Locked in car park

[bedlington83]

They haven't been listed as claimants. Is it possible for someone to be a hidden claimant? Surley not.

It might be worth asking Royal and Sun Alliance if they are joint claimants. If they're not, then I don't see how the £968.60 can be included in the claim (even if the repair/replacement cost as much as Plymouth College of Art say) because Plymouth College of Art have already been paid it by Royal and Sun Alliance

Edited August 28, 2009 by bedlington83
SEO

[Patma]

They have to stand by their statements of truth signed by them, they sent them to the court, if they have lied, then the rest is a lie, Lord Woolf

Let Lyons Davidson put that in their pipe and smoke it.

Edited July 28, 2009 by Patma

[My Real Name]

It might be worth asking R&SA if they are joint claimants. If they're not, then I don't see how the £968.60 can be included in the claim (even if the repair/replacement cost as much as PCAD say) because PCAD have already been paid it by R&SA

I fail to see how they can claim for the policy excess and the cost of the claim.

 

How much money was paid by the college, and to whom.

 

How much money was paid by the insurers, and to whom.

 

If the college was required to pay an £2,500 excess, that would cover the cost of the repair in its entirety, surely. It's a case of paying the greater of the two amounts, not both of them.

 

(I realise that this has probably already been asked, so my apoligies in advance).

[JonCris]

Where there's a 3rd party involved (Fred) the excess is claimed by the insurer on behalf of the insured

[Patma]

Edited July 29, 2009 by Patma

[Patma]

The above is just to show that Lyons Davidson are anwerable to a higher authority and that higher authority will now be receiving an update , detailing the new false claims made with a statement of truth.....oops:D

[Patma]

Where there's a 3rd party involved (Fred) the excess is claimed by the insurer on behalf of the insured

That would seem to be the case in the normal world.

[Patma]

Sent you a pm, TLD:)

[geoff1248]

What a fascinating thread. However, it would appear that maybe you have cornered a couple of wild animals and given them no option but to fight to the death. OK so you rightly want the police caution quashed but what other outcomes do you see. The sacking on the College principle, the striking off of their solicitors etc.

I do sincerely hope you guys win but I do think that by progressing things to court that the College may have a trick or two up their sleeves.

Just out of interest have you offered to settle out of court?

[ScarletPimpernel]

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.

[Bookworm]

I'm - for once - speechless.

[geoff1248]

"Solicitors are like prostitutes - they will do whatever their client wants as long as the money is there"

 

And no doubt there could be some debate on which gives the better value for money. I suppose if prostitution were to be legalised it would be interesting to hear some of the claims under SOGA.

 

Maybe a thread for another occasion.

[havinastella]

WOW, I'm sunned.

 

Pulls up a seat and opens the popcorn.

 

I can't wait to see what TLD has planned now

[havinastella]

Looks like the guests are in!

 

Just a warning guests, when you are in the showers, don't bend over if you drop the soap.

[Yorky2008]

WOW Patma! This thread has certainly taken a sharp turn!

 

Yorky

[havinastella]

Patma,

 

With the current situation, you may want to start keeping everything behind the sceens.

 

Looks like Lyons are keeping a sharp eye here.

 

Jogs

[Patma]

WOW, I'm sunned.

 

Pulls up a seat and opens the popcorn.

 

I can't wait to see what TLD has planned now

TLD is incommunicado just now. If I were Plymouth College of Art and Lyons Davidson that would get me VERY WORRIED:eek:

He's more dangerous when he's quiet:eek:

Edited August 28, 2009 by Patma

[Patma]

Patma,

 

With the current situation, you may want to start keeping everything behind the sceens.

 

Looks like Lyons are keeping a sharp eye here.

 

Jogs

Wise words, thanks Havinastella. In fact there's more going on behind the scenes at the moment than can be revealed openly just now, but all will be revealed as soon as it's safe to do so. That's a CAG promise:D

[royboy68]

Just a small point regarding their POC. I wonder if the reception is open on a saturday or is the security firm the ones that operate the barrier

[Patma]

As I understand it, royboy, it was supposed to be the security person, but I'll have to check that with Fred to be sure.

[Toulose LeDebt]

TLD is incommunicado just now. If I were PCAD and Lyons Davidson that would get me VERY WORRIED:eek:

He's more dangerous when he's quiet:eek:

 

Yeah sorry TLD had a very unexpected visit from some old friends so has been 'entertaining' with one eye on the screen for updates. I'm sure he'll have some words of confort for Fred in the morning.

