Locked in car park

[geoff1248]

I do wonder what PCADs legal cost will be when they actually loose this case. Indeed from the evidence that appears to be coming in almost daily I cannot help but think that their continuing with this case can be seen as a misuse of public funds.

Just let them claim poverty at the next funding round.

[Patma]

That was the smartly dressed man in the silver mercedes who was staking out Freds house a few days ago and received the shock of his life when Fred emerged from underneath the car he'd been repairing on the drive. I do hope Fred was able to take this persons registration number and forward it to the police, it sounds suspiciously like some sort of criminal casing what they believed to be an empty property to me.

 

Me too, it's amazing how smartly dressed these criminals are nowadays.

[Toulose LeDebt]

I do wonder what PCADs legal cost will be when they actually loose this case. Indeed from the evidence that appears to be coming in almost daily I cannot help but think that their continuing with this case can be seen as a misuse of public funds.

Just let them claim poverty at the next funding round.

 

I think it will be restricted to £80, Lyons Davidson went to great lengths to point out that they took the case on a no win no fee basis and that the costs payable by the claimant (80 quid) represent just an interim payment on the true costs recoverable after they win.:grin::grin:

 

Of course any costs and damages which might be awarded against PCAD in this matter or any other subsequent litigation Fred sees fit to bring against them might increase the cost suffered by PCAD a bit.

[Toulose LeDebt]

Me too, it's amazing how smartly dressed these criminals are nowadays.

 

Have you ever seen 'The Real Hustle'? It's always the smartly dressed con man who smiles and chats politely as they take your money you have to watch out for.....

[scuzziemoo]

Me too, it's amazing how smartly dressed these criminals are nowadays.

 

could've been bryan.....

[Patma]

I made a msitake about the car, it was a BMW

[Patma]

I think it will be restricted to £80, Lyons Davidson went to great lengths to point out that they took the case on a no win no fee basis and that the costs payable by the claimant (80 quid) represent just an interim payment on the true costs recoverable after they win.:grin::grin:

 

Of course any costs and damages which might be awarded against PCAD in this matter or any other subsequent litigation Fred sees fit to bring against them might increase the cost suffered by PCAD a bit.

 

Wayhey! if they can only claim £80 from Fred, the costs PCAD will have to foot are going to be getting steeper by the minute LOL.

They've already made several applications to the court which all carry a fee and what's the going rate for representation in court?

You were absolutely right TLD with your digging a hole analogy. Well we're about to take their spade off them.

[Patma]

When you write to your new penfriend, give him my regards will you please TLD and of course I'll pass on your regards to mine.

[Toulose LeDebt]

Wayhey! if they can only claim £80 from Fred, the costs PCAD will have to foot are going to be getting steeper by the minute LOL.

They've already made several applications to the court which all carry a fee and what's the going rate for representation in court?

You were absolutely right TLD with your digging a hole analogy. Well we're about to take their spade off them.

 

 

It's in the old 'collective conditional fee' arrangement. PCAD are liable to solicitors costs capped at £80 and Lyons Davidson are expecting to collect a further fee through the Court upon winning the claim. (as a small aside either LD are anticipating collecting peanuts in respect of further fees or there are good grounds based on the amount of claim, amount of interest etc for this to have actually been allocated to Fast Track as they are sailing rather close to the £5k small claims limit as it is once the interest is added).

 

So PCAD pay LD £80 and that's it. LD are expecting a handsome payout for themselves when Fred is defeated.

The Court does of course have the power to refuse to award interest and or costs in the event that CPR is breached sufficiently.

Whatever happens Lyons Davidson stand the chance of being horribly out of pocket.

 

 

 

[Patma]

Just been chatting to Fred on the phone and we've been discussing the insurance details. He's going over the disclosure docs and realising that whilst they are very uninformative there are questions to be asked and maybe new requests for info to LD arise from them.

No 1....The claim was not reported to R&SA until 18.4.06. This is some weeks after the incident and a whole month after the barrier was replaced by a brand new one.

Now I know this wouldn't work for me, if I made a household insurance claim.

 

No 2 Wouldn't an insurance company ask for the make, model etc of the damaged barrier in order to ensure there was a like for like replacement which they were contributing to the cost of, after the excess was paid?

 

No 3 Would a loss adjuster normally be apponted to view the damage?

