Locked in car park

[bedlington83]

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.

Having gone back through the thread and re-read patma's summary of the directions hearing I think I now understand why they're claiming the £968.

[the judge] asked the barrister if this was a "subrogation claim" to which she replied that it was. Fred asked what that meant and was told it meant that the college were claiming back what the insurance company had paid in order to refund it to the insurers. He said this was normal.

[JonCris]

I too am struck by the desperation of the en forces here. I wonder if, at the end, it will transpire that someone reached a point of no return and decided that the risk of continuing was less than the risk of giving up.

 

Solicitors are like prostitutes - they will do whatever their client wants as long as the money is there - but I suspect that someone at PCAD is very, very worried.

 

 

& if they don't follow the client's instruction, often no matter how crass, they risk being struck off the Roll.......... so it's not ALL about money as you imply. Having said that if there is doubt as to the veracity of their clients statements they certainly should get thir clients to sign them rather than do it for them

[Patma]

I've emailed you a whole load of goodies, TLD;)

[Toulose LeDebt]

I've emailed you a whole load of goodies, TLD;)

 

Thank you Patma, I've read them through again and again and I'm still struggling to understand why on earth they would say this, the moreso when at the same time we received those other two emails from NS. Somebody is correct and somebody is ... well not correct in the slightest.

 

Considering the incident happened in week seven of 2006 I submit that the barrier in the cctv footage had not aged well for a barrier that was installed in.... 2006. Having had the (real) manufacturer positively identify it as one of theirs and confirm that it is hydraulically operated etc etc. the obvious question is why would they still be trying to obfuscate what should be such a simple fact to the extent that even under forced disclosure by order of a Judge they are prepared to make statements like that?

 

 

 

They claim it was a Dallamano and yet no barrier has ever carried that model name.

 

But interestingly there was a cinematographer called Massimo Dallamano whose most famous work involved a bunch of cowboys and was titled

"Per un pugno di dollari".

 

Or as we know it "For a Fistful of Dollars"............

 

You couldn't make it up!! :lol::lol:

 

[ScarletPimpernel]

 

You couldn't make it up!! :lol::lol:

 

On the contrary; making it up appears to be the opponents' main stratagem in this case...

[Patma]

:lol:TLD and Scarlet Pimpernel.Have you two ever considered becoming a comedy duo? It's hilarious!

[Patma]

They claim it was a Dallamano and yet no barrier has ever carried that model name.

 

But interestingly there was a cinematographer called Massimo Dallamano whose most famous work involved a bunch of cowboys and was titled

"Per un pugno di dollari".

 

Or as we know it "For a Fistful of Dollars"............

 

You couldn't make it up!! :lol::lol:

No wonder I couldn't find one, no matter how hard I googled.

Maybe it exists in a parallel universe and this is proof of other dimensions. By some quirk of fate Fred has got tangled up with this other dimension. I could write a scifi story about this:smile:

[Toulose LeDebt]

Careful what you say about dimensions Patma the Cagbot might think you're being technical about hydraulic barriers and everything will disappear again. What do you think about the scribbling out and the subsequent amendment on the insurers initial claim form, sus or what???? I do think that needs to go in the Chief Supers bundle as further evidence.

[Patma]

Yes I agree. I've noticed one or two other anomalies that might need to go with it too.

We'll see what the CAG insurance experts say.

[Patma]

TLD, just read your email. Have you received all 18 pages, cos if not I'll re-send?

[Toulose LeDebt]

 

 

 

Q) Is this barrier a:

 

a) RIB barrier Clue here LINK

or

 

b) BFT barrier clue here LINK

 

 

and if those that have looked agree it is a BFT does anyone think that PCAD were overcharged more than a little for about 2-4 hours work?

 

Oh here's the shot the college provided of the 'new' barrier.

 

I notice the following:

 

There is no keypad or swipe card on the drivers side upon exit.

There is an induction coil in the tarmac for free exit.

The barrier appears to be broken again, this time the arm is missing. Did this happen often at the college?

 

 

[Patma]

Oh here's the shot the college provided of the 'new' barrier.

