Locked in car park

[Thailand]

Ah, it's Bryan again. Bless his socks.

 

How have you bin bryan m8.

[car2403]

Posts to this thread must remain within the forum rules - if they don't, they will be removed and repeat offenders will find their account placed on moderation.

 

While it's understandable that emotions are running high, lets keep it civilised.

[Thailand]

Well, you'll know better than me car, but all looks ok matey.

[JonCris]

car Huh!

[Toulose LeDebt]

I hold my hand up to some rather contemptuous remarks about the actions of the claimant and the claimants representatives. Although I feel I've said nothing libellous any such comments being in my opinion provable and thus fair comment I understand and take on board that this forum is not the place for such verbal posturing.

I shall however endeavour to assist Fred in his attempt to bring our concerns into the open for presentation before a Court as I feel ultimately Fred will be happy for a Judge to decide which actions taken by or on behalf of the claimant are valid and which are not.

 

Apologies to CAG team, thanks for not anonymously Cagbotting me/us.

[Patma]

I very much appreciate all the help and support that so many here have given and continue to give.

Apologies to CAG team, thanks for not anonymously Cagbotting me/us.

__________________

That goes for me too.

[Helford]

I am a Commercial Insurance Broker by profession working in the South West. For an insurance claim to be accepted in respect of damage to a car park barrier or something similar, the Insurer would have sought confirmation from the Insured (PCAD) that the damage occured at a specific point in time (Time and date) and that damage was caused by an insured peril (i.e. In this case; Either Malicious Damage, Accidential Damage or possibly an Engineering Breakdown insurance). We all know that insurance policies do NOT cover wear and tear, a gradually operating condition or the like. etc. If the barrier just broke/wore out/packed up, the chances are there would NOT be an insurance claim and the barrier would have to be replaced at the College's own cost.

 

I would stress that I have no association with this incident whatsoever. Making an insurance claim relies on the principles of 'Utmost good faith' and these principles appear to have been abused here. R & SA's Fraud Department really ought to be kept 'in the loop' here?

 

H

[Toulose LeDebt]

Thanks for the constructive input Helford, if I remember rightly Fred has tried to bring this to the attention of the insurers fraud team without success. Can you recommend an approach for Fred to present his concerns to them as the solicitors appear to be fielding for both parties which would of course be a conflict of interest should R & SA choose to investigate the circumstances of the original claim.

 

Cheers. TLD

[Helford]

Since R and SA are members of this and they have set up a nice quick way of reporting 'concerns', it would be rude not to use it!

 

www.insurancefraudbureau.org

 

H

[Patma]

Helford, thankyou very much indeed for your input.

It's very good to get the views of an insurance industry insider. Fred has indeed tried to bring his concerns to the R&SA but possibly didn't go about it the right way.

I'll pass on this link to him. Thanks again.

[Bookworm]

Did I miss some fireworks last night then? Sorry, was catching up on Harry Potter on BluRay.

[Bookworm]

Well, good. If they are that articulate at court, Fred should have no problem winning this then.

[Yorky2008]

What they are saying is that by rotating the motor armature (rotor in the picture) the casing was subjected to enough force to break.

 

TLD, thats just it - the rotor is NOT connected to the casing by any means - if it was it would never rotate within its stator, it would be fixed solid.

 

I 'suspect' that any damage to the casing has probably been caused during maintanence trying to fix things with 'a bigger hammer' !

 

I think they have copletely shot themselves in the foot, principally by showing a lack of knowledge of their own equipment and consequently what they can accuse Fred of!

 

Yorky.

[Toulose LeDebt]

Patma.

 

It's important that we don't get carried away and overlook the primary objective of this thread which is ultimately to succesfully defend Fred against the Court claim. You know with whats in the pipeline and what is already in motion that the claimant would do well to give good consideration to Freds generous offer of advice but lets assume for now they don't.

 

Well the next step as you know is an application for the case to be struck out citing the CPR 32.14 breaches, the 'other matters' and using the 'other evidence' available to back up this application.

Now it's all very well me saying that it's highly likely the case would be struck out and the claimant would be foolish to attempt to defend any such application in the circumstances but I'm not the presiding Judge so it's really just speculation (however well informed ;-))

 

So lets assume they continue and by some miracle a Judge does not see fit to uphold Freds application for the case to be struck out.

 

We still need to work on a winning defence and possible counterclaim to the original claim.

I'm interested therefore in the order made at the directions hearing. The Judge has ordered disclosure albeit not anywhere near what Fred might have wanted or maybe even expected. Were any directions made regarding the filing of amended defence, statements or counterclaim on this latest order. eg 'defendant must file an amended defence by **/**/****'?