 

No 4 A note is made on 18.04.06 that " Insured will send invoice to us.They have had to have the barrier replaced for security reasons"

Again I would expect there to be an audit trail of information and a properly itemised invoice, but no there wasn't. The security reason given is obviously tongue in cheek because their attitude to security has lapsed severely since.

 

No 5 The promised invoice had to be chased up by R&SA. on 10.5.06 there's a note saying "Await invoice from insured"

No 6 On 7.06.06 Another note stating "Reinstatement of barrier completed, still awaiting site of the invoice before concluding, insured to forward.

 

No 7 On 29.06.06 a note saying "Insured G Dexter returned call (so R&SA had presumably been chasing up the invoice again) Advised that the repairs have been completed and the final invoice will be forwarded in the next few days. Await invoice from insured."

 

No 8 On 30.06.06 There's a copy of a letter from G Dexter saying "As discussed over the telephone yesterday, please find attached the invoice for replacing the car park barrier"

So barrier replaced 17.03.06, but not provided to insurer till 30.06.06.

Is this normal, I don't know?

 

No 9 It says the incident occurred in the insured's premises during work....I presume that means working hours? However they keep trying to claim that classes finish earlier than they do. Don't know if there's anything here, but why do the insurers need to say it happened during work? Not sure about this.

 

No 10....Might be a teeny weeny smoking gun. Look out for an email TLD:D:D

Edited August 1, 2009 by Patma

[Yorky2008]

I guess the urgency with which such replacements are conducted appears to differ according to who can be perceived to be footing the bill.

 

Could it be that the college is hoping to bring all the barries upto tiptop condition on the back of their winnings?

 

No 9 It says the incident occurred in the insured's premises during work....I presume that means working hours? However they keep trying to claim that classes finish earlier than they do. Don't know if there's anything here, but why do the insurers need to say it happened during work? Not sure about this.

 

I would hazard a guess, but could it be possible that insurance cover for outside normal office hours would be more expensive and therefore may not have been taken up, just a bog standrad 9-5 arrangement?

 

Yorky

[Toulose LeDebt]

 

No 10....Might be a teeny weeny smoking gun. Look out for an email TLD:D:D

 

It's very clear cut there can be no middle ground they either were or they were not.

 

The second document you reference clearly states they were and as that predates the first document by some months there can be no argument.

 

There is also the name of a member of staff which acts as a common denominator between these two documents, the same name which appears on page 9 of Freds document of last friday and acts as the common denominator between Tabs 18 and 19 of that particular bundle as illustrated within page 9 of the document.

[Patma]

I would hazard a guess, but could it be possible that insurance cover for outside normal office hours would be more expensive and therefore may not have been taken up, just a bog standrad 9-5 arrangement?

Possibly, Yorky. We did a recce yesterday btw and there is one new barrier at a small annexe which didn't belong to them back in 2006, so nothing there and the only other barrier is still the same one as back then.

[Patma]

It's very clear cut there can be no middle ground they either were or they were not.

 

The second document you reference clearly states they were and as that predates the first document by some months there can be no argument.

 

There is also the name of a member of staff which acts as a common denominator between these two documents, the same name which appears on page 9 of Freds document of last friday and acts as the common denominator between Tabs 18 and 19 of that particular bundle as illustrated within page 9 of the document.

Ah brilliant, I've been hopping about waiting to see what you think, cos I'm a dunce about that sort of thing. Yipeeeee:-D

So what's to be done about it?

That's your new best friend you're talking about I take it?

[Toulose LeDebt]

Ah brilliant, I've been hopping about waiting to see what you think, cos I'm a dunce about that sort of thing. Yipeeeee:-D

So what's to be done about it?

That's your new best friend you're talking about I take it?

 

 

You're probably not going to like my answer but the real meat in this issue lies not so much in the fact that they claimed the VAT from the insurer when they should not have done so (them being VAT registered) but establishing whether the VAT ws also reclaimed against the invoice from US(UK) ltd. Although this does raise new issues as to the amount claimed against Fred and of course casts further aspersions before the Court about the character of the claimant.

 

If PCAD had declared their registration for VAT to R & SA then the cheque from R & SA would have been for £452 only. PCAD would have paid US(UK) ltd the £3468, received £452 from R & SA and reclaimed £516 from HMRC.