 

I notice the following:

 

There is no keypad or swipe card on the drivers side upon exit.

There is an induction coil in the tarmac for free exit.

The barrier appears to be broken again, this time the arm is missing. Did this happen often at the college?

That's very well spotted, I don't know how many times I've looked at that pic, but not registered that the arm is missing, back when that pic was taken to "prove" there was a warning sign.

The pictures Fred took where taken soon after the new barrier was installed and before the college authorities changed their signs, and you can see the intact barrier, not broken.

:DI wonder what else has been staring us in the face:D

[natalie]

Am I the only one who cant tell the difference between the two links

 

But I did notice the arm was missing, I presumed it was when it was being replaced after the alleged incident.

[Patma]

I have a question.

Is it against any laws to tell fibs in an answer to a FOI request?

TLD, you'll see why I asked that when you check your email.:D

Edited July 29, 2009 by Patma
typo

[Toulose LeDebt]

Am I the only one who cant tell the difference between the two links

 

 

Look at the colour, the fittings, the RIB logo can be seen on the colleges own photo and viewed from above a RIB is square and a BFT is rectangular.

 

 

But I did notice the arm was missing, I presumed it was when it was being replaced after the alleged incident.

 

The barrier involved in the incident was a FAAC (confirmed by the manufacturer), shortly after the incident Fred took his pictures which show the new barrier to be a RIB, the college took their picture after Fred (proven by the appearance of the security sign on the wall).

 

The college are claiming that the (old) barrier involved in the incident and subsequently replaced was a RIB and the 'new' barrier is a BFT.:-?

[Patma]

Does anyone remember that a couple of weeks ago, I sent a FOI request to Mr Bryan Turner Estates Manager of PCAD?

Well I've just checked my trusty CAG email and I have a reply.

As this is Freedom of Information I see no reason not to share it. Hope I don't get cagbotted:D

 

 

I am replying to your email sent to Mr Bryan Turner (Estates Manager) as follows:-1) Make = RIB, Model = DALLAMANO, Serial Numbers = Unknown, Date installed 20062) Make = BFT, Model = Unknown, Serial Number = Unknown, Age = approximately 3 yearsold.3) We do not hold these records (over 3 years old) - the company which replaced thedamaged barrier is not now employed by the College and after checking with them theydo not have these records either.4) See answer to 2).5) College car parks (parking) have always been accessed by Staff ONLY - studentshave never been allowed access. The barriers were/are opened/accessed by staffcards, so no student would be able to gain access unless they closely followed astaff member/vehicle through the barrier. 6) See answer to 3).7) See answer to 3).8) and 9) Please contact Insurance Company - Unknown. No claims for damage to barriers.Claire HughesEstates Admin

 

Dear Mr Turner, I understand that you are the Estates Manager for PCAD and as such, could you please provide me with the following information under The Freedom of Information Act 2000. 1) The make model and serial numbers of your current car park barrier in the rear car park. 2) The make, model and serial number of the previous car park barrier in the rear car park and the date of it's installation. 3) A copy of the maintenance and repair manual of the old car park barrier which was replaced between 03/04/2006 and 21/03/2006 in the rear car park. 4) The age of the car park barrier, at the time it was replaced in the old car park. 5) The rules governing access to car parks on campus, including the full audit trail of changes to these rules since 1.1.06 . This information to include method of access, who was/is allowed access and opening and closing times of the car parks. 6) Information as to the state of the rear car park barrier when it was next inspected after 4.3.06, including a copy of the engineer's report at that time. 7) Full details of how many times and for what reasons the maintainer had been called out in the previous 24mths (ie prior to 4.3.06) to fix faults with the barriers, their nature and fault correction required. 8) How many claims have been made on their insurance by PCAD for damage to property over the last 6 years, giving details of the alleged damage and results of the claims. 9) How many court claims have been initiated by PCAD over the last 6 years in respect of alleged damage to property? If you are unable to provide any of the information I have asked for, please explain why you are unable to do so. If you are unable to supply any of the information by email, I will be happy to supply an address for paper copies to be supplied. Thankyou for your assistance in this matter. kind Regards,

[Toulose LeDebt]

I have a question.

