Locked in car park

[JonCris]

MARTIN clear your in box please there's a good chap:D

[JonCris]

Martin will you empty your in box?

[JonCris]

Bleeding right patma It's getting very frustrating I think I'm being ignored & I don't why

[JonCris]

I did empty it -well 10-and got 10 more in just over 1 hour.

Have now made more space.

 

 

Have sent you a PM need to chat urgent

[JonCris]

"Its not usually the original creditors who break the rules" Come on Martin we know that ain't true - Some of the worst offenders are the household names in the finance industry & it's they I blame more than their DCA monkeys - Their 'agents' are only following a pattern originally set by the creditors - also lets not forget that many of these so called independent debt collectors & lawyers are nothing of the sort, many are in house & just pretend to be separate in order to make it look like the matter is being escalated

 

The so called prime lenders have a lot to answer for

[JonCris]

I know Martin but I have to say in my recent experience some of the prime lenders are in fact the worst by far when it comes to ignoring the rules or even acting illegally as we have seen in some 'well known' cases

[JonCris]

It's important to identify the person who supplied the 'edited' original video so they can be served with a summons to appear prior to the hearing........... & can I be there when they are questioned please:)

[JonCris]

When this matter is resolved a formal compliant as to the courts conduct in all this must be made

[JonCris]

Let me tell you a story:) Once upon a time I had a client whom at this point I'd never met having telephoned for an appointment who was accused of employee theft I was told a video existed of him nicking goods & I said fine send me a copy which when it arrived I watched & sure enough there was the thief a large bloke helping himself to goods - to this day I don't know why but not having yet met the client I phoned him told him about the video asking him to describe himself - his self-portrait bore absolutely no resemblance to the guy on the screen - when I investigated further I found they had accused the client of the fact that he was allegedly according to their records the only person there at the time & the person making the accusation had never seen the client so assumed the video was of him - needless to say that when a claim for damages was initiated they settled way before trial & for a substantial sum:D

 

Just thought I'd tell you all to cheer you up & because it includes a video & false accusations - a classic case of the camera does lie

Edited July 12, 2009 by JonCris

[JonCris]

PS can we get the media involved

[JonCris]

car Huh!

[JonCris]

Did the Mods take a screen shot of Bryans Anglo Saxon choice of words:eek: -----for production at his trial:p

[JonCris]

Well, well what a bit of excitement I missed. Last night I thought we were the ones in trouble and didn't realise someone else had been upsetting the applecart. Well done, Bedlington for filling us in and thanks to our MODS for sorting out the angry little outburst. I definitely don't condone bad language on a public forum.

 

Me neither:lol:

[JonCris]

I don't think for a moment that TLD has but it I think it's still worth mention that if valid namely the claimants have misled a civil court, which would be bad enough on it's own, they would have also misled the police by claiming criminal damage & as the cases cited by TLD do not include matters where false criminal charges have been brought I don't think a court would allow the guilty litigant to proceed at all - We aren't exactly just alleging they are only exaggerating an injury are we!

[JonCris]

To clarify TDL I'm referring to their allegations of criminal damage which resulted in Fred being Cautioned

[JonCris]

My God are you saying they threatened Police action unless he paid then took it when he didn't ....I have to ask do the police know about this if not I think it'll be good idea to tell them. I can tell you they won't like be used as a threat to extort money from someone

[JonCris]

TLD I assume you or Fred have their demand in writing cos if so it won't be an allegation will it. Any chance of posting it removing the ID of anyone named or alluded to of course

[JonCris]

Oh my gawd I know they are trying to dress it up by claiming its the insurance wot would make us.... but as you well know that's nonsense, they only have to describe the damage as accidental & that's the end of it - the police need never have been involved - I suspect (which I'm perfectly entitled to do) that there's a risk of an increase in premiums being avoided here

 

I allege that letter might be viewed as extortion by some in fact I've just asked a solicitor to look at it & whilst not a criminal lawyer they agree

[JonCris]

Also as you say there is no safeguarding of the evidence. Having said that we can assume they believe the criminal aspect is closed & the 'evidence' no longer needed. By evidence I mean the physical evidence other than the CCTV

[JonCris]

Also I forget to say if the college or the insurer felt that Fred was to blame as they did as they pursued a civil claim for damages so why involve the police. I suggest that taking it to a criminal level is clearly an attempt at scaring people into complying with their demands

 

I didn't realize this had happened

Edited July 22, 2009 by JonCris

[JonCris]

This is pretty standard, but the other way around. The police are involved for the criminal act. The landowner/nsurer can then pursue a parallel civil claim IF they feel they can make a go of it. They're not mutually exclusive, if that's what you meant?

 

I know but if as they just wanted was the barrier replacement paid for why not just go for a civil claim why involve the police & why claim they have to if they don't get paid within 30 days something that's blatantly untrue................summats no reet at mill melad

 

TLD will PM you with my thoughts as per the above

[JonCris]

TLD have sent a further PM - Yours to me got deleted by mistake please resend

[JonCris]

And if the Judge's copy is delivered to the Court beforehand, then take another 4th copy with you on the day, just in case the Judge cannot seem to find the one he/she has already been given.

 

Don't want Fred to find himself sitting in front of an empty desk.

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

Excellent idea In fact I would go a step further I would also take a further copy just in case the opposition have 'lost' theirs;)

[JonCris]

& don't forget to paginate (number) the pages BEFORE copying

[JonCris]

Numbering the pages so the parties & in particular the Judge can identify them is VERY VERY important