Locked in car park

[geoff1248]

TLD so are you saying that LD could just walk away, claim their expenses from PCAD (due to misinformation et al) get on with their lives and forget the whole event. So everything would fall in PCADs lap & LD carry on as if nothing had happened.

[Annoying Twit]

TLD so are you saying that LD could just walk away, claim their expenses from PCAD (due to misinformation et al) get on with their lives and forget the whole event. So everything would fall in PCADs lap & LD carry on as if nothing had happened.

 

Assuming that Fred wins the case (I'm getting carried away in the victorious spirit too, but counting chickens before hatched and all that), then I think that arguments between PCAD and LD could get very complicated. Who was misinformed? Did one side continue ratcheting up costs after it should have been clear what the situation is? All sorts of questions.

[Toulose LeDebt]

TLD so are you saying that LD could just walk away, claim their expenses from PCAD (due to misinformation et al) get on with their lives and forget the whole event. So everything would fall in PCADs lap & LD carry on as if nothing had happened.

 

 

Without being a party to the actual contract signed I cannot confirm or deny this. There may be an insurance policy in place but it is only a simple small claims case whoever could have anticipated legal costs of £10,500 plus??

 

Lyons-Davidson have incurred vast costs prosecuting this case and they are just beginning to find out that the facts of the case are rather different to what they were told by PCAD. See what you think once Patma has told us last weeks revelation and then think how you might feel if you were a firm of solicitors and had raccked up a five figure sum in costs.;-)

 

They even have special laws to make sure sols get paid you know.

 

But in short: Yes.

Edited August 28, 2009 by Toulose LeDebt

[Toulose LeDebt]

Did one side continue ratcheting up costs after it should have been clear what the situation is?

 

 

I think so AT, I really feel that somebody passed the point of no return some while ago. Maybe had Lyons Davidson conducted an in depth assesment of the case at a very early stage to include an assessment of evidence available to the claimant this would have been of benefit to all parties?

They didn't and appear to have been fed tidbits of information and evidence as the case has progressed, often taking the word of the supplier as provenance with no cross checking of facts being attempted other than with the simple police caution.

[electron99]

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

 

It could be that right at the start, the claimants,their solicitors,the judge,and insurance company, seeing Fred was a LIP, decided he was a rank amateur,easy meat and they could all ride rough shod over him and his rights.

 

..... and then over the horizon came CAG and a number of very knowledgeable members to the rescue.

[Annoying Twit]

It could be that right at the start, the claimants,their solicitors,the judge,and insurance company, seeing Fred was a LIP, decided he was a rank amateur,easy meat and they could all ride rough shod over him and his rights.

 

That's my belief.

[Toulose LeDebt]

It could be that right at the start, the claimants,their solicitors,the judge,and insurance company, seeing Fred was a LIP, decided he was a rank amateur,easy meat and they could all ride rough shod over him and his rights.

 

I concur and the latest letter from the claimant which has to be read to be believed will confirm this. Initially they had everything their own way but with a little help Fred has managed to even things out a bit.

The letter was sent in response to a Court order, it fails to address the issues but concentrates heavily on them crying 'foul' and 'unfair'!

 

 

Fortunately the Judge has seen right through this and ordered the hearing they so clearly did not want.

[Annushka]

TLD your inbox is full so you can't receive messages from undercover agents.;-)

 

But all I wanted to say is that I've called mum to get her to hurry up and get back on the forum and put these good people out of the misery of waiting.

[Patma]

BTW LD 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:

Ok TLD I agree completely and here's the secret.........THERE IS NO CAUTION

I'll leave the explanations to you TLD as you're the one best fitted to do it.!:D:D

[Patma]

Wow 6 guests what an honour! Greetings one and all:D

[Patma]

Oh dear sorry everyone, it seems TLD has gone doing spring cleaning and we'll have to wait a tad longer for the juicy details.

They're worth waiting for though, I promise you.

[Patma]

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?