Is it against any laws to tell fibs in an answer to a FOI request?

TLD, you'll see why I asked that when you check your email.:D

 

Well I would have thought there would be some sort of sanctions available to stop people being untruthful in such scenarios.

 

BTW Compare that to LD's letter it could have been written by the same person, in fact it's so similar that both the college and the solicitotrs have omitted the full stop after 'Date installed 2006'.

 

How odd.

[Patma]

Sorry I've posted it upside down with the answer first

[foolishgirl]

 

The college are claiming that the (old) barrier involved in the incident and subsequently replaced was a RIB and the 'new' barrier is a BFT.:-?

 

So not only did no-one check on the invoice for the manufacturer of the new barrier but no-one thought to stroll outside & look on the barrier either before issuing a claim.

 

This story gets more & more incredible; if it was still around, I'd think it was a set up for 'Candid Camera'.

Edited July 29, 2009 by foolishgirl
typo

[Patma]

The barriers were/are opened/accessed by staffcards, so no student would be able to gain access unless they closely followed astaff member/vehicle through the barrier.

Oh dear someone is not singing from the same hymn sheet though, because there's a distinct discrepancy between this bit, the new POCs and the minutes of the PCAD meeting to name just two.

[Toulose LeDebt]

It might be very helpful for Miss Hughes if you were to reply pointing out her errors. A hyperlink to the departmental meeting minutes and maybe a hyperlink to the Faac website might help jog her memory. There's no need to copy over the information you have received from Faac I'm sure it's just a genuine misunderstanding.

 

Seeing as Ms Hughes obviously has a direct line to Lyons Davidsons solicitors printer, while she's amending the FOI rquest, an amendment to their disclosure prior to Fred walking into Court might save them all some small problems.

[Patma]

So not only did no-one check on the invoice for the manufacturer of the new barrier but no-one thought to stroll outside & look on the barrier either before issuing a claim.

Unless I'm mistaken the invoice doesn't mention the manufacturer's name. I think that's called buying a pig in a poke in some circles.

[Toulose LeDebt]

Oh dear someone is not singing from the same hymn sheet though, because there's a distinct discrepancy between this bit, the new POCs and the minutes of the PCAD meeting to name just two.

 

 

Nobody here gives a flying fig about access it's EGRESS we are bothered with. How hard is that for them to understand?????? It's all across the POC that you need a card to access, pin to access, permission to access, Fred had no problem getting in but he's had a heck of a job getting out!!

 

It was a free exit car park as illustrated by the loop in the road. Fred could not exit not because he din't have a swipe card, permission or a pin but because the barrier was broken.

[Patma]

It might be very helpful for Miss Hughes if you were to reply pointing out her errors. A hyperlink to the departmental meeting minutes and maybe a hyperlink to the Faac website might help jog her memory. There's no need to copy over the information you have received from Faac I'm sure it's just a genuine misunderstanding.

 

Seeing as Ms Hughes obviously has a direct line to Lyons Davidsons solicitors printer, while she's amending the FOI rquest, an amendment to their disclosure prior to Fred walking into Court might save them all some small problems.

 

I'm sure you're right. Let's not forget this an art college and we have to allow some "artistic licence".

Can't think off the top of my head what LD's excuse is though, unless it's spending too much time lurking on forums instead of concentrating on their work.

[foolishgirl]

Well I would have thought there would be some sort of sanctions available to stop people being untruthful in such scenarios.

 

 

It comes under the Information Commissioner's remit to ensure that authorities comply etc. with the ultimate sanction that they can face a 'contempt of court' charge.

 

See this report dated March 2009:http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/freedom_of_information/practical_application/monitoring_strategy.pdf

 

In particular note this para:

It should also be noted that a breach of section 77 FOIA, may lead to a criminal sanction. For example, where the investigation of concerns in relation to records management relates to the inappropriate or deliberate destruction or concealment of information with the intention of preventing disclosure to which an applicant would have been entitled.

 

Hope LD know a good solicitor