Locked in car park

[royboy68]

What wonderful news for Fred. Makes you wonder where this so called caution came from. To include a reference number as well is incredulous. Maybe it was contrived in one of those secret rooms, you know which i mean (square and protractor spring to mind)

[Toulose LeDebt]

 

Oh and the biggest round of applause to LD and PCAD who between them have made the biggest balls up I have ever had the pleasure of reading all these weeks

 

Hear, hear.

 

Now maybe people might better understand why we've been discussing the issue of costs in the quiet moments recently and perhaps alluding to the fact that it might ultimately be the claimant who ends up footing a rather large bill.

[Toulose LeDebt]

What wonderful news for Fred. Makes you wonder where this so called caution came from. To include a reference number as well is incredulous. Maybe it was contrived in one of those secret rooms, you know which i mean (square and protractor spring to mind)

 

 

Oh the crime reference number is real, that's the number George was given by the police when he reported the crime just two weeks after he promised Fred he had four weeks in which to cough up before he would tell the police.

 

But it's just an 'incident reference number', since there was no crime recorded against it. Anyone can get a 'crime reference number' simply by telephoning the police and reporting a crime, that's not to say it is proof that the crime ever existed or that anything was ever done about it.

[Annoying Twit]

Edit: Oops! I must read to the end of the thread before asking a question. Particularly embarrassing when the question is answered in the post before this one!

Edited August 27, 2009 by Annoying Twit

[Conniff]

To say the Plymouth City Council members I've spoken too were shocked to learn what has happened is a crass understatement

 

That could be just a political reply. When a news man asks a politician about the latest report of so and so, they always reply "I haven't read that report yet" just so they don't have to explain.

[emzy72]

It has took me most of the day to read all of this & I will admit most of the jargon did go over my head. All the work that everybody has put in is phenomenal even to the point I have been talking to the pc most of the day with comments (of unbelievable & an awful lot of explanative) well done to you all its just a shame it has been set back another 2 months as don’t think I can wait that long to find out what happens toLyons-Davidson and Royal Sun Alliance well done again :D

Edited August 29, 2009 by emzy72

[royboy68]

Oh the crime reference number is real, that's the number George was given by the police when he reported the crime just two weeks after he promised Fred he had four weeks in which to cough up before he would tell the police.

 

But it's just an 'incident reference number', since there was no crime recorded against it. Anyone can get a 'crime reference number' simply by telephoning the police and reporting a crime, that's not to say it is proof that the crime ever existed or that anything was ever done about it.

 

Thanks for that TLD. Surely WHEN Fred wins then all reference of him having even been spoken to by the police about this incident should be removed and that includes this reference number which is in my opinion just a complaint which has not been proven.

[Toulose LeDebt]

Thanks for that TLD. Surely WHEN Fred wins then all reference of him having even been spoken to by the police about this incident should be removed and that includes this reference number which is in my opinion just a complaint which has not been proven.

 

Funnily enough every trace of it has already has been removed from police records. Lyons-Davidson were told this last year and for some time this year the police have wasted many hours searching for something which was scrubbed from their systems several years ago. The only documents bearing the word 'caution' are on Lyons-Davidson headed paper and those submitted in response by Fred. The crime ref no. exists only as a photocopy in the Court bundle provided by PCAD.

 

Not that we would but if we were to accuse the college of faking the whole scenario Crime reference number and all they would have a hell of a job proving to the contrary because the only place any of this (now appears to have) ever existed is in their possession, the police have nothing to confirm any of their claims and thus nothing to disprove any claim we might make of skullduggery!!

 

Obviously the burden of proof is on the claimant, I suggest they will struggle when asked to prove the 'caution' exists which of course will be brought up at the applications hearing prior to the small claims hearing.

Edited August 28, 2009 by Toulose LeDebt

[Patma]

Now the strange thing natalie is that PCAD appear not to have gone through the local authority legal dept as you might expect but have conducted these proceedings more as very much a one man crusade against Fred.

It must be slowly dawning on them that they've been set up by their insurers to make this claim, handed the insurers rather expensive solicitors to represent them then placed out into the line of fire whilst the co-claimant or should that be 'real' claimant retreats to a safe distance.

 

I don't think for one moment that the local authority legal advisers would have sanctioned these proceedings but they were until quite recently completely unaware of their existence. To say the Plymouth City Council members I've spoken too were shocked to learn what has happened is a crass understatement.

 

I think that was a good point you made there TLD about the insurer's involvement as they've lurked very much in the background throughout all this.

