Locked in car park

[noomill060]

Someones gonna swing for this one- and it aint fred.

 

*waves at guests*

 

In the words of Marty McFly in Back to the Future-

 

"Better get used to those bars, kid"

[Toulose LeDebt]

I've read your pm and the email you forwarded, TLD and they're great. That email sets out the whole story very well indeed.I can't wait to see what the response is.

I think I might give that hotline we talked about the other day, a call.

Let's see what they have to say.

 

 

Thanks Patma.

 

I've already received a reply, the gentleman has kindly sent through his direct contact details and invited me to have a chat with him tomorrow about the topics raised in that mail as he's busy all day today. That should be a very interesting and revealing conversation I'm sure you will agree.

 

I've CC'ed my reply through to you as you will notice there are three documents attached which I believe that the gentleman in question will find particularly interesting when you look at his Job title and department.:D

Edited August 13, 2009 by Toulose LeDebt

[Toulose LeDebt]

Someones gonna swing for this one- and it aint fred.

 

*waves at guests*

 

 

 

Mark.

 

If you're out there reading this thanks for your fabulous contribution to Freds case it has been shall we say very helpful.:p

 

In return might we offer you some help? Just click here and you're straight in. Good luck!! :D

[cab1ne]

Sorry, this is confuses and possibly leading off on a fruitless tangent

 

Planning permission is not needed for electric barriers/gates.

to bury any cables would require them to dig up the tarmac. the authorities wil not let you just dig a hole in path or roadway as and when you like. "in more detail" the barrier is not subject to planning permission but the work they have to carry out to fit the barrier is.

 

However, building regs is. Building regs inspections and enforcement are the duty of the local authority, but nothing whatsoever to do with planning.thats why it is recorded and sent to health and safety for inspection(wether they carry out any inspection is there call).

 

Furthermore, AIUI, only the lectrical installation is due inspection (under Part P of the regs) and a registered sparks can self-assess. then that assessment has to be passed to who ever is entitled to have it IE: THE COLLEGE.

 

H&S risk assessments are also nothing to do with the Council; they become an HSE matter when/if there is an accident.

 

and this is where there huge amount of public liability comes into the picture.they will have to show that this little barrier and its electrics are of standard to the regulations, inspection reports, and the list goes on.

 

cab

[Patma]

Mark.

 

If you're out there reading this thanks for your fabulous contribution to Freds case it has been shall we say very helpful.:p

 

In return might we offer you some help? Just click here and you're straight in. Good luck!! :D

Mark, I'd just like to add that you're too trusting and need to learn to cross-check what people tell you.

I'm sure you're a lovely person, so don't let people take advantage of your good nature.:D

[Sparklez30]

I'd just like to say I've been reading this thread with interest - its certainly the juciest thing I've read in ages (will also say I often forget to log in when sneaking on at work so some of the "guest" appearances in the day may be me oops ! (having said that the 12:20 guest wasn't me I was out fetching lunch!)

 

I am rooting for you and trust that with all the reams of evidence you have that a good result will come at the end of this! When is it actually due in court? I've lost track over the masses of pages I have read

[Patma]

The court hearing is set for 2nd September. Thanks for your good wishes,Sparklez.

[BSC]

Mark, I'd just like to add that you're too trusting and need to learn to cross-check what people tell you.

I'm sure you're a lovely person, so don't let people take advantage of your good nature.:D

 

:D

[Toulose LeDebt]

Mark, I'd just like to add that you're too trusting and need to learn to cross-check what people tell you.

I'm sure you're a lovely person, so don't let people take advantage of your good nature.:D

 

Kind words Patma very kind words. Sadly it may be too late this time as I'm convinced Fred will need to forward a copy of the latest letter to the Court Manager for filing as further proof of one part of the original complaint against the claimant.

 

Now the strange thing is that the claimant states 'A' the claimants representatives state 'B' yet the answer is actually 'C'.

 

If the claimant claims 'A' in Court then we provide the claimants reps statement that it was not 'A' and if the claimants reps claim 'B' in Court then we provide the claimants statement that it was not 'B'....... Who to believe eh?

 

Can they both be right? Well the simple answer is no.

