Jump to content

Toulose LeDebt

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Toulose LeDebt

  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 r
  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 j
  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
  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 Recently the Paralegal who handled this case from its inception has been replaced by Indecipherable Squiggle who we believe to be a real solicitor.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
  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
  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 do
  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
  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 sho
  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
  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:
  16. That was a real scream who writes their material!!!:D Has Fred actually made a formal complaint about his treatment to the Governors of Plymouth College of Art and to Plymouth City Council? I know there have been a few 'off the record' mutterings about the goings on at Plymouth college of Art but with the litigation now drawing to an end would it be worthwhile making a formal complaint to the college and the council, possibly even going as far as to make it reasonably personal and mentioning George Dexters part in the proceedings seeing as it is his hand involved at every stage and on alm
  17. So as according to the latest order costs matters will be addressed at the November hearing, I trust Fred will be highlighting the appointment of the Private Detective agency, all those vehicle reports from MIDIS and DVLA etc. and quite a large number of other items in their costings as wholly unreasonable coming as they did not prior to commencement of proceedings (as would be normal when means testing to assess a parties ability to pay) but just under THREE YEARS AFTER Lyons Davidson took on the case!! Three years during which the vast majority of the rather large costs presented by Lyo
  18. Well Patma I think the posters answer to Lyons Davidson should have been 'And what's that to me, I've got legal cover insurance so win, lose or draw I won't be paying your fees'? So I'm not entirely convinced that the response from Lyons Davidson was in the best interests of the poster who was denied the chance to seek recompense despite them holding legal cover insurance on the strength of a decision most likely made by the provider of that insurance policy. It certainly appears from reading that thread and other similar threads that the legal cover offered by some of the companies out t
  19. Just for reference: You will find many mentions of Lyons Davidson in this thread Locked in Car Park. As the thread is now 100 pages long and growing I've linked straight through to one of many juicy bits. In summary Lyons Davidsons have been representing the college insurers (Royal and Sun Alliance) to recllaim circa £5,000 from a student for a new car park barrier. They've had the case for three years now and have bizarrely presented costs in excess of £10,500 in a small claims case.:eek: They have rested their clients case on a simple police caution which was never issued
  20. This business of running up massive costs for a small claims case seems to be a new strategy implemented by Lyons Davidson. It appears a year or two back they were actively discouraging people from litigating in instances where the solicitors fees were likely to outweigh the potential return to the plaintiff. Mind you at the rates they charge any premium payable on top of the policy for legal cover would be eaten up simply by reading the first letter you wrote them so maybe it just wasn't profitable enough for Lyons Davidson to pursue that claim and never mind the policy holders best inte
  21. You can't delete a post as such but you can edit it and either change it to something different or simply write 'deleted' in there. It doesn't matter though don't worry. Welcome to CAG btw
  22. Well I'm with you and Lickthewall. Sure they can apply for default judgment if they like but BB has filed a valid defence and so they have no chance at all in it being awarded. If it were me I wouldn't have wasted the time writing to BB but simply filed the application IF and it is a very big if indeed, if BB had either failed to file a defence or had failed to file a valid defence. Of course they can pay the fee and apply for a summary judgment but it has reached AQ stage now so they've just cost themselves another £250 quid plus so they'll need to start being a bit more careful how
  23. Cheers wobbly and enjoy your trip. I understand it can be quite cold at that time of year so throw in an extra pullover or two. (And if you come across any nice German or Swiss cheeses whilst you're there I'm sure Noomy would be grateful for a little something)
  24. I'd love to know what they attempted and were refused. Did they seriously think that now all parties and the Judge knows their sordid little secret about the caution that they could persuade the judge to ignore this rather unhelpful hole in their case and proceed to a quick judgment before the Chief Constable formally confirms its non existence?? Did they not think for one minute that even if they could then LIP or not Freds first line of defence is to put them to proof that the caution exists? Don't think so; quite rightly no Judge in the country is going to even contemplate ma
  25. This is not going well for Lyons Davidson now the Judge has got some facts and evidence to work with. He certainly appears to be quite adamant that there are issues with the claimants case that need addressed before he even entertains the small claims hearing. This case has got 'Vexatious' stamped all over it, we can see it, the Judge can see it and I'd be surprised if Lyons Davidson and Plymouth College of Art are still clinging to any realistic prospect of winning the case, it must already be horribly apparent to them that they face a humiliating, very expensive and very damaging def
  • Create New...