Your thoughts on an incident
Comments
-
EasyT And i didnt mention it, I thought my only savour was the safety devises, she awarded them to pay 50% of my damage on the back of they had devices installed after, but wouldnt take into account the hear say that I was speaking, and I wasnt lying.
0 -
I am trying to get me head around the above. Do you think the result might have been any better if the judge had been a man? You might want to consider your answer with care before typing......
And how did you know the judge didn’t drive? Just curious on this one.
Purely interest by the way, I won’t comment further on what you put.
Pleased you didn’t lose too much, and glad the security man hopefully gets to keep his job with the company.
Not a naysayer, just curiosity of how another person views life.
0 -
The only down side to it the judge was a woman, not that it matters but A, she didnt drive and B, never towed a caravan.
Not that it matters!!!!!!!!!!!! read what i say.
I should have said the only downside was that the judge did not drive or never towed a caravan. my mistake for people not reading my stuff how i write it. haha
There was no sexist remark in that, i just wanted to point out it was a female judge and then go into she didnt drive and so on, rather found it a bit funny when she told us.
She told us all in the courtroom more so me as i had to explain things deeper so she could understand.
Yes they will keep there job's, they are two nice fella's to be honest. I have spoken to them a few times as I went back upto take pics. They lied for a reason and I understand that and hold no judgement on them
0 -
Easy tiger ha I was the claimant
Regardless I wanted to take them to court for my reasons, to me it is a victory in a way as I dint loose and have to pay a fortune for the barrier repairs.
Again, thanks and i hope I dont come back on here for advise as I dont think you all could handle me again
0 -
Carry on posting, Ian. There are loads of sections across the forum where people chat and share advice and experiences.
0 -
Well, I'm pleased for you at the outcome. I wasn't sure how far you'd get in court, but it's a better result than I expected. All along it was a matter of principle, and I can understand that, as I am similar, in that if I believe something isn't right I will argue my point.
So, will you be visiting that same site again, just to test the barriers
Only asking!0 -
I am glad, i think ,you got a "result?" to your satisfaction? but is it because of my age ? as,i am trying to get my head round as to why this was taken to court in the first place, as neither party got any financial positive result,
and both still have to pay for their damage 
0 -
Hi Guys,
I am taking a company to court for damage to my caravan.
Good result? I don't get it.
You have £62 to help pay towards £860 worth of damage to your caravan, seems like you lost to me in regards to your opening statement of your first post
0 -
I'm glad it's just not me JVB. The OP was originally never asked to pay for the barrier damage. A 50/50 decision surely means both equally to blame. I'm glad it didn't go any worse for Goodchild, but I am struggling to see where comming out £62 up is a victory.
2 -
Stevel. I look at it this way., The damage is not a great extent, yes I would like it repaired but it is orinciple for me. I was counterclaimed for 1260 originally, I would have been billed for the two days wages if if witness if I lost and if I lost your looking near £1500 at a guess with wages. Now that they have somewhat bullied me and tried to wriggle me up with the court system and to the fact they have to oay for the wages, the two solicitirs and the Hugh bill from the defendants solicitors for paperwork draughts, they must have paid a firtune over the past near year.
So to me I came out the best. Went up against a Hugh company who can afford top solicitors and there is me as litigant in person, the nobody who bug cbug comoanues think they can walk all over.
I was partly to blame but showed to the courts so were comoany. As mentioned if I had a certain document it would be a total different outcome according to the judge but it was hear say she said.
I hope you can see why I think it's a victiry. I paid a total of 140 and I was awarded £62. To be awarded in a situation that I was doomed by many is a good victiry for anyone
0 -
what !!!! ?
Nearside extension rubber strap failed. Problem is the OP's.
2 feet from fence. Looks more like 3 feet watching the guy walking past.
Did not realise opposite barrier was coming down. Lack of attention IMO.
and there is more .....
1 -
Yes that is your opinion and I am glad you can say it.
But you wernt in the car at the time and looking at it from a different angle to what I was. Lack of due care and attention should be really made a mistake by not seeing it, the fella in the high Viz top stated that he didn't see it until hit my car. What hope do I have if he admits to not seeing it as he sees it raise up and down loads of times a day as to his words and he didn't have near enough things to look out for than myself
0 -
Whatever anyone's opinion, the matter is over and done with now.
Should we not just be content that Ian is happy with the outcome?
1 -
Plus what was paid out to get it to court. Not a win in my book either but the OP is happy so that's what matters I suppose.
0 -
Now that this issue has apparently been resolved to the OP's satisfaction it seems to me little point in continuing to discuss what if's and points of law (?) which weren't part of the original issue. Therefore I will close this discussion to further comments but thanks for all of your contributions.
David
0 -
I hope you can see why I think it's a victiry. I paid a total of 140 and I was awarded £62. To be awarded in a situation that I was doomed by many is a good victiry for anyone
So you paid out £140 and got awarded £62? To me that is a loss of £78 and you still have to repair your van? How is this a victory???
7
