Jump to content

Toulose LeDebt

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Toulose LeDebt last won the day on April 13 2009

Toulose LeDebt had the most liked content!


793 Excellent

1 Follower

  1. Don't forget when writing to point out that they failed to comply with the order as highlighted: The claimant complies with the order of this Court dated *** July 2009 and provides disclosure to the defendant of the original barrier make, model number and serial number or if unable to so do provides the defendant with a signed statement setting out the grounds on which they base their claim that the barrier in question was not manufactured by FAAC A dismissive and unsupported statement simply to the effect that 'it was not a FAAC' does not comply. They have admittted destroying all records relating to this barrier it is therefore not unreasonable to ask on what grounds then they are able to state definititively 3 and a half years later that it wasn't a FAAC is it,the Judge didn't seem to think it unreasonable either. Especially when the witness making the statement can't tell the difference between a BFT and a RIB when it's bright orange has sat outside his office for three and a half years and has 'RIB' plastered over it?:D
  2. Me too although at least if the Chief Superintendent and the Devon & Cornwall police legal advisory team have called this correctly, this shenanigan might ultimately be beneficial in the long term to the college.
  3. Have just seen it thanks Patma. I am shocked!!!! Deeply shocked but if being honest not surprised in the slightest. The choice of words is utterly remarkable, and with a Council approved contractor going into liquidation literally within hours of a protracted dialogue by 'phone and fax you might feel qualified to hazard a guess at where they are going with such a statement. This would explain quite a lot of otherwise wholly irrational behaviour being exhibited by certain people. I've thought for a long time we were dealing with a bunch of cocks but it appears they're not cocks just chickens and it sounds like they've just come home to roost!!!
  4. Oooo errrr!!:eek: Have just seen the message. Those are very serious suggestions for such a senior member of Devon and Cornwall Constabulary to make, to recommend such a course of action he must have some grave suspicions about the conduct of certain parties to this action. And knowing what evidence they have had access to who could blame them? I'd have to say it looks like certain people are out of time now with respect to avoiding any possible criminal investigation. They had their chance to extricate themselves but blew it spectacularly by digging themselves in even deeper. 'X' has done himself no favours whatsoever by signing that latest statement of truth either, that 'cast iron' proof you have could just as easily be deemed 'solid gold' and there can be no excuses or mitigation. They supplied false evidence, this was queried directly with them by Fred, they chose to ignore Freds advice and offer and re-presented the false information, Fred again contested the authenticity this time through a formal approach to the Court manager as a breach of CPR, they were ordered to re-present the information and still chose to make that particular claim. (Amongst several other just as hotly disputed claims:eek:) All this in the full knowledge that Fred held comprehensive evidence to disprove this claim such evidence originating from the college themselves, he even had the common decency to point out the clerical error made by 'M' which in the very least offered them a chance to withdraw the false claim under the guise of an 'admin error' but beligerently they continued to ignore the blindingly obvious and got 'X' to sign a statement of truth against the corrupted version caused by the Lyons Davidson error in reading the FOI response. There can be no excuses now, this has to go down as a blatant attempt to mislead the Court, the witness is in trouble and since he appears to be their only witness and pretty well all their documentation originates from him you have to surmise that they are now resting their case entirely upon a caution which never existed and witness statements from a witness who will be deemed 'unreliable' (at the very best) at the preceeding applications hearing. This is the worst piece of legal work I have ever experienced. The client has been hung out to dry in the Civil Court and now it's more than likely in the criminal Court too. No wonder Lyons Davidson chose to get 'X' to sign that latest statement which is simply a reiteration of an earlier statement made by Lyons Davidson themselves. There was no checking involved, a simple walk outside might have saved 'X' much angst but LD simply appear to be more concerned now with attributing culpability on to the college and poor old 'X' is in so deep that he either just cannot see this or even if he can see it is unable to do anything to stop it. This is going to get seriously nasty now, all those possible offences the police mention carry a tarriff which include custodial sentences (7-14 years), and a criminal conviction whatever the punishment would almost certainly preclude one from working in education, health, finance or law. At the moment the other offences which Fred has made representation about to the Court remain unproven civil offences, of course the status of these might change the instant they enter Court and attempt to make use of the contested statements and 'evidence'. The claimant (by which we all know I really mean 'X' now) is being led by the real claimant (Royal & Sun Alliance) and their (R & SA's) solicitors Lyons Davidson. R & SA have made themselves remote fom any fallout by pursuing this claim via a Lien on any proceeds rather than a true subrogation of the insureds rights (clever and a good 'selling point' for the practice for LD) and Lyons Davidsons have made a large number of grave errors which I think we all know they will attempt to attribute to the claimant ('X'). I think it's truly time for Fred to throw a bag full of rather large spanners into the machinery that is Lyons Davidsons representation in this matter, to do so would be doing Plymouth college of Art a bigger favour than they might actually ever realise but it's probably far too late to save 'X' and other involved parties now.8-)8-)
  5. Yes they did and yes it does Electron99. Recently the Paralegal who handled this case from its inception has been replaced by Indecipherable Squiggle who we believe to be a real solicitor.
