Locked in car park

[Toulose LeDebt]

Ref above post:

 

Which begs the question why somebody would make a claim of just £948 after the excess on a £39,000 pa insurance policy? We know there were three personal accident claims in the previous year so they will have been starting from scratch on any ncb in the year 05-06 so why blow your no claims bonus for the sake of less than £1000 when this could be forfeited in the subsequent yer simply by increasing the policy value another 2.3%. Even a paltry 5% discount for no claims in a year is worth double to the college what R&SA paid them.

 

It's a bit like blowing your ncb on the car insurance by claiming for a damaged windscreen wiper.

 

Just how greedy are the insurers taking £39000 then subjecting Fred to all this hassle because they have to make one payment equating to less than 10% of the annual premium?

 

Why would the college have an excess of £1000 for cases where the college are liable to third parties and yet it's £2500 where the claim is caused by third parties?

[Patma]

This is very good info, TLD.The more we find out the more things don't make sense.

Just how greedy are the insurers taking £39000 then subjecting Fred to all this hassle because they have to make one payment equating to less than 10% of the annual premium?

 

Why would the college have an excess of £1000 for cases where the college are liable to third parties and yet it's £2500 where the claim is caused by third parties?

As you said that doesn't make sense and when you think of all the trouble and expense they're going to. Already it must have cost a fair bit in legal fees.

[natalie]

Already it must have cost a fair bit in legal fees.

 

Some people just think they are above the law and they think that the average person wont challenge them. They expected Fred to just cough up, now they are in it up to their necks and HAVE to continue or admit some pretty major wrongdoing.

 

I think that is why they have continued even though its probably cost them one hell of a lot more than the amount they are asking Fred for.

 

I took my ex-landlord to court for failure to protect my deposit. He had no defence, and yet hired a barrister from Arden Chambers, which probably cost more than my claim. It is puzzling, and all I can put it down to is arrogance, they think they can bully people because they are a big company with the insurance and solicitors on their side.

[Toulose LeDebt]

This is very good info, TLD.The more we find out the more things don't make sense.

 

As you said that doesn't make sense and when you think of all the trouble and expense they're going to. Already it must have cost a fair bit in legal fees.

 

All I can think is that the answer lies in the fact the solicitors mentioned Freds conviction very early on saying because he was convicted he couldn't now deny it or something like that.

 

I think LD saw the conviction as a sure fire way to win a civil hearing and not much else other than dollar signs after that.

 

Wonder why they made no mention of it in the Court paperwork? Obviously it would be challenged now but to omit it initially is an oversight surely?

[Patma]

Maybe we'll get some answers when the insurance documents disclosure arrives:)

I'm also thinking maybe some more FOI questions might be a good idea.

Oh yes and will hopefully be speaking to the Insurance frauds bureau people tomorrow

[Patma]

I think there's a lot of sense in what you said, Natalie.

I think LD saw the conviction as a sure fire way to win a civil hearing and not much else other than dollar signs after that.

 

Wonder why they made no mention of it in the Court paperwork? Obviously it would be challenged now but to omit it initially is an oversight surely?

 

 

I've puzzled about that too and thought the barrister/solicitor whatever she was representing Lyons Davidson at the directions hearing was quite happy to assure Fred that the caution would not be raised by them.

This came up when Fred asked why he had had no response to his application for a stay in proceedings whilst he sought to overturn the caution.

When Fred had filed his application, he got a reply stating that his application for a stay would be considered when he submitted a defence, and then it was never mentioned again.

The judge seemed to take the view that the criminal damage caution was not relevant because they hadn't raised it.

Edited August 28, 2009 by Patma

[Patma]

Another point I just thought of is that they weren't afraid to mention the caution in their earlier letters.

[Toulose LeDebt]

Well done and good viewpoint Natalie. Either the deposit is protected or it's not. There is no defence if it's not, surely a barrister should make this clear but then that means no fees for defending the indefensible. Hope you took him for 3X plus the deposit.

 

And Patma.

 

If you are speaking to the fraud insurance bureau tomorrow good luck and don't forget to mention that the solicitors have via the college forwarded you a quote for repair dated 5 days after the replacement barrier was replaced and invoiced by the same company.

 

Suggest they read this thread in its entirety, you don't have to get very far through it to realise something is very untoward between certain parties involved.

[Patma]

Suggest they read this thread in its entirety, you don't have to get very far through it to realise something is very untoward between certain parties involved.

Very true. I had pondered whether to point them towards this thread and thought it might be a good idea, so I will:D

We're so good at making guests welcome what difference does a few more make.

[Toulose LeDebt]

Mmmm. the more people that read about what PCAD have done to Fred the better. It's seems a bit quiet for guests now, have you noticed we get quite a few on this thread during office hours?

 

Could do with a little clarification Patma.

