Locked in car park

[Patma]

Still having trouble uploading this letter, which keeps coming out massive

Edited October 17, 2009 by Patma

[Patma]

now they are trying to say FRED said he had a Caution ,

 

so what they are trying to say FRED must have had a caution because we think we heard him say he had one, where infact they were the first to state Fred had been Cautioned and had that in their original documents, oh dear oh dear, what a febble attempt to cover their screw up,

 

once again trying to twist the facts,

 

Its up to them to prove their claim "Fred was CAUTIONED for CRIMINAL DAMAGE"

 

they want the details from the Court then they have to pay, all FRED has to do is present that letter as further evidence in that they are once again trying to move the goal posts,

 

What also strikes me as very peculiar is how fast they have got this letter out. It arrived today, the same day Fred received the actual order, which seems to me they may have got the order before he did.

 

I'd be very interested to see what others think the wording of the order actually means too...

"Upon considering two applications from the defendant, it is ordered that both applications be dealt with by the District Judge as a paper exercise.

The claimant is to respond with any representations by 4pm on 2nd November 2009"

 

Bearing in mind one of them is about strict proof of the caution and the other is asking for a proper defence to be filed to the counterclaim.

[middenmess]

Staff from Lyons Davidson are working at Photobucket this weekend in a quest to broaden their talents as it will look good on their soon to be used C.V's.

[kiptower]

maybe the penny finally dropped there never was a CAUTION

 

but in desperation they think if they can get FRED to admit to saying he had a caution they can worm out of their original claim and errors , because FRED said he had one

 

either they are so thick in thinking they can fool everyone , or more like devious and trying to entrap FRED

[Patma]

Staff from Lyons Davidson are working at Photobucket this weekend in a quest to broaden their talents as it will look good on their soon to be used C.V's.

Yes I think you're right. They've actually realised what fools this letter makes them look so they've hidden the upload function on photobucket. I keep trying other image hosting sites but being a bit challenged in the technical ability department, I can't get them to work properly either.

[kiptower]

pat check your PM's

 

nah they aint got @ photobucket yet , dont think they would be able to find it , need more than 2 brain cells to do that

[Patma]

Thanks Kiptower. I've sent the letter to you.

With any luck everyone, the famous letter will be revealed in all it's glory shortly, thanks to Kiptower.

Let's send him a drumroll to help him

[kiptower]

save you having to post Pat here it is below for everyone

 

[Patma]

Thanks Kiptower, you're a star.

[Conniff]

Be this thread tragic or comic, are those standard template letters, would they be used for example:

 

Dear Mr

 

We are prepared to request the cctv that clearly shows you robbing the shop and shooting the counter assistance if you will pay half of the cost.

 

What sort of a question is that.

[Patma]

I think we should have a whipround for LD, they're obviously desperately hard up and too proud to admit it.

[kiptower]

so after 3 years of claiming Fred had been Cautioned by the Police and started their original county court claim based on the "CAUTION" they now refer to the case in July 2009 , where @ that stage they themselves had convinced Fred he had a caution possibly, and maybe just maybe it was mentioned in the hearing, in july 2009

 

( lets be fair Fred probably did belive he was cautioned because the whole case was based on he did )

 

Fred may have agreed with something mentioned about the Caution, BUT because it has been found out via the Police there never was a caution, it all goes out the window,

 

they cant say we dint know for 3 years it did not exist, nor can they say oh we didnt give the shortened video version to the police either ITS fact they did , they knew and as everyone else has seen the full version clearly show Fred did nothing wrong,

 

this actually is serious offence's "to pevert the Course of Justice" and the Court should be asked to make the recomendations that a Criminal investigation should be called for,

 

what was said or not said in the july 2009 hearing has has now bearing on the case, they cannot say 3 years down the line you admitted to there being a caution @ the july hearing, its them that convinced Fred the caution existed, to justify their original claim

[wobbly]

Hi Patma glad to see things still progressing well ,I presume no change in final hearing date although I wouldnt be suprised if there is ,so continuing to watch ,I am in Australia at moment and its being watched with interest by a few people over here who I informed about it.Best of luck to Fred.

Wobbly

[MrShed]

"We refer to the Court order dated 15th October . We are prepared to request a transcript of the Directions Hearing in which you admit you received a caution for causing criminal damage to the claimant's barrier, on the basis that you are prepared to incur half the cost of that document.

Please confirm that you are prepared to pay your contribution towards the cost of the transcript and we will contact the court in order to obtain it."

 

 

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

 

Sorry - *breathes*

 

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

HA!

 

Right - its out of my system now.