 

This would have left PCAD suffering an actual loss of (3468-452-516) = £2500. Let's call that 'loss 1'

 

By not declaring their VAT registration to their insurers PCAD suffered a loss as follows.

 

£3468-£968= £2500 (ie the excess). And let's call that 'loss 2'.

 

There is another scenario in that PCAD might have subsequently reclaimed the VAT payable against the invoice of US(UK)ltd, now for the avoidance of doubt we do not know if they did so this next part is purely hypothetical.

 

From the above two instances what actually happened appeared in the second instance.

 

 

The loss to the college is £2500.

The college submits the VAT invoice and reclaims the VAT.

The new loss to the college is:

£2500 - £516 = £1984. Lets call that loss 3.

 

----------> End Hypothesising

 

Now we come to the really interesting bit.

 

How much exactly should the claim have been issued for? --{Ignore any arguments that Fred was not liable and accept that this claim is a subrogation claim}---.

 

Loss 1 College declares VAt registration

 

Loss to college - 2500

Loss to insurer - 452

Total loss to both parties = £2952

 

Loss 2 College does not declare VAT registration

 

Loss to college - 2500

Loss to insurer - 968

Subtotal - 3468

 

BUT the insurer has had to pay the VAT on £3468 so will reclaim £516 from HMRC.

 

So :

Total loss = subtotal - 516 = £2952

 

And in scenarion 3: Collegee does not declare VAT registration and reclaims VAT against invoice

 

Loss to college = 1984

Loss to insurer = (968-516) = 452

 

So the total loss incurred would be £2436.

 

Whatever actually happened this still seems awfully steep to me for a barrier which costs under £1000 net.

Edited August 1, 2009 by Toulose LeDebt

[Patma]

Thanks for that, TLD. It's quite complicated isn't it?

Don't worry about my not liking it, that's fine. I'm happy to peel away the layers of the onion till we get to the truth. LOL.

 

I'm not yet clear about what we can do about this, if anything or how it affects the claim, but I'll re-read all this and let it sink in.

 

How much exactly should the claim have been issued for? --{Ignore any arguments that Fred was not liable and accept that this claim is a subrogation claim}---.

We only have one person's dubious word that this is a subrogation claim, don't forget.

Whatever actually happened this still seems awfully steep to me for a barrier which costs under £1000 net.

You're right, there are more layers left to peel on this onion.

[Toulose LeDebt]

The important part to take from this is that both parties to this subrogated claim are in the position to have reclaimed VAT against their losses. This is not normal as Bedlington hs already highlighted and it means that the amount of VAT being claimed on the POC is not valid and should be removed from the claim.

Either the insurer should have paid the claim gross and then reclaimed the VAT or the insurer should have paid the claim net and the claimant should have reclaimed the VAT.

In the scenario presented to the Court neither the insurer or the claimant is admitting to having reclaimed the VAT against their losses.

I find this situation implausible, one or the other must have reclaimed this VAt and it's just as likely to be the case that both insurer and claimant have reclaimed against the same amount (That paid by US (UK) ltd).

[Patma]

it means that the amount of VAT being claimed on the POC is not valid and should be removed from the claim.

Ah right thankyou, the plot thickens. So we need to write another little letter to the court then I guess pointing out this "error"?

[Toulose LeDebt]

no I'd save those little letters for the really important stuff.

 

Not that this isn't important but it will likely prove more useful for Fred to keep it in the bag for now, use it in his defence if neccesary, I know they monitor the board and will have seen the topic mentioned over the last few days but it is fait accomplis and we have the documentation to prove so let them stew on that for a bit.

 

There is now no guarantee that the amended POC are going to be the actual POC's that Fred is going to be defending. The Court has the discretion and the authority to strike from the POC any or all of the issues brought to their attention on friday and I will be very surprised if no changes are made.

 

Of course the latest disclosure should be sent in one of those letters as arranged and whilst he's down there probably an application for a stay in proceedings but we do need to keep something back for pleading and there's always room in that particularly fat bulging sack for one or two more.

