Locked in car park

[foolishgirl]

Fred has also remembered that the tape the police were given had no time and date on it. Don't know what significance this might have, but maybe it was removed to hide the editing (that's just my guesswork:))

 

 

Hi Patma, only just picked up on this very interesting thread from another link so sorry if I'm repeating anything already said but I seem to recall that (certainly in criminal cases) photographic evidence is not permissable or accceptable unless it has the date digitally encoded on the print, the same i suspect, would apply to video.

[foolishgirl]

I wonder on what date R & SA were first made aware of the damge?

4th March, the monday after, 17th March, 22nd March, 23rd March, or 23rd April as threatened?

 

Exactly - 'cos usually there is a clause in insurance contracts stating that the insurers have to be informed as soon as the insured is aware of the loss. If R&SA were not informed until some 19 days after the damage was noticed, shouldn't they be concerned??

[foolishgirl]

 

just a point if successfully defended is fred allowed to claim costs?

 

Oh, yes. And how!!

[foolishgirl]

 

What I cannot get my head around is just what is spurring the College on to continue with this.

 

Arrogance!

 

 

I think it is more likely to be an individual(s) who is doing their utmost to retain his/her position within the college/security company. Unfortunately it seems every move he/she makes sees the foot more firmly stuck in the big mouth. But we will wait & see...

[foolishgirl]

 

The college are claiming that the (old) barrier involved in the incident and subsequently replaced was a RIB and the 'new' barrier is a BFT.:-?

 

So not only did no-one check on the invoice for the manufacturer of the new barrier but no-one thought to stroll outside & look on the barrier either before issuing a claim.

 

This story gets more & more incredible; if it was still around, I'd think it was a set up for 'Candid Camera'.

Edited July 29, 2009 by foolishgirl
typo

[foolishgirl]

Well I would have thought there would be some sort of sanctions available to stop people being untruthful in such scenarios.

 

 

It comes under the Information Commissioner's remit to ensure that authorities comply etc. with the ultimate sanction that they can face a 'contempt of court' charge.

 

See this report dated March 2009:http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/freedom_of_information/practical_application/monitoring_strategy.pdf

 

In particular note this para:

It should also be noted that a breach of section 77 FOIA, may lead to a criminal sanction. For example, where the investigation of concerns in relation to records management relates to the inappropriate or deliberate destruction or concealment of information with the intention of preventing disclosure to which an applicant would have been entitled.

 

Hope LD know a good solicitor

[foolishgirl]

Thank you foolishgirl, very helpful.

 

So it's a contempt of court offence eh? Well put that in the pile with the CPR 32.14 and CPR 31.23 offences I have a feeling Fred is on the verge of putting before the Court.

 

 

Sorry TLD - didn't mean to mislead. Not to supply information repeatedly comes under contempt, it is a criminal offence to deceive etc:

 

Freedom of Information Act 2000

77 Offence of altering etc. records with intent to prevent disclosure

 

(1) Where—

(a) a request for information has been made to a public authority, and

(b) under section 1 of this Act or section 7 of the [1988 c. 29.] Data Protection Act 1998, the applicant would have been entitled (subject to payment of any fee) to communication of any information in accordance with that section,

any person to whom this subsection applies is guilty of an offence if he alters, defaces, blocks, erases, destroys or conceals any record held by the public authority, with the intention of preventing the disclosure by that authority of all, or any part, of the information to the communication of which the applicant would have been entitled.

(2) Subsection (1) applies to the public authority and to any person who is employed by, is an officer of, or is subject to the direction of, the public authority.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

(4) No proceedings for an offence under this section shall be instituted—

(a) in England or Wales, except by the Commissioner or by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions;

(b) in Northern Ireland, except by the Commissioner or by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.

[foolishgirl]

You've lost me too TLD. Cricket references are bad enough, please don't start any more boy's clues.