  6. Win lose or draw this is a small claims hearing and thus Fred was never in danger of exposure to a five figure adverse costs award. Quite why Lyons Davidson never actually made Plymouth College of Art aware of the costs liability situation is open to interpretation though I think when we look at the facts we'd all arrive at the same conclusion. Would you lay out ten thousand pounds in the hope at best you recover five thousand pounds? I wouldn't and I can't think of any right minded person who would yet this is basically the deal that was on offer to PCAD from the off. It certainly wouldn't have suited Lyons Davidsons purposes if the college had known that nearly all legal costs are unrecoverable in the small claims court, again PCAD might feel they have been misled by their representatives but that's between them and LD. I notice the mysterious 'first claimant' in use again on the latest paperwork, I guess that when it does all go horribly wrong for PCAD that at least they will find some solace in the fact that there is ultimately a 'second claimant' with whom they can expect to share the costs and any counterclaim so it's not all bad news for them.:-D And why on earth even if guilty of everything would Fred possibly agree to pay 50% of the claim plus £10,500 costs under the part 36 offer when he might just as well go to Court and have a judgment against him of 100% of the claim plus negligble costs. As a point of reference it's worth noting that in front of many judges any hope the claimant had of realistically claiming costs and interest went out the window as far back as when Mark responded to the CPR 18 request along the lines of 'we will not provide you with anything which might help your defence'. This does after all undermine the entire overriding principles of disclosure and when applied to this particular case it is this inordinate stubborness in refusing to disclose upon formal request which has consumed so much Court time by virtue of a number of applications and hearings which would otherwise have been wholly uneccesary.
  7. Well one things for certain and that is that Fred will not be footing a five figure legal costs bill which means this case has deteriorated from being a simple small claims hearing for £3,500 to what is actually now nothing more than a behind the scenes wrangle over the circa £15,000 (new estimate) legal fees incurred by Lyons Davidson. By using George as a stooge to sign these statements LD can then argue that any failure to win is the fault of PCAD and that the college are liable for the costs. Bizarrely the person best placed to help the college in any litigation over liability to Lyons Davidsons excessive fees is...... fred. I wonder if he might feel swayed to proffer evidence which might lead PCAD to conclude that they were not at all times 'best advised' and that LD might actually be culpable for the biggest mistake of the entire proceedings? Not neccesarily out of benevolence you understand, more out of a sense of spite towards Lyons Davidson and the shocking behaviour they have displayed towards him. (Pretty sure Fred could supply the PCAD solicitors with a list of key pointers which would give them some serious ammunition in the event of a fight over the legal fees, pointers which might cause LD acute problems in the event of any such contest). As an example any opportunity the college ever had to settle this matter out of court with a part 36 offer was never realistically possible due to the costs involved and claimed by Lyons Davidson exceeding the amount of the part 36 offer itself by approximately 600% :eek: Of course LD also failed to take into account the counterclaim in this part 36 offer as per the CPR requirements which effectively nullifies the legality of it anyway. So they made a pigs breakfast of it and put the defendant in a position whereby he could afford to go to the hearing, lose and still be 10 grand better off than accepting the part 36 offer........ I'd be inclined to say that PCAD have a cause of action here against their solicitors, wouldn't take me long to type up a list.
  8. Tantamount to nothing more than a 'template defence' they strangely (yet again) deny being served the paperwork but (yet again) I feel Freds proof of postage certificates will prove otherwise. Having denied being served the paperwork they then admit being in receipt of the paperwork and still claim they cannot respond because...... they don't have all the paperwork. Hope that makes more sense to you than it does to us. That's three orders in a row they have failed to address fully or indeed arguably at all, though they are quicker with the excuses than Rodger the Dodger and his book of dodges ever was. Just hope the Judge is as fed up with their shortcomings and evasiveness as say........ the police are.
  9. This is fast becoming just plain embarrassing. If it's big, bright orange and has been planted in the ground just outside your office for the better part of the last four years you would expect any right minded person to maybe walk over to the existing barrier and just have a little look at the manufacturers logo prior to putting their signature to a legal document which could have very serious ramifications when used in Court. George however obviously knows best and chose not to bother checking before signing such a statement. Sadly for George he must have been led by the Lyons Davidson interpretation of Claire Hughes FOI, the one where the Paralegal bizarrely transposed the makes and this leaves yet another piece of evidence supplied by the claimant easily disprovable and open to an accusation of false disclosure. Georges credibility as a witness is certainly already wide open to contest and such a simple matter as this will not help his case one jot. Why he should sign a statement of truth to the effect that the current barrier is a BFT when it quite clearly has RIB stamped on it is far beyond my comprehension, the fact that the college themselves in a FOI response contradict him and we contradict him further with expert witness and the manufacturers witness statement and that this was known to him at the time of making this statement leaves me concerned for the mans sanity. I also sniff a subtle shifting of culpability, I suggest that somebody is anticipating a battle royale after this failed action in respect of the colleges liability to the rather hefty legal fees run up by Lyons Davidson. Plymouth college of art sols Vs. Lyons Davidon with each party blaming the other for the farce of a case they have brought against Fred in a fight over the legal fees could provide for a rather interesting sideshow. Oh we notice that yet again the claimant does not actually comply with the order since they fail to disclose the grounds on which the barrier make is stated.
