Locked in car park

[Patma]

Hi Patma,

I see from an earlier post they admitted that the barrier was faulty,did they elaborate on the fault?.The normal thing to do when a barrier is faulty is afix a notice to that effect or remove the arm.i realise time is getting short but as they have now admitted which type of barrier it was it could be an idea to check with the makers what effect it would have on the barrier if it was manually raised if you havnt already.I have repaired numerous barriers and manually raising them has never caused damage to any I have come accross.any news from TLD?.

Wobbly

Hi Wobbly. Are you still in Australia?

The manufacturers (FAAC) and the other engineers we've contacted have confirmed that it's most unlikely any damage was done to the barrier by lifting it manually. The original damage was alleged to have been to parts which couldn't apparently happen to a hydraulic system. I'm technically challenged so can't explain the technicalities, but I guess having repaired barriers it will make sense to you.

No news from TLD I'm afraid.

[wobbly]

Yes still in Australia Patma we dont come back until 1st December,then go to southern Ireland on 8th of December ,curious as to why there was a change of judge? presume bias but understand you cant say at minute.You no doubt recall what I said about Judge in miners case.

Wobbly

[Patma]

Yes still in Australia Patma we dont come back until 1st December,then go to southern Ireland on 8th of December ,curious as to why there was a change of judge? presume bias but understand you cant say at minute.You no doubt recall what I said about Judge in miners case.

Wobbly

I do remember what you said about the miners strike Judge very well, Wobbly and think you'd be well placed to understand what's gone on in Fred's case.

Have a great time and enjoy the weather, cos I can tell you , it's getting pretty chilly over here and I should think southern Ireland will be similar.

[JonCris]

The gentleman at Lyons Davidson who sent the letter giving Fred less than 4 hours to agree the contents of their court bundle index has sent a rather tetchy email today in response to Fred's.

Here it is.......

 

Mr Fred,

I note your actions

 

The purpose of my sending you what I stressed at the time and now again was the draft index was for parties to agree the content of the same before we put it to the Court to assist its understanding of the claim and to allow it to pass judgment

 

Had you asked for any additional documents we had omitted we would have considered the same before filing a single, agreed bundle. You have unilaterally taken a step that will cause confusion at Court, delay and further expense to all parties

 

The Overriding Objective is on co-operation between parties on such matters

 

I am now obliged to file my own bundle which means the Court will have to duplicate its reading

 

Your step, without consultation, was not well-judged

 

I reserve the right to bring this and my previous correspondence to the Court's attention on costs

 

Yours sincerely,

 

......................

Oh dear, somebody's not happy tut tut. Now if this was a legitimate worry about costs, why didn't they suggest this with their previous two bundles and why leave it till the very last minute when Fred's bundle was already prepared to suggest we share one.

It couldn't have anything to do with a sneaky false statement hidden in their bundle could it? One which alleges falsely that Fred has admitted to causing criminal damage.

 

Response

 

"Sir I am somewhat surprised at your remarks particularly when you had already submitted your bundle to the court without consultation. Further more the documents I did receive arrived on the same day you required a response in the absence of which you claimed entitlement to assume my agreement.

 

If as you say your premature actions will result in delays additional costs and confusion for the court then sobeit the sole responsibility is yours a fact the court will no doubt recognise. As regard to the overriding principal I would remind you that I have asked repeatedly that you provide information either without success or if supplied only after a lengthy delay.Therefore if anyone is responsible for failing to comply with the overriding principal it's you and no one else. It appears that as I am a litigant in person you think I can be bullied I cannot"

[Patma]

Response

 

"Sir I am somewhat surprised at your remarks particularly when you had already submitted your bundle to the court without consultation. Further more the documents I did receive arrived on the same day you required a response in the absence of which you claimed entitlement to assume my agreement.

 

If as you say your premature actions will result in delays additional costs and confusion for the court then sobeit the sole responsibility is yours a fact the court will no doubt recognise. As regard to the overriding principal I would remind you that I have asked repeatedly that you provide information either without success or if supplied only after a lengthy delay.Therefore if anyone is responsible for failing to comply with the overriding principal it's you and no one else. It appears that as I am a litigant in person you think I can be bullied I cannot"

That's telling em!

The gloves do seem to be coming off at Lyons Davidson. I wonder if that deep hole they're digging is hitting bedrock?

[Patma]

You have unilaterally taken a step that will cause confusion at Court,

I like this bit.

To translate in laymans terms, he's saying we're causing confusion at court by daring to put forward the truth.

[Conniff]

Response

 

"Sir I am somewhat surprised at your remarks particularly when you had already submitted your bundle to the court without consultation. Further more the documents I did receive arrived on the same day you required a response in the absence of which you claimed entitlement to assume my agreement.

 

If as you say your premature actions will result in delays additional costs and confusion for the court then sobeit the sole responsibility is yours a fact the court will no doubt recognise. As regard to the overriding principal I would remind you that I have asked repeatedly that you provide information either without success or if supplied only after a lengthy delay.Therefore if anyone is responsible for failing to comply with the overriding principal it's you and no one else. It appears that as I am a litigant in person you think I can be bullied I cannot"

 

Wrong response.

