Locked in car park

[My Real Name]

3) A copy of the maintenance and repair manual of the old car park barrier which was replaced between 03/04/2006 and 21/03/2006 in the rear car park.

3) We do not hold these records (over 3 years old) - the company which replaced thedamaged barrier is not now employed by the College and after checking with them theydo not have these records either.

The full provisions of the Freedom of Information Act came into force on 1 January 2005.

 

Not keeping that information would be a booboo in its own right. A letter to the ICO may be in order, and it may be worth noting this as evidence of dissembling.

 

 

5) The rules governing access to car parks on campus, including the full audit trail of changes to these rules since 1.1.06 . This information to include method of access, who was/is allowed access and opening and closing times of the car parks.

5) College car parks (parking) have always been accessed by Staff ONLY - studentshave never been allowed access. The barriers were/are opened/accessed by staffcards, so no student would be able to gain access unless they closely followed astaff member/vehicle through the barrier.

Brian will, of course, be able to provide documentary evidence of this. And evidence of the process used to validate staff cards, read the staff cards, appply for staff cards, renew the staff cards. And how the staff cards were read, what logging procedures were in place, what policy there was surrounding the infrastructure and software needed for such a system.

[Toulose LeDebt]

 

 

Brian will, of course, be able to provide documentary evidence of this. And evidence of the process used to validate staff cards, read the staff cards, appply for staff cards, renew the staff cards. And how the staff cards were read, what logging procedures were in place, what policy there was surrounding the infrastructure and software needed for such a system.

 

 

I'm sure I've just heard a loud choking sound coming from the South West.:grin::grin:

[Patma]

Brian will, of course, be able to provide documentary evidence of this. And evidence of the process used to validate staff cards, read the staff cards, appply for staff cards, renew the staff cards. And how the staff cards were read, what logging procedures were in place, what policy there was surrounding the infrastructure and software needed for such a system.

Yes you're quite right, he will and as a good public servant I'm sure he'll be only to happy to comply when asked.

The full provisions of the Freedom of Information Act came into force on 1 January 2005.

 

Not keeping that information would be a booboo in its own right. A letter to the Information Commissioners Office may be in order, and it may be worth noting this as evidence of dissembling.

Another useful point to note, thankyou My Real Name

[Patma]

I'm sure I've just heard a loud choking sound coming from the South West.:grin::grin:

Yes I heard it too.It nearly deafened me. At first I thought it was thunder, but then I noticed there were words trying to come out.........couldn't quite catch it.....but it sounded very rude.........mucho swearing..... ah who do I know of in Plymouth who swears a lot?

[Helford]

Hi all,

 

TLD -

"Helford. Is it normal practice in your experience for an insurer to scribble out the initial claim value of say £1000 and amend it to say £3000 (on the initial claim form filled in by the person who received the claim initially) when it appears that the payout may become recoverable from a third party please?"

 

Insurers do not always ask for claim forms to be signed initially and they will frequently ask for rough estimates initially. Sometimes they will send a summary of claim to the claimant and ask them to advise if anything material is incorrect. I would not read too much into this manual annotation. Claims frequently increase in magnitude following the initial 'Notification of Loss'. The way that Insurers deal with a loss SHOULD be the same whether there is or is not any chance of a third party recovery.

 

Insurance is a contract of indemnity, that is to say the settlement should put the claimant back into the SAME position that they were prior to the loss. From information that I have seen, I can confirm that the loss was dealt with as a Material Damage (Buildings) claim, not unusual. However have a look at a typical R & SA business policy summary of cover here:-

http://www.rsaconnect.rsagroup.co.uk/shared/ukc01463A_Property_Web.pdf

 

Page 3, Buildings - Even if full reinstatement cover, then the policy will NOT allow betterment.