It wasn't until the list of LD's costs was revealed that it became apparent there has been a certain amount of communication between LD and the insurer's over this matter and it was only through the judge that the subrogation word was used. As to who's been pulling who's strings I wouldn't like to say.

I know that LD have got a large department which deals purely with subrogated claims.This info was dug up by our undercover agent, Annushka:D

[Toulose LeDebt]

 

 

 

 

I think that was a good point you made there TLD about the insurer's involvement as they've lurked very much in the background throughout all this.

It wasn't until the list of LD's costs was revealed that it became apparent there has been a certain amount of communication between Lyons-Davidson and the insurer's over this matter and it was only through the judge that the subrogation word was used. As to who's been pulling who's strings I wouldn't like to say.

I know that LD have got a large department which deals purely with subrogated claims.This info was dug up by our undercover agent, Annushka:D

Well, well good work Annushka, is this department based in Bristol by any chance?

As a subrogated claim I imagine Royal Sun Alliance must be isolated from any adverse judments or cost orders leaving any such nasties to the stooge claimant. Sounds like nice work to me that you sue and collect if you win and lose nothing if you lose. Suppose on the bright side it keeps the policy prices competitive.

 

Personally if I were PCAD and were lumbered with the bill from Lyons-Davidson when this is finished I'd be pretty bloomin' miffed with the amount of costs incurred updating the 'insurer client' wouldn't you? Either you are claimant (client) or co-claimant it appears that Royal Sun Alliance have run up rather a large bill themselves far more than they actually paid out to PCAD, and I'd be expecting them to foot any costs they incurred directly themselves.

 

This is one heck of a steep learning curve for George. I Don't feel sorry for him though.:x

Edited August 28, 2009 by Toulose LeDebt

[Toulose LeDebt]

Edit: Oops! I must read to the end of the thread before asking a question. Particularly embarrassing when the question is answered in the post before this one!

 

Don't be hard on yourself I pipped you by one minute so it wouldn't have been there when you started typing.

[Patma]

Well, well good work Annushka, is this department based in Bristol by any chance?

As a subrogated claim I imagine R & SA must be isolated from any adverse judments or cost orders leaving any such nasties to the stooge claimant. Sounds like nice work to me that you sue and collect if you win and lose nothing if you lose. Suppose on the bright side it keeps the policy prices competitive.

They do indeed deal with that specialisation in Bristol and also in their other offices in other places. It seems to be something they're rather keen on.

[Toulose LeDebt]

Blimey and there was me thinking this was the first time they'd ever tried this sort of claim. Who'd have guessed this is their 'speciality' eh?

Edited August 27, 2009 by Toulose LeDebt

[Annoying Twit]

If you go to LD's website, click on "people", then search with a location of Plymouth, only two key people are found. And both have a speciality of "Insurance Litigation".

 

http://www.lyonsdavidson.co.uk/

[Patma]

Bristol seems to be heavily into insurance too and that's where the claim against Fred emanates from.

They were originally referring to R&SA as their clients and then the insurers dropped off the radar to be replaced by PCAD, until the judge asked them if this was a subrogated claim, to which the amswer was a coy, "yes"

[Yorky2008]

It must be slowly dawning on them that they've been set up by their insurers to make this claim,

 

Interesting, and there was me thinking it was all PCADs doing to try and earn a few quid out of Fred. Why would their insurers want to encourage such a high risk gamble and then carry on even though the game is up??? Seems like someone doesnt know what they doing ....

 

Yorky.

[Toulose LeDebt]

Interesting, and there was me thinking it was all PCADs doing to try and earn a few quid out of Fred. Why would their insurers want to encourage such a high risk gamble and then carry on even though the game is up??? Seems like someone doesnt know what they doing ....

 

Yorky.

 

At all times except when in Court the insurers are the real 'client' of Lyons-Davidson, the college actually use a different firm of solicitors themselves.

 

The problem appears to have arisen because the claimant has not only failed to adopt the preferred 'cards on the table approach' with Fred but also with all the involved parties on their side. So instead of a five player card game with Fred as the mark and Lyons-Davidson, PCAD, Royal Sun Alliance and US(UK)ltd all in cahoots and showing each other their cards to ensure Fred loses we've got a game where the four parties are so busy hiding cards from each other that none of them has been concentrating on the stack which Fred has quietly been mopping up.

 

(I guess the best illustration of what I mean came with todays news when it became clear that Lyons-Davidson had witheld from their own Advocate the rather important fact that the Police had already confirmed to LD that the caution did not exist).

Edited August 28, 2009 by Toulose LeDebt

[Patma]

At all times except when in Court the insurers are the real 'client' of LD, the college actually use a different firm of solicitors themselves.