[foolishgirl]

 

No-one else could get the answer if they didn't have inside knowledge, so can I have the prize for guessing right please?:lol:

 

Sorry Foolishgirl, that's it now, just call me Sillygirl

 

OK, private joke. Just let me in on it when you eventually let the cat out of the bag & I'll forgive you both.

[foolishgirl]

How have I managed to miss this thread???

 

Oh noomill, do keep up!

[foolishgirl]

Thanks TLD, Patma had PM'd me - now I get it!

[foolishgirl]

Now this bit in the minutes of Feb 2006 could be really interesting -

 

'PCAD was likely to claim between £100k and £150k for the faulty lift and faulty flooring'

 

Now who was that claim made against I wonder? And were any insurance companies involved? Perhaps another FOI request?

[foolishgirl]

Now the strange thing is that the claimant states 'A' the claimants representatives state 'B' yet the answer is actually 'C'.

 

If the claimant claims 'A' in Court then we provide the claimants reps statement that it was 'B' and vice versa. Who to believe eh?

 

Can they both be right? Well the simple answer is no....

 

Of course there is a third answer before the court: Freds!!!

 

 

 

Puts me in mind of Suetonius's current signature:

 

“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”*

 

*Arthur Conan Doyle, Sr (writer and creator of Sherlock Holmes)

 

Might be worth quoting to the judge

[foolishgirl]

Have you started writing in secret code now TLD or is a phone number we are supposed to inundate?

[foolishgirl]

I'd be inclined to think they've finally cottoned on.:twisted:

 

Gosh, after all the alleged visits they've had to this site, they'd be pretty thick if they've not!!:grin:

[foolishgirl]

Spade & holes :D

Edited August 17, 2009 by foolishgirl
addition

[foolishgirl]

A Part 36 has to be made 'without prejudice', that's the point of it.

See x20's excellent explanation here Post #2

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/159980-36-offers-w.html

[foolishgirl]

I'd be suspicious too.

 

Has Fred got anybody that will house sit whilst he's gone?

[foolishgirl]

 

Costs - mine were in excess of £180k

 

:eek: Bet you were glad you won!!

[foolishgirl]

 

I have especially high regard for the tenacious TLD. I'm sure all would agree that to have him onside is the most amazing bonus...

 

Best of luck to Mum and Fred. XXX

 

How lovely to see Patma & Fred have your support too Annushka, I'm sure it means a lot to them both.

 

Your comments re. TLD have been echoed frequently on CAG & there are several members who have cause to be very grateful for his expertise & dedication. To save his blushes I won't say more..

 

 

 

Apologies that I cannot tell you more at the moment, please just believe me when I say that this constitutes extremely good news for Fred, you will be shocked when you do eventually hear the explanation and if Lyons Davidson thought the latest order made by the Court in this matter was bad news then they aint seen nothing yet!!!!!:D

 

We'll take your word for it TLD...

[foolishgirl]

Here's something that I've been wondering. The trial now seems to be little about the actual claimed "damages" done, but "costs". Could the court make a decision that Fred only did 50p damage, order him to pay that, but because Fred has "lost" the case, award costs against Fred?

 

He either damaged it or he didn't AT & they have to prove that he did & that whatever damage they claim he did warranted an expensive repair or new barrier. Even the DJ can't turn round & say 'well, you only removed the manufacturer's label ;)from the barrier so you owe PCAD 50p & BTW they want trillions in costs'. That's not what was on the POC.

[foolishgirl]

Is this one of the reasons why they offered Fred that deal. Partial victory and then can claim costs.

 

What partial victory royboy? They still wanted him to pay them!

[foolishgirl]

to have private eyes check you out to see wether you can pay if they persue you is amazing

 

You can never be sure you are not being watched by somebody, somewhere, particularly & as we live in a country that has one of the highest number of CCTV cameras per capita than anywhere else in the world.

[foolishgirl]

Oh my!! And the 'F' word and not just the one 'F' word at that!!! Oh my oh my!!

 

 

F for Fred, of course.

[foolishgirl]

Admin does that check on suspicious activity labrat but sometimes these 'guests' get clever - or think they do