Locked in car park

[bedlington83]

Having read this thread, I am still not clear what the £2,500 excess claim is all about.

I think what PCAD are claiming is that the repair/replacement cost a total of £3468. They claimed on the insurance and got paid but, because there was a £2,500 excess, they only got £968. They are therefore suing Fred for the £2,500.

 

The validity of the £968 on the claim is, at best, questionable IMO unless the insurers are also a party to the claim. They don't appear to be.

[natalie]

Considering its solicitors who have submitted the claim its very ambiguous isnt it.

[foolishgirl]

 

What I cannot get my head around is just what is spurring the College on to continue with this.

 

Arrogance!

 

 

I think it is more likely to be an individual(s) who is doing their utmost to retain his/her position within the college/security company. Unfortunately it seems every move he/she makes sees the foot more firmly stuck in the big mouth. But we will wait & see...

[electron99]

I think what PCAD are claiming is that the repair/replacement cost a total of £3468. They claimed on the insurance and got paid but, because there was a £2,500 excess, they only got £968. They are therefore suing Fred for the £2,500.

 

 

Thanks that makes sense now:)

[Patma]

I think it is more likely to be an individual(s) who is doing their utmost to retain his/her position within the college/security company. Unfortunately it seems every move he/she makes sees the foot more firmly stuck in the big mouth. But we will wait & see...

:DI think that about sums it up, Foolish Girl.

This individual/s has dug a deep hole and doesn't know when to stop digging.

[Patma]

Arrogance! Look through other threads where legal action has been taken (especially the banks because they are probably the worst for it) The opinion is 'we're a big company/organisation with insurers and solicitors, you're one person.. on your own... without the know-how or experience to stand against us... If you dont do as we say we will bully and threaten you until you do and no one will do or say anything to stop us because .... well because we are who we are'

 

Until CAG... and all of a sudden Joe Bloggs on the street is being empowered with information and support that gives him the know-how and experience of others in his position. With people like TLD and JC who have the legal knowledge so that all of a sudden we are able to comfortably enter the litigation arena without feeling intimidated. The banks are starting to catch on (look how quickly some of them back off now as soon as you ask for a CCA) but the news doesnt seem to have reached this college yet.

I think that's so true. all the help and support from CAG has boosted Fred's chances no end. From being a single individual with little or no idea of how to defend himself, he's become someone with a wealth of support and experience to call on and what's more this thread has got thousands of views from others who might now feel that if Fred can do it, so can they, and will go on to tackle their own particular battles with CAG support.

All for one, one for all and all that:-D

[Annoying Twit]

That's the new development folks. Bear in mind that the judge explicitly got the claimants to agree that the caution would not be used at the Directions Hearing and for that reason refused Fred's application for a stay in proceedings pending his appeal against the caution.

 

Is it possible that they will manage to get the POC amended without Fred being given a stay while the caution is appealled?

 

Note that I'm not asking whether this is proper procedure, would be fair, etc. I'm asking whether it's possible that this could happen.

 

Barristers and solicitors should have a good understanding of the legal process, both how its supposed to work theory and how it will work in the real word. I'm concerned that this amending of the POC is one of the "tricks up their sleeves" (as suggested by a previous poster) that they might have.

 

I think that's so true. all the help and support from CAG has boosted Fred's chances no end. From being a single individual with little or no idea of how to defend himself, he's become someone with a wealth of support and experience to call on and what's more this thread has got thousands of views from others who might now feel that if Fred can do it, so can they, and will go on to tackle their own particular battles with CAG support.

All for one, one for all and all that:-D

 

Fred hasn't actually done it yet. I hope he does, but the chickens haven't hatched yet.

[Patma]

Update coming through, TLD.

[Toulose LeDebt]

Is it possible that they will manage to get the POC amended without Fred being given a stay while the caution is appealled?

 

Note that I'm not asking whether this is proper procedure, would be fair, etc. I'm asking whether it's possible that this could happen.

 

Barristers and solicitors should have a good understanding of the legal process, both how its supposed to work theory and how it will work in the real word. I'm concerned that this amending of the POC is one of the "tricks up their sleeves" (as suggested by a previous poster) that they might have.