 

The problem appears to have arisen because the claimant has not only failed to adopt the preferred 'cards on the table approach' with Fred but also with all the involved parties on their side. So instead of a five player card game with Fred as the mark and LD, PCAD, R &SA and US(UK)ltd all in cahoots and showing each other their cards to ensure Fred loses we've got a game where the four parties are so busy hiding cards from each other that none of them has been concentrating on the stack which Fred has quietly been mopping up.

Very well put TLD!

You just put it all in a nutshell.

90 odd pages summed up in one small paragraph:D

[royboy68]

At all times except when in Court the insurers are the real 'client' of LD, the college actually use a different firm of solicitors themselves.

 

The problem appears to have arisen because the claimant has not only failed to adopt the preferred 'cards on the table approach' with Fred but also with all the involved parties on their side. So instead of a five player card game with Fred as the mark and LD, PCAD, R &SA and US(UK)ltd all in cahoots and showing each other their cards to ensure Fred loses we've got a game where the four parties are so busy hiding cards from each other that none of them has been concentrating on the stack which Fred has quietly been mopping up.

 

(I guess the best illustration of what I mean came with todays news when it became clear that LD had witheld from their own Advocate the rather important fact that the Police had already confirmed to LD that the caution did not exist).

 

What chance did they ever have in this game. Apart from not showing each other their cards, they have the full might of CAG looking over their shoulder and openly telling Fred what cards they are holding and still they bet.

[Toulose LeDebt]

Thanks Patma, it's right though isn't it? If they just had the foresight and shown a little less arrogance and taken the opportunity to meet and assess the case, swap notes etc. prior to commencing the proceedings I'm in no doubt that they could however wrongly have stiffed Fred to the Max!!

 

As it is there's been little if any trust displayed other than in the ethos of using their status and funding to steamroller right over the top of him and it's this arrogance and mistrust of anything else which is now causing them such severe problems.

 

I do like to think that as the pressure started mounting our old friend Yojimbo has played it's part in the game tho'

[Toulose LeDebt]

What chance did they ever have in this game. Apart from not showing each other their cards, they have the full might of CAG looking over their shoulder and openly telling Fred what cards they are holding and still they bet.

 

:D:D

 

Indeed and at a mean cost of £9.50 per chip those £10,500 and rising costs for this small claims case (:lol:) represent one helluva lot of losing bets.....:grin:

[Patma]

Thanks Patma, it's right though isn't it? If they just had the foresight and shown a little less arrogance and taken the opportunity to meet and assess the case, swap notes etc. prior to commencing the proceedings I'm in no doubt that they could however wrongly have stiffed Fred to the Max!!

 

As it is there's been little if any trust displayed other than in the ethos of using their status and funding to steamroller right over the top of him and it's this arrogance and mistrust of anything else which is now causing them such severe problems.

 

I do like to think that as the pressure started mounting our old friend Yojimbo has played it's part in the game tho'

I do believe you're right on the money there;)

I'm very glad you introduced us all to the yojimbo principle. It's one we can use again and again.

I sincerely hope they don't learn from their mistakes with Fred though and go on to try again with someone else.

[hightail]

They'll be careful for a while but sadly the arrogance, bullying and intimidation tactics do work much of the time. They work so well because the vast majority of people believe 'respected' organisations wouldn't (needn't) resort to such behaviour. I dread to think how many people have paid up or given up. Thank goodness for Fred CAG exists. Quite apart from the practical support he has known how many people were 'on his side' and believed him. Being targeted in this way is an extremely isolating experience, an intended side effect.

 

I do hope this attracts huge publicity when the legal bit is done and dusted so others know they can fight back.

[foolishgirl]

 

I do hope this attracts huge publicity when the legal bit is done and dusted so others know they can fight back.

 

I'm sure certain sunday papers will be very interested!

[Toulose LeDebt]

Sainsburys backed out of litigation over a £5,000 claim for a new barrier due to the bad publicity they received in the Daily Telegraph article.

 

Royal and Sun Alliance do specialist Campus policies for students I wonder if that business might see a little dip once the national newspapers and Student Union mags find out that they've tried to screw not very far short of £20,000 out of a student for a barrier which:

1) Wasn't damaged

and

2) Can be purchased for £828 plus VAT????

 

 

Of course the Sainsburys barrier story was just a straightforward 'man lifts barrier' case it's the deception, the double dealing, the funny documents, the dodgy statements and of course the completely false introduction of the caution that will make Freds story much more saleable to the papers so we can expect far better coverage than just The Telegraph.