated critic of me and DWB. Fortunately, it reflects on her more than it does me.

As far as the bounce cheque tax disc, I would have dismissed it has it been a one off offence and thought nothing more of it.

I would have thought Marston would have been honest about the car, but to tell a court it was stored from December to April when they knew someone applied for a V5 in February proves an intention to pocket thousands of pounds of someone else's money fraudulently.

I'm wondering if this could be a re-run of the Newlyn Mercedes case. Newlyn sold a Mercedes at "auction", the car was found and recovered and new keeper said the motor trader sold it for a much higher price than declared. The motor traders name was in the public register of certificated bailiffs.

[Hithard]

It's highly likely that Marstons have been running the storage fee racket for sometime and it may very well be common practice.
Hopefully Kari's victory will lead to more people defrauded by Marstons coming forward and the company facing a proper investigation and losing it's contracts from the MOJ.

[steveme]

And as is the normal practice over there, the thread has been closed - can't have Marstons attacked can we?

Someone created a new account 'sweetlaw' to praise the words of tomtubby & fair-parking (my guess is WD), changing the font as well (because if someone writes in a different font, it can disguise who they are, don't you know).

Sweetlaw praises the 'good name' of tomtubby AKA Sheila Harding (two convictions for cheque fraud). Strange how she is now silently battling cancer as soon as she was aware that Kari had undergone treatment. I would have thought she'd have thrown that into the ring long ago.

Hey, we were all thinking it.

If she had two convictions for fraud then my guess is she would have gone down. Fraud is an imprisonable offence with a max sentence of 10 years or so it says

[zeke]

That is a long term plan to revive old cases and look into fraudulent behaviour. I have previous clients who have unsolved cases.

In Kari's case, we need to progress the dispute, and how cooperative Marston wants to be is up to them. I think it's best not to bring CAG forums into the loop because too many members are getting their fingers burnt by poking their beaks into matters that do not concern them.

[Syd Snitkin]

If she had two convictions for fraud then my guess is she would have gone down. Fraud is an imprisonable offence with a max sentence of 10 years or so it says

Watch-oo talkin' bout Willis? Convicted twice - 2008 & 2011. Fined both times. As it didn't involve a 'vulnerable' victim, the sentencing range is a fine to 6 weeks custody.

[Syd Snitkin]

In fairness to Sheila Harding, I have had conversations with her in the past where she has mentioned the treatment that she has been undergoing. I don't think it's the kind of thing that someone would make up.

In that case, she has my best wishes in fighting it. My Mum died of metastatic cancer so I know how nasty it can be. No kid gloves though - millions battle cancer every day.

[steveme]

If she had two convictions for fraud then my guess is she would have gone down. Fraud is an imprisonable offence with a max sentence of 10 years or so it says

Watch-oo talkin' bout Willis? Convicted twice - 2008 & 2011. Fined both times. As it didn't involve a 'vulnerable' victim, the sentencing range is a fine to 6 weeks custody.

Sorry you said it was a case of fraud. In fraud cases the sentencing guidelines are nearly always a custodial as midway point . Of course if the actual charge was not fraud then the guidelines would be different

[Mark1960]

Nobody is going to be jailed for a dishonest financial gain of £160 (a years road tax)

I read recently on Scoop it about a mother who avoided jail after being convicted of benefit fraud to the tune of £100K.

It is wrong to assume that the charge dictates the sentence. It may well have the potential to impose greater punishment but circumstances will always be the deciding factor. This is especially true for cases heard at magistrates courts, where offences are generally minor and petty. The prisons are overflowing and magistrates are guided to look at alternative sentencing.

[Syd Snitkin]

That saved me from having to make a post.


Oh...

[steveme]

Maybe I should have explained slightly better. With two offences so close together you would expect the punishment to be much higher if they were fraud. Obviously we hear of community orders for huge frauds but we also hear of custodials for much less.
I didn't say she would have got a long sentence or even an immediate one just that the offence alleged is much more than a slap on the wrist.
My suggestion is that it was not fraud at all, an oft misused term

Can you point me to the sentencing guidelines of a fine to 6 weeks, what was that punishment for?

[zeke]

This is off topic.

[Syd Snitkin]

But let's clear it up....

The convictions were writing a cheque knowing it would bounce, then refusing to return the tax disc. This could be interpreted as fraud or theft, depending on the evidence.

Sentencing was at the Magistrates, so the maximum sentence would be 12 months. It's not for me to argue why the sentence was a fine in both cases - perhaps due to her age and gender.

Cheque fraud refers to a category of criminal acts that involve making the unlawful use of cheques in order to illegally acquire or borrow funds that do not exist within the account balance or account-holder's legal ownership.

One form is bad cheque writing; a cheque is written to a merchant or other recipient, hoping the recipient will not suspect that the cheque will not clear. The buyer will then take possession of the cash, goods, or services purchased with the cheque, and will hope the recipient will not take action or will do so in vain.

Have you even read about the cases? Now let's get back on track....

[Jade]

This thread is just too entertaining I'm compelled to join in. Off topic perhaps, but let me just get this straight... Sheila Marsdon's handle username is TomTubby as well (as various other names so she can apparently chat to herself on line) and this woman has 2 convictions for cheque fraud yet she is or was employed as a debt counsellor to pontificate how the great unwashed can resolve the financial problems? LMAO!
And, this little Ronnie chap also on CAG as 'fair-parking' is the same Ron who was slated by the Judge in the Andrews v Bolton case for being an idiot yet writes on CAG how someone like Kari Anderson is an 'idiot' because she didn't reply to his or TT's emails trawling for info about her Marston victory?
HAHAHAHA this really is all too amusing! Looks like Kari has done nothing more than put TT's and Ronnie boy's nosey beaks outa joint...and Marston's. Winner winner chicken dinner!

