Locked in car park

[Patma]

Fred thread, I like that:D

Thanks for your support, buxie and glad you've enjoyed the read.

Watch this space cos you aint seen nothin yet;)

[labrat]

Fred thread, I like that:grin:

Thanks for your support, buxie and glad you've enjoyed the read.

Watch this space cos you aint seen nothin yet:wink:

 

 

 

now youve seen nothing

[IdaInFife]

 

superb labrat

[Bookworm]

I prefer mine:

 

[Yorky2008]

Correct...SBK = Superbikes

 

Look forward to the next 'reveal'.....

 

Yorky

[Annoying Twit]

John Grisham movie adaptation coming up on television in a few minutes.

 

The Pelican Brief - Saturday 22 August - Programme Details - Radio Times

[Patma]

Thanks AT. I love Grisham books and movies. I'll go and switch on.

[Toulose LeDebt]

Morning all. Any sign of that letter you were awaiting Patma, the order ("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.") only gives Lyons-Davidson until 28th August to respond in writing and it would be nice if we could cause them intolerable misery by putting one final application in to the Court which His Honour might also like to read alongside whatever fairy story they submit in response to this order whilst 'CONSIDERING'. The content of that letter will be very damning for them in the event it arrives in time for a further application to be made.

Edited August 28, 2009 by Toulose LeDebt

[Patma]

Good morning one and all, including guests

Pm sent TLD

[Toulose LeDebt]

I'll write an application for Fred today Patma based on the document I sent you with the red underlined sentences. Frankly that in itself is enough to see this case struck out for what it is and that's assuming the claimant can furnish the Court with acceptable explanations for all the other 'anomalies' in their case as per the latest order. I have my doubts that there is a satisfactory explanation to any of the issues let alone all of them but let's give them a chance to make representation before we inform the judge about the most recent issue.

[Patma]

I'll write an application for Fred today Patma based on the document I sent you with the red underlined sentences. Frankly that in itself is enough to see this case struck out for what it is and that's assuming the claimant can furnish the Court with acceptable explanations for all the other 'anomalies' in their case as per the latest order. I have my doubts that there is a satisfactory explanation to any of the issues let alone all of them but let's give them a chance to make representation before we inform the judge about the most recent issue.

 

That's brilliant, thanks TLD. Just sent you another pm btw.

The clocks ticking for LD to get their comments in to the court and then after that the hearing is fixed for a week tomorrow. Things should get exciting ........

[natalie]

I think I might apply for a job at LD...... from the looks of it they pay staff to sit on the internet all day... of course chances are they may not be practising anymore once the SRA catch up with them........ maybe the guests should be looking here instead

[Patma]

I think I might apply for a job at LD...... from the looks of it they pay staff to sit on the internet all day... of course chances are they may not be practising anymore once the SRA catch up with them........ maybe the guests should be looking here instead

Very true, Natalie. The college might be shedding some staff too after this.

Not all of the guests are necessarily from LD or PCAD though, as the city council have shown an interest, thanks to TLD'S lengthy communication with his " highly-placed friend" who did ask for the thread link;).

[Toulose LeDebt]

I think I might apply for a job at LD...... from the looks of it they pay staff to sit on the internet all day... of course chances are they may not be practising anymore once the SRA catch up with them........ maybe the guests should be looking here instead

 

That's very helpful of you natalie providing that link. It's not just the SRA that Lyons-Davidson might need to look out for, there's a chance that the matter will be referred to the Attorney General for consideration after what we have discovered recently is put to the Court on top of all the outstanding issues with their case.

Edited August 28, 2009 by Toulose LeDebt

[Patma]

That's very helpful of you natalie providing that link. It's not just the SRA they might need to look out for, there's a chance that the matter will be referred to the Attorney General for consideration after what we have discovered recently is put to the Court on top of all the outstanding issues with their case.

Careful TLD, you'll scare our guests and might put them off their lunch.