YES THEY CERTAINLY ARE.

Is that a civil or a criminal offence?

[Patma]

Do you think if we all shout TLD will hear us?

[Annoying Twit]

Now, this is what I call an interesting twist to the story.

[Patma]

It worked he's back:D Caggers have got good lungs

[ScarletPimpernel]

YES THEY CERTAINLY ARE.

Is that a civil or a criminal offence?

 

Criminal.

[ScarletPimpernel]

'He's got a little list,

And they’ll none of ‘em be missed...'

 

Well, they asked for it:

 

'They never will desist...'

[Toulose LeDebt]

Yes it has been confirmed by Devon and Cornwall Constabulary that there is no record of the caution on any paperwork or any computer files including the PNC. The caution does not exist and has never existed. That's why it could not be expunged because in order for it to be overturned it would have had to exist in the first place.

 

Now in a further twist to this quite shocking find we can also tell you that after 11 months of dialogue between the claimants representatives and the Force Legal Advisor the final word on the matter from D&C police to the claimant was that no records exist of this caution, on paper or on computer records and no caution has been registered under the Crime Reference Number supplied by the college.

 

Lyons-Davidson were told point blank by the Police in December 2008 that THE CAUTION DOES NOT EXIST!!!

 

Four months LATER they commenced proceedings against Fred in the County Court.

 

Of course at that time this rather disturbing gaping hole in their case was fresh so they were clever and chose not to mention it in the proceedings.

 

Fast forward a few months and enter the barrister who of course has not actually read the final letter from the police.

 

'Oh a caution she says we'll have that in the case then'.

 

So they applied for the caution to be amended to the particulars of claim.

 

And they actually chose to rest their case upon this caution.

 

 

Now can anyone see why we might be quite confident of Freds chances of success when Lyons-Davidson have rested their case on something which does not exist, has never existed and can be proven to have actually been made up by the claimant??

 

 

Where does this leave Lyons-Davidson now especially when they were told quite clearly by the police back in december2008 that:

 

The caution does not exist????

Edited August 28, 2009 by Toulose LeDebt
typos

[Patma]

There you have it one and all.

The unvarnished truth:D

[Patma]

Do you want to tell them about the stay TLD?

[geoff1248]

This is one of those occasions that the word "WOW" just doesn't cover it.

[Patma]

It doesn't look good for the claimants and LD when they were the only ones who knew this and chose to pursue the alleged caution in their case and hope to get away with it does it?

[Toulose LeDebt]

Do you want to tell them about the stay TLD?

 

 

Sure.

 

An order was received from the Court today ordering a 2 month stay on proceedings in order that this rather shocking revelation can be confirmed beyond doubt.

 

Of course if it is confirmed then the claimant has no case.

If the caution does bizarrely turn up from wherever its hiding in LALALand it will then be expunged so ditto no case.

 

There is then the issue of them proceeding whilst of the knowledge that no records exist of such caution to be dealt with.

 

Also due to be heard at the November hearing are the CPR 32.14 issues and CPR 31.23 issues which have been raised against the claimant.

 

Then the other outstanding appliications made by Fred.

 

Anything left will be dealt with at the small claims hearing itself.

 

I think AT has made a good call by opting to be a fly on the wall at the meeting between LD and PCAD.:grin:

[cab1ne]

in the words of bill hailey and his comets

 

"WHERE GONNA ROCK AROUND THE CLOCK TONIGHT" SO GET YOUR GLAD RAGS ON

 

CAB

[Patma]

I would like to add that it was TLD who realised the true significance of what LD had unwittingly revealed in their court bundle, so it's thanks to him that this information has come to light and has been put to good use.

At the meeting I attended with Fred last week with the senior legal adviser for Devon and Cornwall Police, it was confirmed that to date they can find no evidence of a caution.

There is now an investigation under way, because even if, by some miracle they found one, it has been acknowledged in writing, by the very same legal adviser that there are good grounds to overturn the alleged caution if it existed.