[Patma]

Understood TLD:D Yojimbo at work:D

[Annoying Twit]

In some educational institution it is said that when VAT is reclaimed, ths happens in an unusual way. Basically some part of the university will pay for some goods and services including VAT. The receipts then go to a central finance office which will reclaim the VAT. However, the reclaimed VAT may not be returned to the department or division that spent the money, but go into another account within the institution, and spent on other things. So, as far as some estates manager managing a budget is concerned, the amount paid out of his/her budget for some goods and services will be the amount including VAT. So, if someone didn't think carefully enough about the costs involved to the institution, they could easily get it wrong. Particularly if they weren't the sharpest tool in the box.

[Yorky2008]

Mabe this is the case but as this is a high profile case now and its costing them a small fortune in submission fees you would think that they would spend 5 minutes making sure that all their facts are correct before it goes before a Judge who wont be as forgiving - especially after the grief they have given Fred!!!

 

Yorky

[Toulose LeDebt]

Mabe this is the case but as this is a high profile case now and its costing them a small fortune in submission fees you would think that they would spend 5 minutes making sure that all their facts are correct before it goes before a Judge who wont be as forgiving - especially after the grief they have given Fred!!!

 

Yorky

 

More than ever I get the feeling as has already been alluded to that the claimant just assumed that the existence of the simple police caution plus the 'large institution employing solicitors and barristers' Vs the 'little man' factor would be sufficient to railroad this case through Court and maybe did not pay quite as much attention in preparing the claim as they might have done.

 

Certainly the £80 non conditional fee has long since been spent, there's the initial application, solicitors costs, barristers fees, AQ costs, further application costs etc etc and then there'll be a stay application hearing to attend and heaven knows what else might 'pop up' before they even reach the hearing. Of course Fred has sufficient fact to include in his defence that their research into this alone is likely to run into many hours.

 

As it stands this is not a profitable case for the solicitors and it could get much worse in the event the Court refuses costs(for whatever reason) and that is of course assuming they win.

 

All this gets me to wondering whether last weeks mysterious silver BMW driving visitor to Freds house was not a burglar but actually a representative of this large and highly regarded national firm of solicitors who do after all have a branch just a mile or so away from Freds home, and might they have actually been conducting a driveby valuation of Freds assets in an attempt to see what might be chargeable (or not) in the event they have to plough a further large sum of money into prosecuting this case for their clients?

 

And another thought to start the day off......... is it possible the college had such difficulty providing the invoice for the barrier to their insurers during the months of May and early June because this invoice had by this time been passed on to the college accountants for reclamation of the £516 VAT within the relevant quarter?

[rickyd]

Sorry if this is already done to death but why were the Police permitted to merey give a caution to close the case if the college are seeking recompense? The charge sheet should detail eveything pertaining to the event.

 

Surely if damage had occurred this should have been discussed at the time?

 

Its a bit like saying "OK you can go, but don't do it again" and later coming back and saying "actually you can't go as there's more to this".

 

How can the college prove that the bill relates to that particular event and not some clumsy driver months later?

[Toulose LeDebt]

Sorry if this is already done to death but why were the Police permitted to merey give a caution to close the case if the college are seeking recompense? The charge sheet should detail eveything pertaining to the event.

 

Surely if damage had occurred this should have been discussed at the time?

 

Its a bit like saying "OK you can go, but don't do it again" and later coming back and saying "actually you can't go as there's more to this".

 

 

The college wanted to claim on their insurance as 'criminal damage' and so they needed a crime reference number. The college supplied the police with a short video clip of the incident which literally just showed Fred lifting the barrier and leaving the car park. On that evidence Fred was advised to accept the caution and be done with it by his solicitor. What the police were not shown was that it was actually Fred who put the barrier in the cradle prior to which it had been hanging loosely out of position below and to the side of the cradle which is proof that the barrier was already malfunctioning. What the police were also not shown is what happened when the driver before Fred tried to leave the car park that morning. I wonder why that was?

 

 

How can the college prove that the bill relates to that particular event

 

Well they are going to find it difficult, very difficult indeed.

And if Fred can get the Court to accept the testimony of the barrier manufacturer, more than four independent barrier engineers, the video proof, the photographic proof and hopefully the police records then I submit that far from finding it difficult the college are going to find it impossible.

 

If a certain 'F' word appears just the once in the original statements provided to the police by the college (which were not disclosed to Fred or his representative) or in any of the police records into the original investigation then the college will be well and truly FAACed.