Locked in car park

[Patma]

Is it just me or are there two or three different conversations going on here:confused:

We're just letting off steam about the LD letter that came today, Bedlington.

Don't worry we're just being silly.

[noomill060]

yes, its just a bit of banter.

 

now back on topic.

[Patma]

Ok well on topic, tomorrow will bring a chat with the police legal unit as requested by them, and possibly some response from the court.

[bedlington83]

We're just letting off steam about the LD letter that came today, Bedlington.

Don't worry we're just being silly.

Fair enough, but don't forget there are many of us who are desperate to know what's going on but accept that we can't because it may jeopardise Fred's case.

[Alphageek]

Fair enough, but don't forget there are many of us who are desperate to know what's going on but accept that we can't because it may jeopardise Fred's case.

 

Good things come to those who wait...

[Toulose LeDebt]

Hey Patma.

 

Witness statement part 8 final sentence. Oh dear.

 

Look at the date of the lecturers incident statement then look at the date of the other incident statement and then re-read the final sentence of the second statement. Should it read 'has been identified' or 'will be identified next week' as......

The photo of the sign was taken at the same time as the other photo they sent (door open plywood leaning against frame) . Notice they don't give the game away by showing the new barrier, still Fred already has a copy of other photo which does have the new sign and the new barrier and he has a photo of the old sign and the new barrier just to really make it interesting should there be an issue over this point.

 

(Oh man we're going to have a field day tomorrow when we go through the statement objectively, told you the best thing they could say was 'nothing').

Edited August 17, 2009 by Toulose LeDebt

[Patma]

Fair enough, but don't forget there are many of us who are desperate to know what's going on but accept that we can't because it may jeopardise Fred's case.

You can read the letter which came because it's posted on P69 and the only other thing which arrived today is the LD court bundle which is woefully thin.

Other than that we're waiting for the Police legal unit, who are being very helpful, to finish their investigation.

And we're also waiting for the results of the applications we filed with the court and complaints to the court manager about the conduct of the claimant sent about a fortnight ago. We know they were with the judge on Friday, so it shouldn't be long before we hear something.

[Patma]

Hey Patma.

 

Witness statement part 8 final sentence. Oh dear.

 

Look at the date of the lecturers incident statement then look at the date of the other incident statement and then re-read the final sentence of the second statement. Should it read 'has been identified' or 'will be identified next week' as......

The photo of the sign was taken at the same time as the other photo they sent (door open plywood leaning against frame) . Notice they don't give the game away by showing the new barrier, still Fred already has a copy of other photo which does have the new sign and the new barrier and he has a photo of the old sign and the new barrier just to really make it interesting should there be an issue over this point.

 

Durrr! Foiled again. They just can't help dropping themselves in that stuff BRW keeps going on about can they?

As to the photos...all I can say is "bollards" to them.....that's a clue TLD...(SORRY Bedlington, all will be revealed, promise)

[Patma]

What's the penalty for deliberately making a false witness statement btw?

[Alphageek]

A night out with Katie Price?

[Patma]

False statements

 

32.14

 

(1) Proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against a person if he makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

(Part 22 makes provision for a statement of truth)

 

(2) Proceedings under this rule may be brought only –

(a) by the Attorney General; or

 

(b) with the permission of the court.

Oh dear someone has been digging themselves in deeper.

[StayingCalm]

Have spent the last week reading this amazing thread and have at last got to the end. I wish Fred the best of luck and can not see how he can possible lose with all the help here.

 

 

 

The important part to take from this is that both parties to this subrogated claim are in the position to have reclaimed VAT against their losses. This is not normal as Bedlington hs already highlighted and it means that the amount of VAT being claimed on the POC is not valid and should be removed from the claim.

Either the insurer should have paid the claim gross and then reclaimed the VAT or the insurer should have paid the claim net and the claimant should have reclaimed the VAT.

In the scenario presented to the Court neither the insurer or the claimant is admitting to having reclaimed the VAT against their losses.

I find this situation implausible, one or the other must have reclaimed this VAt and it's just as likely to be the case that both insurer and claimant have reclaimed against the same amount (That paid by US (UK) ltd).

 

 

With regard to the VAT issue it is my understanding that Insurance Companies are unable to reclaim VAT, and this is the reason they always deduct VAT from claims if the Policyholder is registered.

 

Regards

SC

[Annoying Twit]

Is it possible to hear more detail on how PCAD are claiming that Fred admitted criminal damage at an early hearing, when the transcript shows that he didn't?

 

No problems if you don't want to give any more detail just yet.

[Bookworm]

Funny how anything in French sounds far more stylish!

 

I do prefer the Anglo-Saxon "fart" though!

 

Nearly a thousand years since the Norman invasion an Englishman can still fart, rather than errr...péter!

 

*waves defiant cardboard and string longbow across the Pas de Calais*

 

Taisez vous mes enfants!

 

Sorry, Sir.

 

Pssst, Noom, see you in the playground:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bear-garden/215475-fart-p-ter-question.html#post2371811

 

;-)

[Patma]

Have spent the last week reading this amazing thread and have at last got to the end. I wish Fred the best of luck and can not see how he can possible lose with all the help here.

 

Well done for persevering, Staying Calm and thankyou so much for your good wishes:D

 

 

 

 

 

 

With regard to the VAT issue it is my understanding that Insurance Companies are unable to reclaim VAT, and this is the reason they always deduct VAT from claims if the Policyholder is registered.

 

Regards

SC

Thanks for that too. The insurance angle is a bit out of my depth, but we do have it in writing from the insurers that the claimant told them they were not registered, so perhaps that's why.

[Patma]

Is it possible to hear more detail on how PCAD are claiming that Fred admitted criminal damage at an early hearing, when the transcript shows that he didn't?