 

If I were the claimant I'd be sacking my representatives round about now for allowing two contradictory statements to enter evidence.

The claimant will blame the sols and the sols will blame the claimant.

The claimant is disproved by their own sols and the sols are disproved by the claimant not just the once but twice on matters under disclosure....

 

Yojimbo!!

 

Of course there is a third answer before the court: Freds!!!

 

So if the claimant and their own representatives so provably make such a cock of such a simple matter any right thinking Judge will surely have to take Freds claim in the matter seriously and as the only party offering any evidence whatsoever to support their claim one would have to expect such a judge would find it very difficult indeed not to believe him. The weight of evidence offered just makes the thought process a little easier obviously.

Edited August 13, 2009 by Toulose LeDebt

[Patma]

Yojimbo!!

 

Indeed it is, Yojimbo at work and how!:D:D

[Toulose LeDebt]

Patma did the latest disclosure carry a statement of truth?

[Patma]

Patma did the latest disclosure carry a statement of truth?

 

No it didn't contain the requested statement of truth.

Very naughty of him.

[Toulose LeDebt]

No it didn't contain the requested statement of truth.

Very naughty of him.

 

Procedure for standard disclosure

 

31.10

 

(1) The procedure for standard disclosure is as follows.

 

(2) Each party must make and serve on every other party, a list of documents in the relevant practice form. Fail

 

 

(3) The list must identify the documents in a convenient order and manner and as concisely as possible. Fail

 

 

(4) The list must indicate –

(a) those documents in respect of which the party claims a right or duty to withhold inspection; and Fail

 

(b)

(i) those documents which are no longer in the party’s control; Fail and

 

(ii) what has happened to those documents. Fail

 

 

(Rule 31.19 (3) and (4) require a statement in the list of documents relating to any documents inspection of which a person claims he has a right or duty to withhold)

 

(5) The list must include a disclosure statement. Fail

 

(6) A disclosure statement is a statement made by the party disclosing the documents –

(a) setting out the extent of the search that has been made to locate documents which he is required to disclose; Fail

 

(b) certifying that he understands the duty to disclose documents; Fail and

 

© certifying that to the best of his knowledge he has carried out that duty. Fail

 

 

(7) Where the party making the disclosure statement is a company, firm, association or other organisation, the statement must also –

(a) identify the person making the statement; Yes and

 

(b) explain why he is considered an appropriate person to make the statement. Paralegal

 

 

(8) The parties may agree in writing –

(a) to disclose documents without making a list; Nope this was never agreed and

 

(b) to disclose documents without the disclosing party making a disclosure statement. Again this was never agreed

 

 

 

(9) A disclosure statement may be made by a person who is not a party where this is permitted by a relevant practice direction.

 

 

 

Disclosure statement

 

I, the above named claimant [or defendant] [if party making disclosure is a company, firm or other organisation identify here who the person making the disclosure statement is and why he is the appropriate person to make it] state that I have carried out a reasonable and proportionate search to locate all the documents which I am required to disclose under the order made by the court on day of . I did not search:

(1) for documents predating ..........,

 

(2) for documents located elsewhere than ..........,

 

(3) for documents in categories other than ...........

 

(4) for electronic documents

I carried out a search for electronic documents contained on or created by the following:

 

I did not search for the following:

(1) documents created before..........,

 

(2) documents contained on or created by the Claimant's/Defendant's PCs/portable data storage media/databases/servers/back-up tapes/off-site storage/mobile phones/laptops/notebooks/handheld devices/PDA devices (delete as appropriate),

 

(3) documents contained on or created by the Claimant's/Defendant's mail files/document files/calendar files/spreadsheet files/graphic and presentation files/web-based applications (delete as appropriate),

 

(4) documents other than by reference to the following keyword(s)/concepts.......... (delete if your search was not confined to specific keywords or concepts).

 

 

 

I certify that I understand the duty of disclosure and to the best of my knowledge I have carried out that duty. I certify that the list above is a complete list of all documents which are or have been in my control and which I am obliged under the said order to disclose

Edited August 13, 2009 by Toulose LeDebt

[foolishgirl]

Now the strange thing is that the claimant states 'A' the claimants representatives state 'B' yet the answer is actually 'C'.

