Locked in car park

[Alphageek]

Now now alphageek, are you suggesting that the college would have the audacity to get the students to foot their bill. As if.

[Patma]

It makes no sense whatsoever does it, this cost thing?

I wonder if the PCAD principal and other members of the governing body know about this waste of the college's money and the loss to it's reputation?

It's easy for us who are seeing the dark side of the college to tar all of them with the same brush, but I've discovered they're not all in on this and can be very helpful. I'll say no more on that for now.

[Toulose LeDebt]

I've discovered they're not all in on this and can be very helpful. I'll say no more on that for now.

 

Oooohhh!!! You're such a tease.......

 

[emails back in order there Patma something very strange has been going on on the telecomms front recently, your emails have just started being snagged by my servers spam client ].

[royboy68]

Oooohhh!!! You're such a tease.......

 

[emails back in order there Patma something very strange has been going on on the telecomms front recently, your emails have just started being snagged by my servers spam client ].

 

Could be the server has spotted an unusual amount of mail from one source and is warning you it could be spam. I take it you have put an authorisation on Patmas address now.

[Annoying Twit]

Re: Costs that might accrue to PCAD

 

But surely PCAD was paying a flat fee of £80 for its representation by LD, wasn't it?

innocent>

[pebsham]

Standard "no win no fee" agreements invariably contain "get out" clauses whereby the solicitors can charge their clients the full costs of a case if they mis-represent or aren't entirely truthful when they commission them. I wouldn't for one minute suggest that PCAD have behaved in this manner. I firmly believe they are honourable people that uphold high moral beliefs necessary when educating people.

 

"Will passengers for the 1.15 Pig from Gatwick to FAAC please make their way to Gate 3. "

[Toulose LeDebt]

Re: Costs that might accrue to PCAD

 

But surely PCAD was paying a flat fee of £80 for its representation by Lyons-Davidson, wasn't it?

innocent>

 

 

 

Well originally yes. But from the now rather large bundle of documentation available to both parties there have emerged some rather startling findings.

 

Fred shall of course be making full use of as many of these new discoveries as possible in his defence and it is notable that certain documents which have been disclosed to Fred under pre action protocols do not form any part of the claimants final bundle (although obviously any such helpful documents have been included in Freds).

 

Now is there not something odd in my stating that documentary evidence which was originally offered in suppport of the claimant has now been withdrawn by the claimant and is being used by the defendant?

 

There is going to be an applications hearing prior to the small claims hearing and the claimants rep is going to discover then if not before that the claimant has not been exactly honest with their representatives at all times. I'm not absolving Lyons-Davidson from all blam e on the matter by any means as there are matters of concern which provably fall at the feet of Lyons-Davidson employees but the root of the problem has been the originating source of information: PCAD.

 

PCAD have failed spectacularly in providing evidence of damage to the barrier, the final bundle does not contain any tangible proof that any damage was caused. There was 'proof' but Fred raised concerns about its provenance and the claimant has seen fit not to enter it. The 'quote' and the 'explanation' which were provided at an earlier stage as 'proof' of the damage have both failed to make the final bundle of the claimants.

This is surely rather odd because for years PCAD were happy to whip out these documents provided by US(UK)ltd as proof to Fred that 'the barrier mechanism was damaged', 'the motor casing was sheared' and 'the motor and drive linkage were broken'.

Now when push comes to shove and these documents are subject to scrutiny in a seperate hearing before the Judge they have been miraculously 'disappeared' by the claimant.

One has to ask why in a simple small claims case concerning a claim for criminal damage would the claimant choose to withold all the evidence that any damage was incurred?

I think we all know the answer to that question, it's to do with the dates of the documents.

Then theres the controversy over the barrier make. In the red corner wearing the Union Jack trunks and representing justice there's Fred weighing in with several dozen pages of evidence including expert engineer analysis, manufactuers statements and numerous pages of documentary and photographic evidence all pointing to the old barrier being a FAAC.

In the black corner wearing the black shorts and in it for themselves there's Lyons-Davidson representing PCAD who weigh in with a paltry one line of an email written by somebody deputising for the true recipient of the request claiming the barrier to be a make and model that does not exist nor ever has.

(A one line email that the claimants representative misinterpreted and thus misrepresented under disclosure might I add).

Of course they could just pull out the records of the barriers but we also all know that every trace of these barriers has been eradicated from the PCAD books despite Mr Dexter himself stating that they existed as recently as July 2009.

There's a problem with the VAT registration too, when queried Lyons-Davidson will have approached their clients seeking confirmation of their status at the time. Again the answer they were given by PCAD does not exactly match the answer that we have documented in the bundle.