[Jade]

^sorry all, that shoulda said 'Sheila Harding' not Sheila Marsden. Hahaha Freudlian slip...or should that be a cheque fraudlian slip?

[Amy]

One form is bad cheque writing; a cheque is written to a merchant or other recipient, hoping the recipient will not suspect that the cheque will not clear. The buyer will then take possession of the cash, goods, or services purchased with the cheque, and will hope the recipient will not take action or will do so in vain.

Under the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, cheques are contracts in themselves. They are a promise by the drawer of the cheque that the person to whom it is addressed will be paid the money as stated on the cheque. If there are insufficient funds in the account to meet that promise, then the cheque has been dishonoured and the contract broken.

I would say she was lucky.

[Amy]

I forgot to mention the star of the show; Kari.

Very, very well done to you for your dogged determination in what must have been such an ordeal for you.

I'm just sorry you have had to deal with all the mud slinging from others; they can just never bring themselves to be happy for anyone.

We are very grateful to you for sharing the outcome with us.

xx

[zeke]

I knew all along she would win it, but just for the record, congrats Kari.

If she has been well enough to resume the adjourned form 4, I'm very sure she would have won that. There was no way Chris Royle (Barrister) couldn't have wriggled out of it. The swearing at her tenant, (lying C*unt), excessive levy, it was real a tirade of foul mouthed abuse given down the phone. The texts were still on her phone and the judge beckoned for it to be passed to him to see for himself.

Chris Royle made it clear at the outset they would be no claim for his fee against Kari, and Marston would be paying his bill regardless of the outcome.

[Amy]

The Judge's eyes would have popped out of his head at language like that!

I'd love to say maybe they've learnt a valuable lesson here, but I don't imagine for one second they have.

[steveme]

But let's clear it up....

The convictions were writing a cheque knowing it would bounce, then refusing to return the tax disc. This could be interpreted as fraud or theft, depending on the evidence.

Sentencing was at the Magistrates, so the maximum sentence would be 12 months. It's not for me to argue why the sentence was a fine in both cases - perhaps due to her age and gender.

Cheque fraud refers to a category of criminal acts that involve making the unlawful use of cheques in order to illegally acquire or borrow funds that do not exist within the account balance or account-holder's legal ownership.

One form is bad cheque writing; a cheque is written to a merchant or other recipient, hoping the recipient will not suspect that the cheque will not clear. The buyer will then take possession of the cash, goods, or services purchased with the cheque, and will hope the recipient will not take action or will do so in vain.

Have you even read about the cases? Now let's get back on track....

First off I should say , and I am sorry I haven't said this before, well done to Kari for getting a victory over the Bailiffs and I do sincerely hope they take it on the chin and do not appeal or even try to ( From reading other for a sometimes you first need to go to court to ask for leave to appeal) . I would suspect that this will depend on if they want to set any sort of precedent as at the moment it is only county court .

In reply to Pote , I have only read the links that were provided on here regarding the vehicle excise duty and I do not see anywhere it saying that the cheques were written knowing that they would bounce. I know that in my younger days I would write a cheque on a Wednesday knowing that my pay would be in the bank on Friday which would be the time the cheque would hit my account . If it wasn't presented for a week I may well have dipped into the funds for that . It is always sods law though that the cheque would be presented one day early in those cases and I would get bank charges .

Very sorry to have gone off topic, well done to Kari indeed and balls to those that try to rubbish the victory

[zeke]

The offences are not about bounce cheques. It's failing to return a tax disc.

[Syd Snitkin]

So it's either:

a) fraud - knowingly writing a cheque that would bounce and hoping it wouldn't be pursued; or

b) theft - mistakenly allowing the cheque to bounce but keeping the disc anyway.

No wonder she supports those with a theft convictions to work as bailiffs:

http://www.jbwgroup.co.uk/mobile/news/2 ... -offenders


Oh, and she doesn't seem to have much luck with cars does she?

http://www.somersetcountygazette.co.uk/ ... a/?ref=arc

They'll soon be renaming Court 3 there 'The Harding Court'.

[zeke]

That's another conviction, in 2007. How many more convictions does she have? What does her husband and son make of all this?

[zeke]

Hear hear Kari. While marston plot their counter attack, they need to find a defence for a seizure of an obvious sign written trade vehicle, an excessive levy by taking a shiny new car when a garage full of gear was in full view. As this is pre-regulation, its an easy case to bring.

Wouldnt it be funny if the car just happened to be found, and its keeper paid a lot more than the £3100 as claimed by Marston group. Time to run a truth test? A refusal to take the test could be messy.

[Andy]

Hear hear.

[Mark1960]

Theres a few things that puzzle me about this case. One issue that is eating away at me & hopefully Nigel or Kari can put me right, is the issue of the car being used purely for business purposes.

How can it possibly be deemed to have been used partly for private use? It was sign written which OK, possibly isn't enough on its own but it would certainly be a good indication that the car was for business use only. What is really bothering me is that the restraint was fairly isolated, buses stopped running before the end of the shift, the business couldn't afford taxis for every employee-It made perfect business sense to run a car to ferry workers to & from work. Indian & Pakistani restaurants ferry their workers in this way on a regular basis. Everything fits for the car being used purely for business, of that there can be no dispute. Perhaps Kari used it occasionally to nip to the shops? or to the pub? She couldn't have could she because she couldn't drive? There is no possible way that the car could have been used privately as Kari didn't drive.

Is it too late to have a go for the whole value of the car to be refunded? As I see it, it should never have been removed.

[zeke]

Kari didn't have a driving license so private use is not in question. It was medical reasons.

Its the replacement cost plus the number of days she has been deprived of its use. There are other issues but for another day. Let me speak with Kari, I think your thoughts would be useful.