 

H

[bedlington83]

You may remember a few pages back I mentioned Massimo Dallamano,cowboys, and fistfuls of dollars

Indeed, and there may not be an RIB Dallamano barrier but there is a BFT movie

BFT - MOOVI

[Toulose LeDebt]

Hi all,

 

TLD -

"Helford. Is it normal practice in your experience for an insurer to scribble out the initial claim value of say £1000 and amend it to say £3000 (on the initial claim form filled in by the person who received the claim initially) when it appears that the payout may become recoverable from a third party please?"

 

Insurers do not always ask for claim forms to be signed initially and they will frequently ask for rough estimates initially. Sometimes they will send a summary of claim to the claimant and ask them to advise if anything material is incorrect. I would not read too much into this manual annotation. Claims frequently increase in magnitude following the initial 'Notification of Loss'. The way that Insurers deal with a loss SHOULD be the same whether there is or is not any chance of a third party recovery.

 

Insurance is a contract of indemnity, that is to say the settlement should put the claimant back into the SAME position that they were prior to the loss. From information that I have seen, I can confirm that the loss was dealt with as a Material Damage (Buildings) claim, not unusual. However have a look at a typical R & SA business policy summary of cover here:-

http://www.rsaconnect.rsagroup.co.uk/shared/ukc01463A_Property_Web.pdf

 

Page 3, Buildings - Even if full reinstatement cover, then the policy will NOT allow betterment.

 

H

 

 

Thank you that's very helpful.

 

One other thing puzzles me.

 

If say my car is written off, the insurance company will make an offer based on the value of the vehicle prior to the damage (book value) and the same in my experience applies to everything else which can be insured. A £500 tv is 'in the book' as a £500 tv not a £1500 tv etc. etc.

 

I'm puzzled that upon submission of the claim for £3468, the insurers appear oblivious to the fact that a brand new RIB barrier costs around £1000 exc VAT plus fitting (4 hours tops) and a brand new BFT barrier costs £828 exc VAT plus fitting. Obviously the college being a large public body and the replacement being an insurance job, I would expect a company to charge handsomely for the work but surely to goodness R & SA would have some idea how much a new barrier is, the manufacturer can supply and fit a brand new system themselves for under £2000.

 

Somebody at R & SA appears to have been just a little too happy to authorise a hugely overinflated claim based on the cost of the replacement barrier alone. I'm pretty sure if my Mondeo were written off my insurers would not send me a large enough cheque to enable me to replace it with a Mercedes but here nobody seems to have bothered asking the college why they claimed £3468 for a £1200 barrier.

 

It's also strange how the 'quote' for repair of the 'sheared motor casing' actually came to more than the physical cost of a complete barrier system.

[Toulose LeDebt]

Indeed, and there may not be an RIB Dallamano barrier but there is a BFT movie

BFT - MOOVI

 

 

Love it!!

 

somebody out there is definitely having a laugh at Freds expense (for now).

 

We've got The BFT Movie,Massimo Dallamano, a bunch of cowboys, a fistful of dollars, a celebrity Chef

 

 

and a Top Gear presenter (cryptic)

 

[Patma]

:oops:I'm stuck on the cryptic clue:confused:

I only know Jeremy Clarkson's from Top Gear

[Patma]

I don't understand why PCAD didn't pay the cost of a new barrier out of their own pocket, then bill Fred, take him to court if necessary, in view of the policy excess being greater than the cost of a new barrier?

 

Next question if the claim was for £1500 as originally demanded from Fred, then how could it be normal practice for the insurance company to process the claim if the claim is for half the value of the policy excess?

[Toulose LeDebt]

:oops:I'm stuck on the cryptic clue:confused:

I only know Jeremy Clarkson's from Top Gear

 

 

Another clue.

[foolishgirl]

You've lost me too TLD. Cricket references are bad enough, please don't start any more boy's clues.

[bedlington83]

Do we know how much the insurance claim was for? And how much was paid out?

[Patma]

Another clue.

 

Got it LOL.

That clue was very cryptic;)but it came in "andy"I had to do quite a bit of plodding before I got it though.

No-one else could get the answer if they didn't have inside knowledge, so can I have the prize for guessing right please?:lol:

 

Sorry Foolishgirl, that's it now, just call me Sillygirl

[Patma]

Do we know how much the insurance claim was for? And how much was paid out?