  10. Okay Patma I've cleared some room. I'll be home sometime later today to catch up properly, and have some thoughts on the email you sent a few days back.
  11. I understand another FOI request has also been made of the college. This one is concerned primarily with establishing the Data Protection policies with respect to the CCTV recording, and the audit policy to be followed when a potentially criminal incident is captured on CCTV and any captured images are to be used for evidential purposes. The applicant has also I believe requested confirmation that the entire VHS tape from which PCAD took the 5 minutes when Fred was at the barrier has been securely stored in its original format with a view to forcing the college to release the footage which shows the penultimate and any other preceeding students/lecturers exiting the car park that day. Imagine the problems it might cause Plymouth College of Art if the person before Fred also had to lift up the broken barrier manually? Being a FOI request concerning data protection and related issues the request also extends to the 'Data Retention Policy' of Plymouth College of Art. I personally struggle to believe that it is standard procedure for all records of an item which costs the college several thousands of pounds might be destroyed after three years, especially when such an item is subject to litigation and legal contest. I expect to learn that the data retention policy at Plymouth College of Art is actually far greater than three years, this was certainly the case for student records which implies to me at least that either this information is being witheld unlawfully or it has been destroyed deliberately and just as unlawfully. This request is not being dealt with by George and the person making the request did have the common courtesy to serve notice upon the college that there might be some 'conflict of interest'. I do hope that a certain department at Plymouth College of Art has not been trying to keep this matter some kind of sordid little secret and apologise on behalf of the person making the request if they have let the cat out the bag. Our sources intimate that Lyons Davidson might be desperately racking up rather a large amount in further costs for Plymouth College of Art attempting to convince Devon and Cornwall Constabulary that they 'might have got it wrong'. Since Lyons Davidson spent almost the entirety of 2008 in dialogue with the police before finally being told point blank that no record of a caution exists we can only anticipate one outcome but since it was Lyons Davidson who appeared to invent the caution in the first instance on 5th September 2006 you can't blame them for trying to save their own skin in a matter which is likely to blow up spectacularly for them in any hearing.:D Apart from that alls well and I'm filling the hours on a particularly taxing problem for another Cagger. TLD
  12. I've had a very long few days and myeyes are tired so I read 'donation' as 'domination' and thought 'me too'. ps don't forget to ask that any adverse entries recorded against your friend be removed and the account marked as satisfied with all CRA's.
  13. Since you have written acknowledment from the Finance Co and the Judge at the previous hearing has made an order that they produce the agreement and T&C's this shouldn't be a problem. However wrongly the original request was made, there's no escaping the fact that the claimant was ordered to produce documents by the Judge. I set out the case as your friend believes it stands. If the claimant were to make any argument over whether the CCA request was valid it is now actually of very little consequence to the matter. What your friend is doing is not arguing that the Sec 78 request was not complied with, that's just a statement he believes to be true. Your friends argument is simply that as a result of the April? hearing the possession order was set aside, the reasons for that are not important at this stage, all that matters is that it was set aside and the claimant had due notice in which to apply to have that decision varied, stayed or overturned and failed to do so. Whatever the rights and the wrongs surrounding any of the earlier hearings or disclosure, this legalities of this case changed drastically when the claimant first failed to return and then subsequently disposed of the vehicle. Instead of being the 'normal' argument over whether the agreement is enforceable etc. you can ignore all that and go straight for unlawful repossession and recission of the agreement with the Sec 90 breach. The above statement simplifies matters by introducing the sec 90 breach and 91 remedy so there's no need to get involved in the nitty gritties of the agreement as the whole case against your friend has at this stage been reduced to one single point. The over riding question facing the Judge now is simply: At the time of sale did the claimant hold a valid Court order granting them possession? They didn't:- We know it, they know it and the Court know it or will know it very soon. Therefore the claimants possession and ultimate disposal of the vehicle was in breach of Sec 90 CCA 1974. They can argue that the sec 78 request was not valid all they like but that request was later superceded by the Judge ordering them to produce certain docs anyway. Strictly speaking the original should be made available to the Court so you would have had them over producing a copy had they made the effort. They sold the vehicle whilst in default of the Court order requiring this documentation to be produced and at a time when no Court order awarding them possession existed. Even had they produced the original agreement in Court (as they are indeed obliged to) the fact remains that there was no possession order in their favour. Don't lose sight of this fact it's what in all likelihood will win your friend his case.
  14. As you're short of time here I've put a few words together if you get stuck on your deadline. You've been getting some very good help from the Caggers on this thread, good luck!!
  15. I think that two students were injured on the campus and made personal injury claims against the college in the previous year. When you look at the recent photos we took and see the ramshackle manner in which the paths, roadways car parks and barriers are maintained at that college it's probably not surprising but we don't actually have any details of either of these two personal injury claims other than that both were being defended by-------->------->-----> The college and their insurers!!:eek:
  • Create New...