 

No problems if you don't want to give any more detail just yet.

My guess is that because the caution is pretty much all they have left, they're trying it on.

I've no idea other than that.

They may not have seen a transcript, and be relying on what their representative at the directions hearing has said. All along they've not had any regard for the truth.

[Toulose LeDebt]

I'd like to think that win lose or draw any chance Lyons Davidson ever had of getting costs awarded in this case went flying out the window last friday afternoon.

[Annoying Twit]

My guess is that because the caution is pretty much all they have left, they're trying it on.

I've no idea other than that.

They may not have seen a transcript, and be relying on what their representative at the directions hearing has said. All along they've not had any regard for the truth.

 

From what was written earlier on in the thread, it seemed to me that they were claiming that Fred had made an admission of criminal damage independent of the caution. If this had actually happened, then it would become important evidence for them. And evidence that might survive the caution being struck out. If they were planning on getting such an admission on record, then that could explain why they didn't have the caution in their case from the beginning.

 

Is it possible that they could be thinking along these lines?

 

Step 1: Get Fred to admit, on record, to the existence of a caution.

Step 2: Rely on reasoning that a caution is only given if the offence has been

admitted at the time of the caution.

Step 3: Claim that Steps 1 and 2 add up to an admission in court of criminal damage.

 

I'm no lawyer, and this is just empty reasoning. But if I were involved in the case, I'd go over their new claim, and the transcript it's based on, VERY VERY carefully. And look for any loopholes like the one above which might not be immediately obvious to the unwashed masses, but might be used by a clever and skilled lawyer.

 

I'd like to think that win lose or draw any chance Lyons Davidson ever had of getting costs awarded in this case went flying out the window last friday afternoon.

 

Can you explain your reasoning further?

 

I don't mind at all if you don't want to explain more in a public forum just yet. As I've said before, I'm a very patient person.

Edited August 18, 2009 by Annoying Twit

[Toulose LeDebt]

PCAD incident form 06/03/06

 

'snapping'!! What's that all about?

 

PCAD incident form 06/03/06

 

Contrary to claimants claims in WS part 3 the member of staff simply identifies Fred as the person 'raising' the barrier, there's no mention of Fred damaging it.

 

Witness statement sec 5 - Crikey that's going out on a limb especially when the cctv footage clearly shows it wasn't.

 

Sec 8 Freds photo of the sign in Summer 2009 clearly establishes the chronology of the signs. The unpainted area around the latest sign does not exist on Freds first picture with the new barrier and the 'no parking' sign proving that was taken prior to the claimants picture which I think is a lot more recent than they would have us believe. This puts the witness in a bit of a corner having made that statement in the final sentence.

 

10- Did they really? Thought it was fait accomplit.

 

Will you be scanning and sending over all the evidence they've provided later today Patma? I've looked through what you sent yesterday and there doesn't actually seem to be any proof of damage or evidence the barrier needed repaired or replaced in their bundle. This is odd because I'm sure Fred put them to strict proof of the damage caused right back when he filed his original defence. It appears the only proof they've entered is the say so of an accountant who watched the cctv footage. :confused:

[Patma]

Will you be scanning and sending over all the evidence they've provided later today Patma?

That was it yesterday, TLD.

 

I've got an update for you now.

An order has just arrived from the court and Fred has read it out to me over the phone.

 

"IT IS ORDERED THAT THE CLAIMANT DO REPLY IN WRITING TO THE FOUR APPLICATIONS OF THE DEFENDANT, DATED 6TH AUGUST, ON OR BEFORE 28TH AUGUST 2009.

UPON RECEIPT OF WHICH THE FILE WILL BE REFERRED BACK TO THE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR HIS CONSIDERATION."

 

That's it

[Toulose LeDebt]

 

 

 

Can you explain your reasoning further?

 

I don't mind at all if you don't want to explain more in a public forum just yet. As I've said before, I'm a very patient person.

 

 

It's a CPR thing AT, failure to comply with the overriding principles can cost you dearly.

[Toulose LeDebt]

That was it yesterday, TLD.

 

I've got an update for you now.

An order has just arrived from the court and Fred has read it out to me over the phone.

 

"IT IS ORDERED THAT THE CLAIMANT DO REPLY IN WRITING TO THE FOUR APPLICATIONS OF THE DEFENDANT, DATED 6TH AUGUST, ON OR BEFORE 28TH AUGUST 2009.

UPON RECEIPT OF WHICH THE FILE WILL BE REFERRED BACK TO THE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR HIS CONSIDERATION."

 

That's it

 

 

That is more than enough.:D

[Patma]

Oh good.Fred was a bit puzzled by it and I didn't know what to make of it either.

[Toulose LeDebt]

Oh good.Fred was a bit puzzled by it and I didn't know what to make of it either.

 

It means any hearing in this matter might not be exactly the type of hearing Lyons-Davidson intended. Fred has made certain applications and provided substantial evidence in support of those applications. The claimant is now quite rightly being given a chance to provide their side of the story.

 

Knowing what those applications were and what evidence was filed at Court in support of those apps would you like to be the one who has to try and convince the Judge that Fred is wrong and provide the evidence to prove it????

 

I wouldn't that's for sure, especially when you consider that half the evidence provided the Court in support of Freds apps originated with the claimant as purported evidence of their claim. Which would you go for, dozens of pages of carefully researched evidence including expert testimonial, photographic evidence, documentary evidence, video evidence or the hearsay of an accountant and a stand in member of staff because the head of dept. didn't want his name appearing at the bottom of the paperwork??

Edited August 28, 2009 by Toulose LeDebt

[Patma]

Ok thanks I understand that, but Fred wasn't invited to respond to their app to amend their POC. It was just accepted.

I can see how they're going to struggle to have anything useful to say though.