 

 

 

Fred hasn't actually done it yet. I hope he does, but the chickens haven't hatched yet.

 

Yes it is quite possible AT in fact if you were the cynical type and you knew what happened last thursday you might think that some effort has been put into ensuring that Fred's caution appeal was not heard until AFTER the hearing which in the light of this latest development makes more sense than it did a few days ago.

[Annoying Twit]

Yes it is quite possible AT in fact if you were the cynical type and you knew what happened last thursday you might think that some effort has been put into ensuring that Fred's caution appeal was not heard until AFTER the hearing which in the light of this latest development makes more sense than it did a few days ago.

 

Hmmm. But if the current court case doesn't go Fred's way, there's the appeal you mentioned. That would be some time later I'd guess. So surely that would be after any appeal of the caution has run its course.

 

If there's one thing I've learned from this thread, under no circumstances accept a caution for something that I didn't do. According to this thread, they turn up on CRB checks, are permanent, and of course we see the admission of guilt turning being used as evidence in a civil court in Fred's case. In the previous thread, some people say they cannot be appealed, but later on there's the mention of a senior police officer being able to withdraw them.

[Toulose LeDebt]

So Fred did make some sort of offer to try and bring this to a conclusion. What I cannot get my head around is just what is spurring the College on to continue with this. Each day more evidence is coming out which, as a layman, would indicate that they are going to get slaughtered once this gets to court. Surely they must realise the consequence if they lose.

 

 

Yes Fred wrote directly to the solicitors pointing out that certain statements in their original POC's were not simply arguable but fblatantly untruthful, he provided evidence to support his assertions and warned them of the consequences of continuing the claim based upon such statements. He invited them to withdraw their case before these matters were presented before the Court at which point such statements would become in breach of CPR 32.14.

It would appear from the most recent application that the solicitors did not take the implications of submitting false statements as seriously as they probably should have done.

[Patma]

Check your inbox, TLD;)

[bedlington83]

It would appear from the most recent application that the solicitors did not take the implications of submitting false statements as seriously as they probably should have done.

That's a contender for the understatement of the thread award. Was Fred's letter to the solicitor's what you meant with the reference to what happened last Thursday or has something else happened that we cannot know about yet?

[Toulose LeDebt]

In the previous thread, some people say they cannot be appealed, but later on there's the mention of a senior police officer being able to withdraw them.

 

A Police caution can be overturned (expunged) for a very small number of reasons.

 

2. Cautions

 

 

2.2. A caution is a recognised formal response to offending and is a crime report disposal.

 

2.3. In considering a caution, officers will apply the following guidelines:

 

• 
  
  • There must be evidence of the offender’s guilt sufficient to give a realistic prospect of conviction;
    
    
  • The offender must admit to committing the offence;
    
    
  • The offender must understand the significance of the caution and give an informed consent to the caution being administered. In the case of a juvenile or other vulnerable person, this will apply to the parent, guardian or appropriate adult.
    
    
   

 

2.4. There may be occasions where a caution has been given incorrectly or inappropriately, these may include where:

 

• 
  
  • The facts do not amount to an offence in law;
    
    
  • The admission is equivocal;
    
    
  • A lawful defence was not taken into consideration, etc.
    
    
   

 

2.5. If any of the above applies, or there are other mitigating factors, it would be unjust for the caution to remain. In such instances the following mechanism for expunging the caution will be applied.

 

 

[

Although the college, Lyons Davidson and the police initially involved in arresting and cautiong Fred have all made reference to the vast amount of 'other' evidence against him, Fred has yet to see any of this evidence from any party

]

. It is of course difficult to make an informed decision in the event that disclosure is witheld except for one particularly highly edited video clip which tells a very different story from the full clip which we have all seen.

 

 

{{

Aside from the matter of the caution itself, one question the police have to ask themselves is 'was the clip we were handed a true copy and if not was it edited to ensure the 'offender' was falsely incriminated to the benefit of the provider(s) of the video.?