And then at the hearing the representative will be faced with one very ugly surprise, possibly two very ugly surprises if my last message to Patma is implemented. These are the kind of surprises which barrister or not the claimants rep will have some not inconsiderable difficulty circumventing and thus proceeding onto the small claims hearing.

 

What I'm saying is that any half decent firm of solictors would be walking out of Court next week straight into their clients office and demanding to know why they weren't told 'this', they weren't told 'that', this fact was witheld, they were told 'this' was true etc. etc.

 

Client/representative honesty is of paramount importance when litigating, LD are shortly to find out just exactly how honest PCAD have been with them let alone how honest they've been towards Fred.

 

And I think any conditional fee agreement that was drawn up between the claimant and their reps way back when will be ripped into a 1000 pieces within minutes of their representative leaving Court. The case which the sols agreed to litigate on behalf of their client was based upon certain facts being true and ideallly provable although this doesn't seem to be particularly high on anyone elses agenda but the case which will be heard in Court is going to be something very different indeed and if the judge finds in favour of Fred at either hearing this can only be because he believes the PCAD evidence to be unmeritorious and that's where Lyons-Davidson are going to return to the conditional fee arrangement and start looking for breaches by PCAD.

 

I am in no doubt whatsoever that if the clock could be rewound and Lyons-Davidson could assess the case based on what evidence is before all parties and the Court as of today there is no way whatsoever they would advise litigation and even if the claimant persisted I am positive it would have to be on a fee paid up front status which when you look at the five figure fees run up by Lyons-Davidson would also just as surely make this case a non starter.

 

This appears more and more to be not a claim over a car park barrier but the desperate attempt of somebody to cling on to their job. (2 jobs actually).

 

We dont know what advice has been given to the claimant by Lyons-Davidson, but we can guess that in the event Lyons-Davidson were to find out that their advice had been given or refused on the strength of unmeritorious 'evidence' and 'facts' that there will be a clause in whatever agreement giving them recourse to pursue their fees.

 

If PCAD tell their representatives for two years that something is blue and the sols advise litigating on this basis , and then on the day of the hearing the sols discover it isn't blue and never was but it's actually red then who do you think they will be looking at to meet all those wasted costs?

 

Not the defendant that's for sure because he said it was red all along.

Edited August 28, 2009 by Toulose LeDebt

[Patma]

You've got an email from me TLD....HOPE IT LANDS IN THE RIGHT PLACE.

[Patma]

Oooohhh!!! You're such a tease.......

 

[emails back in order there Patma something very strange has been going on on the telecomms front recently, your emails have just started being snagged by my servers spam client ].

I sent you the relevant emails on this mystery. Hope you got them, TLD.

Edited August 27, 2009 by Patma
Clarification

[Patma]

TLD VERY IMPORTANT EMAIL SENT:confused:

[Toulose LeDebt]

Don't look so glum Patma.

 

It is apparent from the speed with which it was dealt with by the Judge and the content that the Judge is fully aware of the serious implications of proceeding without that issue being addressed first. It is after all a point upon which not only will the case be won by Fred but upon which the claimants part in proceedings will likely be declared vexatious. The ramifications of entering hearing without a definitive answer to that particular issue now that it is before the court are too great for anything other than this order to be made.

 

Of course should the head of D&C legal services and the chief constable confirm the issue then this will leave PCAD and Lyons-Davidson dangling by a completely non existant thread should Fred ever see fit to lodge that letter with the red underlining in his bundle.

 

Whoops silly me he already has hasn't he?

 

Can you honestly now see any way in which the contents of that letter might be explained away by the claimant? I certainly can't!!

 

It serves as indisputable proof that nearly six months before they even commenced the claim the claimant and their representative were aware of that fact, it can not have been put down on paper much more plainly than it was and I notice that LD have charged quite an extraordinary amount of money for dealing with that letter so they can hardly claim not to have received it!!

 

This latest order just increases Freds chances by the missing one percent and leaves the claimant open to a wholly indefensible counterclaim and possibly further compensatory actions.

 

Lyons-Davidson will not be happy at all with this.

Edited August 28, 2009 by Toulose LeDebt

[Toulose LeDebt]

BTW Lyons-Davidson will have received a copy of the application and order by now as well so they will know exactly what the issue is.

 

I can't therefore see any harm being done to Freds case in letting the Caggers in on Freds little secret purely for the purposes of seeking legal advice and comment you understand seeing as both parties and the Court are now aware of its existence.:eek:

Edited August 28, 2009 by Toulose LeDebt

[banker_rhymes_with]

LD will not be happy at all with this.

Excellent.

 

Does this mean the coffee from the vending machines will be going up in price next term?