 

[Mattyg2004]

Has anyone seen the full video yet. Or has it been edited so it doesnt show the security firm lifting the barrier in the morning to open it and then pulling it down to close it in the evening.

 

because that would just top it all off.

[royboy68]

Patma

 

Just looking at that letter from LD. It states that Fred admitted to recieving a caution at the 1St of July hearing. There is no mention of that in your summary of what happened but unless my mind is going, I do recall somewhere along the line that it was mentioned by a LD representative that Fred didnt respond to. I know how meticulous you are at reporting the facts and this kind of stuck in my mind. What other dates has Fred had direct personal contact with LD.

[royboy68]

Has anyone seen the full video yet. Or has it been edited so it doesnt show the security firm lifting the barrier in the morning to open it and then pulling it down to close it in the evening.

 

because that would just top it all off.

 

It would be real handy to see the video both in the hours before the incident and after, especially the time when the barrier was discovered to be allegedly faulty and what was done at that time. It could be that the barrier was faulty prior to Fred leaving and when the security guard attempted to give full access later that they did more damage to it.

[frettful38]

It's like trying to unscramble scrambled eggs

[caledfwlch]

Isnt there some sort of abuse of process rule that would cover this?

 

They are demanding Fred PAY for them to prove THEIR case against him to the court.

[Bookworm]

Come on Cal, that's not fair, they're only asking for HALF the money.

[raydetinu]

Been following this with great interst and felt all details are well covrered and responeded to, however I think you should refute and respond to LD that their statement that you admitted to a caution having been given. As not to do so at this stage may well be taken the wrong way and give them some false hope.

[dw190]

Fred was probably cautioned at his first meeting with the police "You do not have to say anything etc."

 

I'm sure this would be the caution Fred admited to receiving. I'd be inclined to thank them for their generous offer but decline it all the same. Or you could treat them like proper bankers with a "No Deal" response.

[Patma]

Been following this with great interst and felt all details are well covrered and responeded to, however I think you should refute and respond to LD that their statement that you admitted to a caution having been given. As not to do so at this stage may well be taken the wrong way and give them some false hope.

 

Hi raydetinu, thanks for your suggestion. That's a good point you make and we have been pondering what response to make. Lyons Davidson first claimed that Fred completely denied ever receiving a caution (this was in their letter to Devon and Cornwall Police in 2008, when they were trying to get a copy of it).

Then they claimed in their court bundle that Fred admitted causing criminal damage and being cautioned, which of course he set them straight on and lodged a copy of it with the court.

So now they are saying he admitted being cautioned......well Lyons Davidson,you're the ones who kept telling Fred he'd been cautioned and continued to do so, even after you were fully aware that no caution existed on record.

It wouldn't surprise me if they've got some devious,cunning little plot in mind just like the way their representative tried in the Directions hearing to trap Fred into admitting having caused criminal damage to the barrier.

To his credit Fred didn't fall for her ploy and that was one of the reasons why they then introduced the caution into their statement of case, knowing full well there wasn't one on record.

[Patma]

Hi Patma glad to see things still progressing well ,I presume no change in final hearing date although I wouldnt be suprised if there is ,so continuing to watch ,I am in Australia at moment and its being watched with interest by a few people over here who I informed about it.Best of luck to Fred.

Wobbly

Great to hear from you Wobbly. Hope you're having a great time and a big hello to all our new Australian friends.

No change at the moment in the final hearing date. We're still waiting to hear from the Police and are chasing that up.

Enjoy your holiday and tell us all about it please when you get back.

[caledfwlch]

Hi raydetinu, thanks for your suggestion. That's a good point you make and we have been pondering what response to make. Lyons Davidson first claimed that Fred completely denied ever receiving a caution (this was in their letter to Devon and Cornwall Police in 2008, when they were trying to get a copy of it).

Then they claimed in their court bundle that Fred admitted causing criminal damage and being cautioned, which of course he set them straight on and lodged a copy of it with the court.

So now they are saying he admitted being cautioned......well Lyons Davidson,you're the ones who kept telling Fred he'd been cautioned and continued to do so, even after you were fully aware that no caution existed on record.

It wouldn't surprise me if they've got some devious,cunning little plot in mind just like the way their representative tried in the Directions hearing to trap Fred into admitting having caused criminal damage to the barrier.

To his credit Fred didn't fall for her ploy and that was one of the reasons why they then introduced the caution into their statement of case, knowing full well there wasn't one on record.

 

Reply saying they are more than welcome to order and pay for the transcrip, Fred is hardly going to pay for them to prove THEIR case - and then again state that they are put to strict proof of a caution existing - ie a copy of the police caution, which should be the only proof the court should except.

 

Out of interest - have they actually provided a crime number ? just wondering if theres an angle of attack there.