Don't forget also that in conducting their witchunt against Fred, th e police and the college both failed to rewind the cameras sufficiently to identify the true perpetrator who has got away scot free. Somebody at the police station failed to spot the barrier was already broken etc when Fred arrived unless of course they were not shown the 'true copy' of the video.

}}

 

3. Authority level

3.1. The expunging of a police caution will only be undertaken following the authority of at least the rank of Chief Inspector.

 

3.2. All applications for expunging of a caution will be subject of a report by the officer in the case (OIC) detailing:

 

• 
  
  • The full details of the person cautioned (i.e. surname, forenames, date of birth, CRO / PNCID number);
    
    
  • The arrest / summons or court case reference;
    
    
  • The offence (including crime report number where appropriate);
    
    
  • The enquiries made;
    
    
  • The admission(s);
    
    
  • Reasons why a caution was considered appropriate;
    
    
  • Reasons for the application.
    
    
   

 

3.3. The report may refer to other completed paperwork, e.g. crime report, custody record, etc., to cut down on duplication of effort.

 

3.4. Once the Chief Inspector or rank above has approved (or otherwise) the application, the paperwork will be returned to the OIC for any necessary system updating in accordance with section 6, below.

 

3.5. A record of the application and the Chief Inspector’s (or rank above) decision will be kept. This will be kept with the case file. For information on the storage and retention of case files, see policy B09.

[Annoying Twit]

In short, then if Fred didn't damage the barrier, then no offence of criminal damage (or whatever the charge was) doesn't exist. And that gives grounds for expunging the caution. Is it that the "evidence of the offenders guilt" was fraudulent? Or is it "other mitigating factors"?

[geoff1248]

It would be interesting to know if the college governors have been made aware of the case against the college. If they have been made aware by the college then they may well not know the other side of the story. It would be rude not to inform them after all they do have a legal responsibility for "making sure the Principal and staff are accountable for how the college is run". Quote from the Directgov web site.

[bedlington83]

3.1. The expunging of a police caution will only be undertaken following the authority of at least the rank of Chief Inspector.

Presumably then Chief Superintendent is a higher rank than Chief Inspector?

[Patma]

Presumably then Chief Superintendent is a higher rank than Chief Inspector?

It certainly is. I think that should suffice.

[Patma]

TLD, With regard to the info I've pm'd you this morning (which hopefully can be discussed before too long on the thread), I've emailed engineering companies with specific pertinent questions and their response should be very interesting and helpful.

[bedlington83]

Nuff said

[Toulose LeDebt]

Presumably then Chief Superintendent is a higher rank than Chief Inspector?

 

Yes a Chief Superintendent is two ranks above Chief Inspector.

[Toulose LeDebt]

In short, then if Fred didn't damage the barrier, then the offence of criminal damage (or whatever the charge was) doesn't exist. And that gives grounds for expunging the caution. Is it that the "evidence of the offenders guilt" was fraudulent? Or is it "other mitigating factors"?

 

Of course we cannot possibly confirm or deny whether you have correctly identified some of the reasons the caution was issued in 'breach of process'.

[Annoying Twit]

Of course we cannot possibly confirm or deny whether you have correctly identified some of the reasons the caution was issued in 'breach of process'.

 

I'm a very patient person.

[Patma]

I'm looking forward to sharing the new info I've got this morning, but will need your patience for now.

TLD has most of it and is at liberty to share what he thinks is safe to divulge.

[Toulose LeDebt]

I'm looking forward to sharing the new info I've got this morning, but will need your patience for now.

TLD has most of it and is at liberty to share what he thinks is safe to divulge.

 

 

Since this information constitutes disclosure ordered by the Court, I think it would be in Freds best interests if we do not reproduce it on a public forum. We wouldn't like to hand the college voyeurs a cheap shot at Freds case or credibility or even half a chance to wriggle out the mess they created by breaching CPR.

 

Subsequent use of disclosed documents

 

31.22

 

(1) A party to whom a document has been disclosed may use the document only for the purpose of the proceedings in which it is disclosed, except where –

(a) the document has been read to or by the court, or referred to, at a hearing which has been held in public;

 

(b) the court gives permission; or

 

© the party who disclosed the document and the person to whom the document belongs agree.