 

At the beginning of this thread you mention that Fred received a caution from the police but that the college failed to provide the cctv footage claiming they'd wiped it or lost it so the police went on the word of the college. Then later I understand some footage appeared which just showed the bit where fred lifted the barrier. Was this at the time of his arrest or subsequently do you know?

 

I'm looking at the data protection issues and of course if the college told the police the footage had been lost or wiped when it hadn't in order to get fred convicted I can see some excellent mileage in a damages claim and perversion of the course of justice by witholding evidence charges for those concerned. Presumably Freds solicitor received disclosure which would I presume contain a statement from the college.

 

I suggest Fred contacts the firm of solicitors involved and asks for a copy of the disclosure from that incident. They are obliged to give it to him and it will have a signed statement from the college in the very least.

[Patma]

BTW I see that Plymouth College of Art are no strangers to litigation.

This is from The finance and General Purposes Committee Meeting of 11th May 2007

Estates Update

The DoF highlighted the fact that the College had needed a replacement lift

for three years as a consequence of a lift which was not fit for purpose

installed during the Tavistock Place Design and Build Project in 2001/02.

He stated the raised floor also needed to be dealt with. A meeting with

Bluestone was shortly to take place. A new lift must be in place by

September 2007; this had already been ordered. £11,000 had been spent

on expert witness reports detailing the reasons why the lift had broken

down and noting the specification of lift that should have been fitted in the

first instance. The College had recently had a meeting with Ashfords, the

College’s solicitors. The total claim may amount to £150k, being £30k for

the floor, £30k for legal fees and the balance for the lift. Trial costs could

be £100k and it may take 12 months or more to get to Court.

NOTED

That sounds like an awfully expensive lift:rolleyes:

http://http://owl.pcad.ac.uk/files/documents/corporation/1j.%20%20Finance%20and%20General%20Purpose%20Committee%20Minutes/Finance%20%20General%20Purpose%202007%20-%2011%20May.pdf

Edited August 28, 2009 by Patma

[Patma]

Sorry that link doesn't work. Try this....http://owl.pcad.ac.uk/files/documents/corporation/1j.%20%20Finance%20and%20General%20Purpose%20Committee%20Minutes/Finance%20%20General%20Purpose%202007%20-%2011%20May.pdf

[Helford]

Hi folks,

 

A couple of observations on TLD's previous comments.

 

Reference made to PCAD's previous H & S orientated claims and that might be subject to a £1000 excess. Normally, if these were Public Liability claims then an excess does not apply, BUT the Insurers/PCAD might have opted for a £1000 excess or deductible. This is not necessarily the same excess that would apply to a Material Damage claim (i.e. Fire, Theft, Malicious Damage etc. Some perils may not be subject to an excess!)

 

Commercial insurance policies such as these do NOT normally incorporate a no claims discount per se. Insurers obviously do look at claims paid vs. premium income at renewal time, they are probably more concerned at claims frequency than £'s paid out. There are all sorts of differing bases that Insurers will underwrite at renewal.

[Patma]

Thankyou for the clarification, Helford. I hope to be speaking to the bureau you recommended tomorrow. Do you have any particular points you recommend I should raise?

[Helford]

Hi,

 

The only points are:

 

R & SA are pursuing Fred on the grounds that HE damaged the barrier by forcibly lifting it (The proximate cause) at a specific point in time and that the claim is in respect of the insurers having 'indemnified' PCAD for the damage caused. The reality is he did NOT damage the barrier, it was already broken. The damage to the barrier is NOT consistent with the allegations against Fred - broken motor casing or something? Damage did NOT occur at the claimed time. There is dramatic 'betterment' insofar as the PCAD allegedgly had a quote to repair, but chose to replace with new? The claimant appears to have chosen not to follow the required doctrine of 'Utmost good faith' in dealing with Insurers.

 

Incidently, many businesses have all their plant inspected by a specialist Engineering Inspection Company (Not necessarily the same Company that maintains the equipment), might be worth worth requesting copies of these documents with any FoI request, required to satisfy the 'Puwer and Loler Regulations' and the like.

[Patma]

Thankyou Helford. You've put it all in a nutshell. That will really help me when I speak to the fraud bureau, as I'm just about to do.

Incidently, many businesses have all their plant inspected by a specialist Engineering Inspection Company (Not necessarily the same Company that maintains the equipment), might be worth worth requesting copies of these documents with any Freedom of Information Act request, required to satisfy the 'Puwer and Loler Regulations' and the like.

This is something I hadn't thought of, thankyou for telling us about it.

I'll follow up on that.

[Patma]

I have just spoken to The Insurance Frauds Bureau.

I've explained everything and she's passing the information on to R&SA.

We'll see what happens next:cool:

[Annoying Twit]

Maybe we'll get some answers when the insurance documents disclosure arrives:)

I'm also thinking maybe some more FOI questions might be a good idea.