 

If the claimant claims 'A' in Court then we provide the claimants reps statement that it was 'B' and vice versa. Who to believe eh?

 

Can they both be right? Well the simple answer is no....

 

Of course there is a third answer before the court: Freds!!!

 

 

 

Puts me in mind of Suetonius's current signature:

 

“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”*

 

*Arthur Conan Doyle, Sr (writer and creator of Sherlock Holmes)

 

Might be worth quoting to the judge

[Patma]

It's all very damning , but true as TLD has shown, that's exactly the state of play.

 

“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”*

 

*Arthur Conan Doyle, Sr (writer and creator of Sherlock Holmes)

I like that Foolish Girl!

[Toulose LeDebt]

Puts me in mind of Suetonius's current signature:

 

“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”*

 

*Arthur Conan Doyle, Sr (writer and creator of Sherlock Holmes)

 

Might be worth quoting to the judge

 

 

Exactly. The Court now has three options of which only one can be true, if you can't prove the one as being true but can prove the other two as being false then the end result is the same. Simple Boolean Logic.

if { a = true

b = false

c = false

} gotoAndPlay ();

else if { a = false

b = true

c = false

} gotoAndPlay ();

else if { a = false

b = false

c = true

} gotoAndPlay("Fred wins");

else stop();

 

The above programme would stop dead if the condition that only one out of 'a' 'b' and 'c' could be true was not met.

 

 

Do like the idea of Fred going all dramatical on them I expect the Judge will appreciate a good Conan Doyle quote.

Edited August 13, 2009 by Toulose LeDebt

[Alphageek]

Someones gonna swing for this one- and it aint fred.

 

[noomill060]

*waves at guest*

 

fun this, isnt it?

[wobbly]

Hi Patdavies,

Part P only applies to domestic instalations.However instalation and test certificates should be given to customer and a copy retained by installers ,councils usually insist on membership of ECA or NECA or similar could be worth checking if the defunct outfit was registered with them.

[wheresmyhairgone]

I would of thought that the defunct outfit subbed the job out to another company/person. This is not uncommon for company`s with the original council contract.

 

scenario:

 

3000 council houses damaged by floods 2008

 

company that's gets original contract for electrical rewires or new kitchens ect. quotes £2500 per house. They don`t actually have any employees ( but they do own a very nice villa and do happen to know a friendly face in the council)

 

They then sub the job out to another company for £2000 per house

 

They then sub it out to another company £1500 per house

 

and so on until the company that actually does the job for £900 per house is forced to do a sub-standard job because the profit margins are tight

 

 

 

N.B I am not suggesting that that is what has happened in this case and any persons or places in my story are purely fictitious.

[geoff1248]

I cannot help but think that we are trying to get just about everyone in the area as a point of blame for all this. There is a great danger that we will loose track of just what is trying to be achieved in this thread. Read the very first post from Patma. Let's just make sure that Fred is the one who is cleared before we get too sidetracked. The fact that there may have been a VAT infringement or that maybe Building Regs. had been avoided isn't really going to help Fred get cleared. Interesting, certainly, but please can we make sure that the main points of this case are well and truly tied down in Freds favour.

[wheresmyhairgone]

I cannot help but think that we are trying to get just about everyone in the area as a point of blame for all this. There is a great danger that we will loose track of just what is trying to be achieved in this thread. Read the very first post from Patma. Let's just make sure that Fred is the one who is cleared before we get too sidetracked. The fact that there may have been a VAT infringement or that maybe Building Regs. had been avoided isn't really going to help Fred get cleared. Interesting, certainly, but please can we make sure that the main points of this case are well and truly tied down in Freds favour.

 

 

Very true and i,m pretty sure Patma and Co. are doing this behind the scences.

 

This is just some exchange of views while we await the next instament of this intriguing story.

[Toulose LeDebt]

Deleted - voluntarily mind you not cagbotted.

Edited August 14, 2009 by Toulose LeDebt

[Toulose LeDebt]

881184803

[foolishgirl]

Have you started writing in secret code now TLD or is a phone number we are supposed to inundate?