 

That is if he can stop laughing long enough to sit down and type them out.

 

I'm sorry but this has got 'DESPERATION' writ all over in capital letters.

 

There are some very fundamental errors in their clever strategy which I shall bring to the attention of Patma in the morning.

 

Suffice to say the allegations of 'extortion' which are being dealt with by one of the highest ranking Police Officers in the Devon and Cornwall district have effectively been substantiated with this latest attempt.

 

They have repeated certain errors this time the possible benefit of being able to plead such claims were made 'unknowingly' cannoy be pleaded, and they've opened themselves up to a whole new line of defence or more accurately attack from Fred.

 

Whoever is responsible for this little brainwave........ well I can't possibly say what I think on a Public forum but I think many of you got there before me.

 

Geoff 1248 You ask if Fred has considered making an offer to settle out of court.

 

I'm sorry but Fred would have to be mad in the head not to want this to run its course now, he can get far more out the claimant by permitting them to continue their claim.

Why should Fred offer to settle when he has done nothing wrong and can prove so many of the allegations against him are unfounded or simply vexatious? Fred did however jvery recently offer the claimant the opportunity to withdraw gracefully, they rebuked the offer without so much as a 'no thank you'.

 

I note the claimant would like to go against the formal agreement struck between the court and both parties and introduce the caution as proof of liability.

Imagine how embarrassing it might be if having based their case upon this caution they subsequently reach Court and find no such caution exists?8)

 

Fred has particularly good grounds for the caution to be expunged, introducing it to the civil claim constitutes sufficient grounds to stay proceedings pending a Police investigation.

The initial grounds for expunging surrounded one breach of procedure, Fred has subsequently discovered a further three breaches and we have provided case law direct from the DPP that just one breach of this type is sufficient for a caution to be expunged.

 

I can see Fred making an application to the Court himself before the week is out.

[cab1ne]

"this is better than watching csi" well best of look caggers and a huge bag of all good things to patma and fred, i really hope you kick some a"""ss

 

cab

[geoff1248]

"Geoff 1248 You ask if Fred has considered making an offer to settle out of court.

 

I'm sorry but Fred would have to be mad in the head not to want this to run its course now, he can get far more out the claimant by permitting them to continue their claim.

Why should Fred offer to settle when he has done nothing wrong and can prove so many of the allegations against him are unfounded or simply vexatious? Fred did however jvery recently offer the claimant the opportunity to withdraw gracefully, they rebuked the offer without so much as a 'no thank you'."

 

So Fred did make some sort of offer to try and bring this to a conclusion. What I cannot get my head around is just what is spurring the College on to continue with this. Each day more evidence is coming out which, as a layman, would indicate that they are going to get slaughtered once this gets to court. Surely they must realise the consequence if they lose.

[natalie]

What I cannot get my head around is just what is spurring the College on to continue with this. Each day more evidence is coming out which, as a layman, would indicate that they are going to get slaughtered once this gets to court. Surely they must realise the consequence if they lose.

 

Arrogance! Look through other threads where legal action has been taken (especially the banks because they are probably the worst for it) The opinion is 'we're a big company/organisation with insurers and solicitors, you're one person.. on your own... without the know-how or experience to stand against us... If you dont do as we say we will bully and threaten you until you do and no one will do or say anything to stop us because .... well because we are who we are'

 

Until CAG... and all of a sudden Joe Bloggs on the street is being empowered with information and support that gives him the know-how and experience of others in his position. With people like TLD and JC who have the legal knowledge so that all of a sudden we are able to comfortably enter the litigation arena without feeling intimidated. The banks are starting to catch on (look how quickly some of them back off now as soon as you ask for a CCA) but the news doesnt seem to have reached this college yet.

[electron99]

Knowledge is power.

 

Having read this thread, I am still not clear what the £2,500 excess claim is all about.

 

I insure my car with £250 excess.This means that I have to pay the first £250 of any claim.

 

The college alledge the repair bill is £968, so would have to pay this themselves as it is a great deal less than £2,500. So why is someone claiming £2,500 as well as the repair costs. Was this money paid out to someone, and if so why?

 

If the £2,500 is not an excess, but a loss of a type of no claims bonus, the college would have a duty to keep costs down, i.e pay the £968 out of their own pocket and pursue Fred for this sum.

 

Good luck to Fred. CAG is fast becoming a major player in consumer rights.