Oh yes and will hopefully be speaking to the Insurance frauds bureau people tomorrow

 

 

Be careful of making repeated FOI requests to the same organisation. If you go to the information commissioner's site, they give advice, including under what circumstances requests can be refused. A large number of requests is one of the reasons. I don't know how many would be a large number, but the commissioner's office (or whatever) has a phone help line that can give advice.

 

It's also important that the request is sufficiently general to capture information from the different places it may exist within the organisation, but not so general that it misses important information. As an example, a group opposed to swimming pool closures once FOI'd a council for minutes of meetings discussing a swimming pool. They found that the pool was discussed far more frequently by the planning committee (or whatever it was called) who were discussing what to do with the "site". Eye-opening.

 

I'm reading this thread passively. I'm very confused as to what's going on, and clearly it is far from simple. The college (and their legal representatives) seem to have been assuming an easy victory due to the conviction. I'm not sure how hard it is to overturn such a conviction, or how much importance a judge will place on it if not overturned. Certainly comments of the judge seem to indicate he is leaning towards the college.

 

However, may I take the position of the devil's advocate. The college seems to have assumed an easy victory, and possibly (we're only seeing one side of the story on this thread) have not given the preparation of the case the care it deserved. (At least!). Some parts of this thread are almost a joyous victory celebration, and it worries me slightly that similar mistakes could be made on this side. For example, it is assumed that even if a poor verdict is given in this case that an appeal will be a no-brainer win. Is it really that sure?

[Patma]

The college seems to have assumed an easy victory, and possibly (we're only seeing one side of the story on this thread)

Hi Annoying Twit,

I've read your post carefully and I can assure you that I have presented all the information as impartially as I can. I was not involved in the alleged incident and therefore am not directly affected by the outcome. Fred is a friend who I wanted to try and help, because it seemed clear to me that he was not being treated fairly, but I would certainly not leave anything out of the thread if it appeared to support the college's case.

Some parts of this thread are almost a joyous victory celebration, and it worries me slightly that similar mistakes could be made on this side. For example, it is assumed that even if a poor verdict is given in this case that an appeal will be a no-brainer win. Is it really that sure?

 

I can also assure you that although sometimes we are making light-hearted comments, no-one is taking anything for granted.

 

Thanks for your advice about FOI requests I will certainly be careful to follow the guidelines.

[Annoying Twit]

Well done and good viewpoint Natalie. Either the deposit is protected or it's not. There is no defence if it's not, surely a barrister should make this clear but then that means no fees for defending the indefensible. Hope you took him for 3X plus the deposit.

 

Off topic, but there has been at least once case where the deposit was protected after litigation started, but before the date of the court case, and the judge accepted it. I don't have a link however.

 

Back on topic, one reason I read threads such as this is to learn stuff that might help me in my real life. One thing I've learnt is that if anyone accuses me of any sort of damage, to fight like hell even if at the time it looks as if I'm only risking a caution.

Edited July 16, 2009 by Annoying Twit

[Annoying Twit]

Thanks for your advice about FOI requests I will certainly be careful to follow the guidelines.

 

You were too quick and answered before I could edit the original post to include: http://www.ico.gov.uk/

[Toulose LeDebt]

 

 

I can also assure you that although sometimes we are making light-hearted comments, no-one is taking anything for granted.

 

 

confirmed.

 

This is a very serious matter which has caused Fred several years of unwarranted distress. Behind scenes this matter is being taken very,very seriously indeed and any Court paperwork being prepared will be subjected to very careful scrutiny prior to submission.

The original case presented against Fred was woefully inept but we have to assume at all times that the claimant will be given the benefit of amending and tightening up the case and act accordingly.

[natalie]

Off topic, but there has been at least once case where the deposit was protected before the date of the court case, and the judge accepted it. I don't have a link however.

 

My LL had protected my deposit before the court hearing (actually he returned it the day after he received the court papers telling him I was suing him) but I continued and the judge awarded me 3x the value of the deposit.

[Annoying Twit]

My LL had protected my deposit before the court hearing (actually he returned it the day after he received the court papers telling him I was suing him) but I continued and the judge awarded me 3x the value of the deposit.

 

Yes, I believe this is the usual result in such a case. But I did hear of one case where it went the other way in the same situation.

 

Returning to the topic, it could go strangely in this case, it certainly looks like strange things have happened so far.

 

But on the balance of probabilities, perhaps this should be the college's theme song: YouTube - Lindsey Buckingham- Trouble Live 1993

[0623]

Been reading this thread with great interest. Can't offer any help but would like to give everyone involved a great big pat on the back, you people are marvelous the hours put in on this case. My one wish now is a big photo of the smile being wiped of the college faces when they lose this. Good luck Fred my thoughts are with you.