teabelly

I have read all of the different various things about Mr Mote but not knowing all of the facts it is very easy to prejudge someone.

Whether he has or has not do the alleged allagations everyone is inocent until proven guilty.

chikrodah

Exactly. I'm sure Mr. Mote is looking forward to the opportunity to defend his case. 8)

Aardvark

In the interim he is in Guildford County Court next week, 17th August, seeking to avoid bankruptcy.

Aardvark

...and so he has, temporarily.

I am informed that the statutory demand against Mote has been struck out because there are triable issues (statutory demands require that the debt is not contested). Unfortunately, because of the way the matter was handled by Mote and his lawyers, he failed to get an order for costs so must pick up his own legal bill of over £6000 (more than double what was apparently claimed!)

The case can now proceed to the County Court where Mote will have to justify himself again. Since the amount claimed is less than £5k it will be heard in the Small Claims Court. If Mote decides to use lawyers again he will pick up several thousand pounds of additional costs since, under the new rules, no costs are awarded in Small Claims Court cases. If he loses at that stage then a fresh statutory demand can be issued and he could again risk bankruptcy.

Incidentally, Mote's and his researcher's affidavits in the statutory demand case could soon be available online. Mote's researcher has complained to the President of the European Parliament since Mote argues that, despite signing a contract under English law, he is not bound by the terms as the money he uses to pay his staff is paid by the EU from his allowances and not by himself.

All correspondence with the EU President is available to order. Try this one:

http://www4.europarl.eu.int/registre...632&doclang=EN

SponPlague

I'll say this in favour of Ashley: When a speaker ratted on a UKIP commitment at a day or so's notice, three years ago, Ashley turned up at short notice and gave an excellent talk on Treason.

What a shame he didn't tell the candidate vetting committee about his 'problems' before standing...

Lawrie Boxall

Can someone clarify this for me please.
Ashley is facing bankruptcy over a bill of £5k - how come? Why would an MEP risk bankruptcy over such a small amount?
What happened to the charge of benefit fraud - is that linked to the £5k?

Aardvark

Bankrutpcy proceedings can be issued for any amount over £750.00. It is at the option of the creditor whether or not to issue a statutory demand or to go to the County Court. If a creditor believes the amount to be undisputed then a statutory demand is a quick way of getting the money since the response time is only 18 days and, if the debtor pays, there is no need for a court hearing. If the demand is disputed then, if there are arguable issues, it can be set aside by the court, as appears to have happened here. If the debtor has been above board and open at that stage then he will normally get costs, but if the court is unhappy with his actions then he doesn't. As has happened with AM, he can end up with a legal bill that exceeds the amount he was asked to pay!

The creditor can still sue in the County Court, but even though there are time limits on each part of the proceedings it can drag on. The creditor may not wish to have the expense of a court hearing for a small claim (less than £5000) since costs are no longer recoverable - in the old days people sued in the Small Claims Court and both sides used lawyers whose fees exceeded the amount in dispute. If AM's researcher represents himself then he will save costs, but AM could incur even more costs unless he wishes to attend court and do his own case. AM could, if he uses a solicitor and counsel, as I'm told he did last time, incur another £4-5000 worth of costs and still lose.

It strikes me as odd, knowing a lot of what is going on, that AM should risk £10-12,000 of his own money to protect less than £5000 of his allowances which he might still have to pay!

This is nothing to do with either the liquidation of Franklin Estates Wines (UK) Ltd (Ashley's company in compulsory liquidation) or the charges of theft and fraud ranged against him. AM must be paying his entire salary on legal bills!

Sheila

The instructions that the EP gives to MEPs on this are pretty clear:

Each Member is entitled to a monthly parliamentary assistance allowance to cover expenses arising out of the employment or use of the services of one or more assistants whom the Member may choose at his or her discretion; several Members may jointly engage or employ the services of a single assistant.

The Member is the assistant’s sole employer or the service provider’s sole contractor and there is no legal or administrative link between the Member’s assistant or service provider and Parliament, the only administrative obligation on Parliament being to pay the remuneration in accordance with the Member’s instructions, on his or her behalf, either directly to the assistant, or to a paying agent designated by the Member, or to the service provider. The Member must submit an application for a parliamentary assistance allowance and must certify that a private law contract has been directly concluded in accordance with national law between him or her and an assistant or service provider.

so I don't see him making that argument stick.

.

johnwest

I was very miffed with Mr Mote. He kept UKIP in the dark over his pending court case. They only found out after a newspaper splashed it on their front page after he got elected. He should have told the people who picked him that a court case was coming up and could lead to bad publicity for the party. He should have stood down before the election and allowed the next person on the list to fight the seat.