 

We know that £968.60 was paid out and the total amount claimed from Fred was £3468.60 with a £2500 excess

[foolishgirl]

 

No-one else could get the answer if they didn't have inside knowledge, so can I have the prize for guessing right please?:lol:

 

Sorry Foolishgirl, that's it now, just call me Sillygirl

 

OK, private joke. Just let me in on it when you eventually let the cat out of the bag & I'll forgive you both.

[bedlington83]

We know that £968.60 was paid out and the total amount claimed from Fred was £3468.60 with a £2500 excess

That's very interesting. At some point prior to the fateful day that Fred parked in the car park PCAD became VAT registered. Insurance claims to VAT registered entities are paid net of VAT.

 

See section 18 of this document http://owl.pcad.ac.uk/files/documents/corporation/1j.%20%20Finance%20and%20General%20Purpose%20Committee%20Minutes/Finance%20%20General%20Purpose%202006%20-%2014%20February%20Final.pdf

[banker_rhymes_with]

Also, if they are able to recover VAT, then a Claimant should not seek VAT from the Defendant, as far as I understand from CPR.

 

PRACTICE DIRECTION ABOUT COSTS - Ministry of Justice

 

I have not checked to see if they have, but if they have, then that is not allowed if I understand the above CPR correctly.

 

N.B. This may only apply to costs.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Edited July 30, 2009 by banker_rhymes_with
Costs update

[Toulose LeDebt]

Patma.

 

I think we should put the N244 on hold until we see which way the Court goes with their application to enter an amended POC. Whether in the light of what was agreed between all parties before the Court on 1st July the Court sees fit to allow them to amend their claim in this manner or whether the Court picks up that it is just an abuse of process will be a matter of great interest to us. Lets use it to gauge the approacjh of the Court? To file the N244 tomorow will be pre-empting the Court a little, it's not like they will have nothing to think about in the meantime is it?

[Patma]

TLD, I've just got home from going through your most amazing documents with Fred and they are perfect.I'm lost for words and Fred certainly was.

They've been printed out now and will be ready to go when you see fit.

[Patma]

Patma.

 

I think we should put the N244 on hold until we see which way the Court goes with their application to enter an amended POC. Whether in the light of what was agreed between all parties before the Court on 1st July the Court sees fit to allow them to amend their claim in this manner or whether the Court picks up that it is just an abuse of process will be a matter of great interest to us. Lets use it to gauge the approacjh of the Court? To file the N244 tomorow will be pre-empting the Court a little, it's not like they will have nothing to think about in the meantime is it?

You know best. I feel sure your instincts are sound.

Going to send you a pm:D

[Helford]

Patma,

 

You have a pm

 

H

[Toulose LeDebt]

They've been printed out now and will be ready to go when you see fit.

 

Well bearing in mind that you have already been kind enough to try and help the claimant with this potential problem and in return you received not so much as an acknowledgment in fact nothing but a contemptuous attempt to go back on the agreement between parties: I see no reason why Fred should waste any more time attempting to help them avoid trouble on this matter or indeed the issues surrounding the other matters contained therein. I wouldn't bother writing to them again about the new issues either.

 

Tabs 8, 17 and 24 alone are surely going to cripple their claim, the implications are enormous.

I know it's an awful lot of printing but I really think the Chief Superintendent would be well served if you could make a copy available for him at or even prior to the meeting. This will give him much food for thought and much room for manoevre in respect of expunging the caution.

 

In short they had their chance.... Muffed it!!

 

 

I'd get the bundle in asap.

[Patma]

Just clarifying TLD, does the stuff from today go to it's destination tomorrow and then we hold fire on the N244?

[Patma]

I really think the Chief Superintendent would be well served if you could make a copy available for him at or even prior to the meeting. This will give him much food for thought and much room for manoevre in respect of expunging the caution.

Absolutely I agree, will do. The size of the print job is no problem. The SRA too?