 

We need to get all the evidence upon which Fred is going to rely entered into the court and submit an amended defence etc to the original claim.

[JonCris]

Did the Mods take a screen shot of Bryans Anglo Saxon choice of words:eek: -----for production at his trial:p

[Toulose LeDebt]

TLD, thats just it - the rotor is NOT connected to the casing by any means - if it was it would never rotate within its stator, it would be fixed solid.

 

I 'suspect' that any damage to the casing has probably been caused during maintanence trying to fix things with 'a bigger hammer' !

 

I think they have copletely shot themselves in the foot, principally by showing a lack of knowledge of their own equipment and consequently what they can accuse Fred of!

 

Yorky.

 

They've certainly left themselves wide open to technical cross examination, the supply of adverse information from the manufacturer would cripple their chances and this is of course limited not only to the physics improbability but also the replacement cost of a new motor. Imagine if it transpired that a new motor costs say £200 + vat and can be fitted in one hour?

 

I think they have completely shot themselves in the foot, principally by showing a lack of knowledge of their own equipment and consequently what they can accuse Fred of!

 

Sums it up very nicely.

[Toulose LeDebt]

Did the Mods take a screen shot of Bryans Anglo Saxon choice of words:eek: -----for production at his trial:p

 

there might be a copy in your email inbox, just found mine timed 19:19

[Patma]

Well, well what a bit of excitement I missed. Last night I thought we were the ones in trouble and didn't realise someone else had been upsetting the applecart. Well done, Bedlington for filling us in and thanks to our MODS for sorting out the angry little outburst. I definitely don't condone bad language on a public forum.

[Patma]

Yorky and TLD, this technical stuff about the barrier is really excellent I think. Thanks for getting your heads together and pinpointing the issues.

It goes over my head a bit, well more than a bit, I'm afraid, but I think I understand it now:confused:

[Yorky2008]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonCris

Did the Mods take a screen shot of Bryans Anglo Saxon choice of words:shock: -----for production at his trial:p

 

there might be a copy in your email inbox, just found mine timed 19:19

 

Maybe you can trace his IP address to prove it was him - I hear there is a company called ACS:Law that can do this for you

 

Yorky.

[Patma]

Patma.

 

Were any directions made regarding the filing of amended defence, statements or counterclaim on this latest order. eg 'defendant must file an amended defence by **/**/****'?

 

We need to get all the evidence upon which Fred is going to rely entered into the court and submit an amended defence etc to the original claim.

He only ordered the disclosure of the make, model, serial number of the barrier and the insurance documents, nothing regarding an amended defence, TLD.

I think you're absolutely right about preparing a good defence now, so that every aspect is covered. We can then expect the best and prepare for the worst.

I've just spoken to Fred on the phone btw and told him about Helford's information which he very kindly shared with us and he is digging out all the info right now so that contact can be made with the investigation bureau.

[Yorky2008]

Yorky and TLD, this technical stuff about the barrier is really excellent I think. Thanks for getting your heads together and pinpointing the issues.

It goes over my head a bit, well more than a bit, I'm afraid, but I think I understand it now:confused:

 

No problem Patma, will keep checking back and adding if I think it will assist, although the legal side goes way over my head but sounds like TLD has that well in hand.

 

Yorky.

[Toulose LeDebt]

Well if it helps.....

 

The middle bit of the motor goes round and round, it's designed to go round and round it can't go up and down because it's held in place with bearings and it can't go side to side either because.... well it's held in place with bearings. What the 'engineer' is trying to say is that when fred made it go round and round it must have actually gone up and down or maybe side to side or more likely round and round and slightly up and down and slightly side to side but we all know this is not possible why? Because it's held in place with bearings.

[Patma]

Well if it helps.....

 

The middle bit of the motor goes round and round, it's designed to go round and round it can't go up and down because it's held in place with bearings and it can't go side to side either because.... well it's held in place with bearings. What the 'engineer' is trying to say is that when fred made it go round and round it must have actually gone up and down or maybe side to side or more likely round and round and slightly up and down and slightly side to side but we all know this is not possible why? Because it's held in place with bearings.

Now that's better why didn't you say so in the first place?

BTW what's a bearing? (Only joking)

[bedlington83]

Poor old Bryan wonder whats rattled his cage, it couldn't possibly be that this is the same Bryan whose name appears on some of the college documentation could it?

If the Bryan on the documentation is in his early thirties, it could well be. The name Bryan1978 suggests (to me anyway) that he was born in 1978.

 

Could I just clarify an earlier error as well, because I wouldn't want to be upsetting him anymore than he already is, the second word was "you" not "off". Apologies for any offence or distress caused