Locked in car park

[My Real Name]

My thoughts on why the defendant might not be responsible for the damage would be along the lines of removing a clamp from an unlawfully immobilised vehicle.

 

By lowering the barrier, the car park owner was effectively immobilising the vehicle, or, at the very least, unreasonably restricting it's movements.

 

In order for that to be lawful, it would require implied consent from the vehicle driver that they had agreed to have their vehicle immobilised.

 

Consent might be implied from appropriate signage, that is both visible and understandable to a reasonable person (cf Vine and Anker).

 

Furthermore, the signs must have contact details.

 

(See the sticky in the parking for for details on immobilisation and the law.)

 

You have already mentioned that no signs were visible, which suggest that the immobilisation of the vehicle was unlawful.

 

That being the case, it would appear entirely that your friend's actions were entirely reasonable. He was not trying to damage the barrier, and was instead attempting to retain utility of his vehicle.

 

The acceptance of a caution does not help their case much, and is yet another sad example of why summary justice is a bad idea, and often is used for convenience and box ticking.

 

Had your friend had refused the caution, it is unlikely that the CPS would have prosecuted, given the circumstances. I would strongly advise them to seek legal counsel on this matter alone, if nothing else, and seek to have the caution rescinded.

[My Real Name]

He should deny damage to the property, surely.

 

His reasoning being that he was moving an obstruction that was causing the unlawful immobilisation of his vehicle. Any alleged damage would therefore be secondary to the original tort of unlawful immobilisation, and a direct result of remedying that trespass.

 

Secondly, the claimant has not offered any evidence of there being damage, short of two conflicting invoices for new property, and in spite of a request for further evidence.

 

Can you ask for the case to be stayed, pending a review of the caution?

[My Real Name]

All the best for tomorrow, by the way. I'm glad that others have been jumping in to give what appears to be sound advice.

[My Real Name]

I can help walk you through converting the video if you like - Sending a PM.

[My Real Name]

Secondly this is not what was submitted to the police at the time of the incident.

On which basis the caution would have been issued. Has there been any progress in having the caution quashed?

[My Real Name]

Anyone read about the Lyons-Davenport saga about pursuing people for "illegal" downloads, whether they had done it or not? Sounds suspiciously on the same line. I wonder...

That's Davenport Lyons, not Lyons Davidson. I have to admit that I did a double take at first.

[My Real Name]

Business Name - Company Registration Number

 

Universal Security (UK) Limited - 4220085

 

Current Individuals that run the organisation:

 

Name - Position

 

Peter John Naylor - OFFICER

 

This may be the same chap. Or it may be a different chap. Born 1956, according to this page.

 

A DCA that has done time for dishonesty. Who' would have thought it?

[My Real Name]

You might also contact Bryan Turner, Estates manager, Plymouth college of art about the following:

 

Link.

 

Class:

Availability and and use of facilities

Description:

Contains information and details about who can access which facilities. Assurance for external bodies and individuals to ensure that breaches of conditions of use are dealt with appropriately.

Examples of the information within this area:

• Opening hours i.e. LRC, Helpdesk etc
  
• User access and levels of security
  
• General rules and conditions of use
  
• Pointers to other codes of conduct / rules external to the institution.
  
• Access and use of archives
  
• Details of logging, monitoring and procedures followed
  

Manner:

Electronic Copy. To obtain a copy email Bryan Turner, Estates Manager: [email protected]

Fee:

N/A

 

Perhaps this information also covers access to car parks on campus.

 

Remember to ask for an audit of all changes to this information for the past 3 years.

 

[Edit]

 

I see that TlD got in there as I was editing

[My Real Name]

...

Did we miss another gem from Mr 1978?

 

I have to say, if I were in the same boat, reading this thread and the manner in which it exposes the deceit and dishonesty of my employer (and possibly myself), I would be feeling defensive too.

 

It must be like watching yourself being hit by a tonne of bricks, in slow motion.

[My Real Name]

Good question, Natalie, In fact Fred 's dyslexia etc hadn't, at that point been diagnosed, so although he knew that he had problems he didn't have a diagnosis. It's certainly possible that the college could have noticed though.

He had a full assessment and diagnosis in 2007.

Rightly, or wrongly, I would use this as a potential explanation for having Fred's caution quashed. If he was not fully aware of the implications of signing anything when he accepted a caution, then no caution exists.

[My Real Name]

No worries,I understood where you were coming from, Natalie. In fact dyslexia is just one of his problems, but neither he nor I wish to make use of them in arguing against his caution, but I agree completely with what you say.