[Toulose LeDebt]

A lunch the poor deluded souls at Lyons-Davidson are probably still convinced that Fred will be paying for.....

Edited August 28, 2009 by Toulose LeDebt

[Patma]

A lunch the poor deluded souls are probably still convinced that Fred will be paying for.....

I wouldn't like to be in the shoes of the PCAD person responsible for explaining why they have a bill for thousands of pounds to pay over a little itty bitty car park barrier [problem] which went horribly wrong for them. oops....

 

Just sent you another pm TLD btw

[kiptower]

Oh dear

Explaining where all the money went over this, legal costs etc, by the College

That will be the bit when you complain to the District Auditor regarding the miss appropriation of public funds by the College

[Patma]

Sending over what you asked for right nowTLD

[Toulose LeDebt]

Just received it thanks. EDIT (the pm not the doc)

 

How glad are we that you had the foresight to get a copy of the tape of the 1st July hearing now????

 

Of course if they want to go on and state 'that' in Court that's up to them and just another claim they make which can be easily proven as false simply upon production of the transcript. How contemptuous of them to assume that their particular interpretation of what was admitted and denied at that hearing should be taken as truth? :-x

 

And again how contemptuous to assume that an LIP wouldn't notice?

 

Talk about digging yourselves in deeper, how much further are they going to go ???

 

 

 

(There's a very good chance that the Judge has already felt the need to listen to the tape of that hearing himself anyway so will probably be a little fresher on the subject of what was admitted or denied than LD might want).

[natalie]

[Patma]

It's all sent now TLD:D

How glad are we that you had the foresight to get a copy of the tape of the 1st July hearing now????

 

Of course if they want to go on and state 'that' in Court that's up to them and just another claim they make which can be easily proven as false simply upon production of the transcript. How contemptuous of them to assume that their particular interpretation of what was admitted and denied at that hearing should be taken as truth? :-x

 

And again how contemptuous to assume that an LIP wouldn't notice?

 

Talk about digging yourselves in deeper, how much further are they going to go ???

It's very worrying that a firm of solicitors has such a disregard for the truth. Effectively trying falsely to use the judge as a witness for their side, is a particularly low trick that if I were the judge, Id take exception to.

[Toulose LeDebt]

Seeing it in writing brings home just what scant regard they do have for facts and the truth. Most of that document is just the same recycled garbage, copied and pasted from the previous rehash of it, poor grammar and spelling mistakes included.

 

How ironic that on a document partially entitled 'Chronology' they still struggle to come to terms with the simple concept of telling the time correctly......

 

If an LIP had put their case together there's no way it would have been allowed to progress to this stage, I can only hope that once exposed the repurcussions of their behaviour in bringing these proceedings are proportionately more severe than anything said LIP would have received.

[banker_rhymes_with]

I wouldn't like to be in the shoes of the PCAD person responsible for explaining why they have a bill for thousands of pounds to pay over a little itty bitty car park barrier [problem] which went horribly wrong for them.

I do keep wondering how many times they have tried this type of [problem] on in the past.

 

I somehow doubt that Fred was their first victim, although I do rather suspect he may well be their last.

 

When you get a chance Patma, it may be worth having a little chat with the Student Union, to ask if any other Students have had similar hassles. Probably not a barrier, but something along the same claim for expensive repairs line, pushed hard by an aggressive department/official, backed up by snarling lawyers overly keen to extract an excessive payment.

 

I just have a feeling that other, remarkably similar cases will pop out of the woodwork once you start grubbing around. Indeed, if this hits the media, as seems highly likely, then don't be too surprised if other people come forward to recount similar experiences.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[electron99]

All the evidence being unveiled is very exciting, but don't let Fred loose sight of what he wants to achieve.

Presumably it is to have the caution removed, and the claim for cost of repair to the barrier dropped. I would also be thinking of costs/damages.

 

Have you a contingency plan should LD/the college/Insurance company drop their court claim at the very last moment.