 

The Overriding Objective is on co-operation between parties on such matters

Your response should have been - I am all for co-operation and you could co-operative fully by compensating me and I will go away.

 

Sorry, couldn't resist it.

[djwigster]

Subbing with interest.

 

Good luck with it

[Yorky2008]

Hi again Patma,

 

Oh dear this poor Lyons Davidson man must be so stressed he's forgotten that their court bundle was already filed with the court on Monday and Fred received it today before our tetchy friend had even written his email.

 

Please , please, please tell me he didnt write 'Without Predujice' on the top - I would love to see you produce the email in court along with the bundle submission dates when he has a hissy fit with the judge

 

Yorky.

[loopinlouie]

:DGood luck to you all. You deserve to win, they are panicking now.

[labrat]

lloyd davidson

 

 

if its not banned

 

lloyds luck

 

to all the helpers

 

to lloyds

 

and now seen as ive

 

ill shoot off

 

humer time over

[Patma]

Wrong response.

 

[/color]

 

Your response should have been - I am all for co-operation and you could co-operative fully by compensating me and I will go away.

 

Sorry, couldn't resist it.

 

Very good Conniff.

[Patma]

Hi again Patma,

 

 

 

Please , please, please tell me he didnt write 'Without Predujice' on the top - I would love to see you produce the email in court along with the bundle submission dates when he has a hissy fit with the judge

 

Yorky.

No he didn't say "Without Prejudice":D

[Patma]

:DGood luck to you all. You deserve to win, they are panicking now.

Thanks for the good wishes, loopinlouie and all those who've been wishing us good luck. It's very encouraging knowing you're all there rooting for us.

[Patma]

lloyd davidson

 

 

if its not banned

 

lloyds luck

 

to all the helpers

 

to lloyds

 

and now seen as ive

 

ill shoot off

 

humer time over

What can I say labrat, you're an artist!:lol:

[labrat]

wait wait last one i promise

 

perfect one for lloyds and the college as well

 

[RichardM]

I would just like to wish all of the involved parties (on the defendents side only of course) good luck for the Directions Hearing tomorrow. Here's hoping that the new judge sees some sense and allows Fred's counterclaim to go through, so that he can be properly compensated for the huge amount of stress that he has been put though in the last three years. It's been a fascinating read over the last twelve months since this thread started, and I'll be sorry when the final chapter is written.

 

Finally, to the thread itself I would like to wish it

 

 

It was exactly one year today that Patma wrote

 

Hi, A good friend of mine has asked me to post his experience on the forum and ask for advice. Almost 3 years ago, he had attended a Saturday morning class at his local College, Plymouth College of Art. On returning to the college car park, he found the barrier was down and he couldn't get his car out. He walked around the area looking for someone from the college to open it up for him, but no-one was there.As he had a long drive home and didn't want his car stuck there till Monday morning, he decided to see if he could lift the barrier himself and managed to do so.

A few weeks later he was arrested and charged with criminal damage, for which he accepted a caution.He asked for the CCTV cameras to be looked at because they would show that he had not used excessive force and had tried to find assistance,but it was claimed that the footage was lost or wiped. He was adamant that he had not done any serious damage to the barrier and he should know because he had previously worked as a service enginneer for car park barriers.

Some months later he received a demand from solicitors acting for the college, (Lyons Davidson) for almost £4000 and claiming he had wrecked the barrier which had to be completely replaced. There were other claims made also to the effect that notices were provided giving instructions as to what to do in the event of getting locked in. I actually went with him to take photographs of the entire car park and there were absolutely no such notices. It was obvious though that a flashy new barrier had been installed to replace the old, rusty one.

He wrote back demanding proof of the damage caused and a breakdown of costs, but nothing was forthcoming and everything went quiet until this week, almost 3 years later.

Now he's had a new demand for payment with threats of court action etc.

Can anyone throw any light on what his rights are in this situation please?

He's certain a new barrier wasn't necessary and the college were definitely lying about the circumstances. Also does anyone know when such a claim becomes statute barred?

Any advice would be very welcome.

 

I wonder if she had any idea exactly what sort of a roller coaster ride she was climbing aboard when she wrote that.

[IdaInFife]

Wishes with you Patma and Fred

 

Ida x

[scuzziemoo]

Goodluck Patma and Fred! Can't wait to hear the updated news!

[natalie]

Good luck Pat and Fred, we'll all be thinking of you.

[natalie]

Oh and to the guests who are no doubt wishing they had never started this!

[noomill060]

Go get 'em, patma and fred.

 

Take no prisoners.

[den3371]

Wishing you the very best of luck Fred anf Patma (not sure you are going to need it though!!)

 

Will be thinking of you tommorrow!!

[MrShed]

Good luck!

[JonCris]

If the claimants are reading this be advised that I & others are waiting with baited breath to see what happens tomorrow;)