But don't, whatever you do, pull the plastic cup out too fast, or they'll get you on CCTV, then they'll wait six Months, then they'll edit the CCTV footage to suggest malicious and aggressive plastic coffee cup extraction caused wanton damage to a cast iron mechanism deep within the machine, then they'll call the Police, then they'll send you a bill for repairs to the old machine, followed by a bill for a new machine bought before they received the quote for repairing the old one.

 

But don't let me put you off the PCAD coffee.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[Bookworm]

Oooooh, now WHO's being the tease?

[Toulose LeDebt]

Oooooh, now WHO's being the tease?

 

 

sorry about that Bookie. I really don't see any problem whatsoever with the 'surprise' being divulged on here for legal comment and advice now that the claimants representatives will have been made aware that it exists and what the surprise actually is.

 

Mind you I do use the word surprise loosely when referring to Lyons-Davidson and PCAd because it's not actually a surprise to them at all. We can prove they were fully aware in 2008 but just chose to disregard it. The surprise is more a matter of them finding out not only that we know it but that they were foolish enough to provide the defendant and thus the Judge with strong evidence to prove that they knew it before they started these proceedings.

 

 

Patma has had to go out for a short while, I really do think the priviledge of being able to tell the thread followers what Freds little surprise is should be given to Patma who has been a Trojan for Fred at all times.

 

I will tell you now that this discovery we made late last wednesday evening is not only the 'casebuster' I thought at the time but will in itself provide the answer to the single most frequently asked and perplexing question surrounding this case, a question asked repeatedly from more than seventy pages back in this thread.

 

It's quite a revelation hopefully Patma will be home soon and can tell us all about it.:lol:

Edited August 28, 2009 by Toulose LeDebt

[Bookworm]

The question presumably being: WHY on Earth did they ever start pursuing Fred in the first place?

[Toulose LeDebt]

The question presumably being: WHY on Earth did they ever start pursuing Fred in the first place?

 

Nope sorry that's one question which will remain not only unanswered but right at the front of everyones mind when you hear the 'surprise'.

[geoff1248]

What would be the repercussions if LD were to now withdraw from the case in light of the mounting evidence?

[banker_rhymes_with]

The question presumably being: WHY on Earth did they ever start pursuing Fred in the first place?

Come on baggy, get with the beat (Jungle Book)!

 

They just wanted a new £1,200 Barrier with a fat 100%++ margin added on top for good measure (split how many ways?), paid for by the first sucker they could line up to take the fall!

 

Unfortunately, they chose Fred. Who wasn't quite the sucker they thought.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[Toulose LeDebt]

What would be the repercussions if LD were to now withdraw from the case in light of the mounting evidence?

Fred would contest the notice of discontinuance and apply for defult judgment and counterclaim.

 

 

My current assessment of the situation is that the Judge would possibly be quite amenable to any such action by Fred.

There will of course also be a massive wasted costs application to reflect the amount of time this malicious action has been perpetrated against Fred.

 

I would also recommend Fred starting litigation against the claimant, possibly under something nice and easy to win like the handling of the CCTV footage and the DPA 1998. There are provable damages and Banker_Rhymes_With is just the sort of person Fred is lucky to have on his side in the matter for BRW just happens to know exactly what Fred might achieve from such a simple action and I'm sure would be happy to point Fred in the direction of the relevant case law for such a compensation claim.

 

There are several other causes of action identifiable which are open to Fred as a result of the claimants behaviour. It is likely to get very messy and very expensive for the claimant in the not too distant future.

Edited August 27, 2009 by Toulose LeDebt

[Annoying Twit]

Now is there not something odd in my stating that documentary evidence which was originally offered in suppport of the claimant has now been withdrawn by the claimant and is being used by the defendant?

 

I think this is both odd and rather telling.

 

What I'm saying is that any half decent firm of solictors would be walking out of Court next week straight into their clients office and demanding to know why they weren't told 'this', they weren't told 'that', this fact was witheld, they were told 'this' was true etc. etc.

 

A number of people have said they'd really like to be at the hearing. If it wasn't difficult, I would too. But if I could choose just one place to be the fly on the walol, it would be at the first meeting between LD and PCAD post hearing!

[elsinore]

Good morning, guest!

 

Els

Edited August 27, 2009 by elsinore

[ScarletPimpernel]

A public officer, acting as such, who wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder, without reasonable excuse or justification, may have committed an offence of malfeasance in public office.

 

PCAD's staff are public officers, aren't they?

[Bookworm]

Come on baggy, get with the beat (Jungle Book)!

 

Who you calling baggy, banky?

[Toulose LeDebt]

A public officer, acting as such, who wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder, without reasonable excuse or justification, may have committed an offence of malfeasance in public office.

 

PCAD's staff are public officers, aren't they?

 

'He's got a little list,

And they’ll none of ‘em be missed...'