Whilst I can appreciate not wishing to use the argument, I would be hesitant hesitant in holding back when dealing with the police. It's an unfortunate stat of affairs, but common sense and fairness have next to no place in the relationship between the police and the rest of us.

[My Real Name]

In just over a week the criminal aspect of this case has been escalated from being dealt with by a Police Sergeant to being dealt with by a Police Chief Superintendent.

Yes it's true folks. We're busy making sure the Chief Superintendent hasall the info at his disposal and then it's up to him. WATCH THIS SPACE:D

I'm assuming that this is a positive step forward. In which case it's great news, and I can't wait for the next installment.

[My Real Name]

It might be worth asking R&SA if they are joint claimants. If they're not, then I don't see how the £968.60 can be included in the claim (even if the repair/replacement cost as much as PCAD say) because PCAD have already been paid it by R&SA

I fail to see how they can claim for the policy excess and the cost of the claim.

 

How much money was paid by the college, and to whom.

 

How much money was paid by the insurers, and to whom.

 

If the college was required to pay an £2,500 excess, that would cover the cost of the repair in its entirety, surely. It's a case of paying the greater of the two amounts, not both of them.

 

(I realise that this has probably already been asked, so my apoligies in advance).

[My Real Name]

3) A copy of the maintenance and repair manual of the old car park barrier which was replaced between 03/04/2006 and 21/03/2006 in the rear car park.

3) We do not hold these records (over 3 years old) - the company which replaced thedamaged barrier is not now employed by the College and after checking with them theydo not have these records either.

The full provisions of the Freedom of Information Act came into force on 1 January 2005.

 

Not keeping that information would be a booboo in its own right. A letter to the ICO may be in order, and it may be worth noting this as evidence of dissembling.

 

 

5) The rules governing access to car parks on campus, including the full audit trail of changes to these rules since 1.1.06 . This information to include method of access, who was/is allowed access and opening and closing times of the car parks.

5) College car parks (parking) have always been accessed by Staff ONLY - studentshave never been allowed access. The barriers were/are opened/accessed by staffcards, so no student would be able to gain access unless they closely followed astaff member/vehicle through the barrier.

Brian will, of course, be able to provide documentary evidence of this. And evidence of the process used to validate staff cards, read the staff cards, appply for staff cards, renew the staff cards. And how the staff cards were read, what logging procedures were in place, what policy there was surrounding the infrastructure and software needed for such a system.

[My Real Name]

Google has all of the documents indexed, linked and cached.

 

And now, so can you.

[My Real Name]

I personally wouldn't be surprised if some of those people who have read through this thread in its entirety, felt inclined to share your opinion.

Absolutely.

 

And once Fred has been completely exonerated, I'm sure that we can divert our attention to a little amateur sleuthing to bring some of the stink into the cold light of day (to mix a metaphor or two).

[My Real Name]

A quick snippet of news is that LD have made an offer to settle.

No chance of course, but interesting they should bother.

As if, indeed. And good on Fred for not giving any quarter.

More info to follow.

Waiting with baited breath, as always.

 

Let's see what further holes they can dig.

[My Real Name]

There's a breakdown of the LD costs included in this bundle and it's around £10000, I think:D

CAG costs: Priceless.

[My Real Name]

I have to admit that I have harboured at least one hypothesis that this whole affair was down to the initial greed / incompetence of one individual, and that everything else has been as a consequence of that, with dissembling, covering up and outright deceit being the order of the day.

 

That it has gone on so long, however, astounds me. I do get the feeling that someone is so far out of their depth, they have completely lost sight of the consequences of their continued actions.

[My Real Name]

I've re-visited Plymouth College of Art website the last few days to read through some more of the minutes and other corporate info, but none of the links work any more. Naughty, naughty, I think someone isn't happy at all the useful information and evidence those pages have turned up.

As Yorky states - Google has a cache of many of the pages.

 

So does the Wayback machine.

[My Real Name]

All the best of luck to Fred.

[My Real Name]

Unbelievable - I find it difficult to imagine how a judge could have interpreted the facts in such a way in this.

 

Annushka / Patma / Fred - I'm sorry to hear that it has turned out this way.

[My Real Name]

Perhaps this thread should have been made invisible. No doubt that after all this time it must have been found by someone reporting to them and they gleaned too much info. If you're going to conduct your appeal on CAG it's worth thinking about asking for it to be hidden.

The only way that could have been detrimental is if Fred was trying to hide anything, which I don't see as being the case.

 

Then again, I'm just speculating at this stage.