Locked in car park

[Toulose LeDebt]

This letter surely also serves as proof that the college have submitted an overinflated claim to Royal Sun Alliance? Do you think this should be forwarded to the Insurance Fraud Bureau?

 

{Fred was arrested on the expiry of the 30 days notice}

 

EDIT It's also strange that the Director of Finance is not aware at the time of writing that since he has purchased a policy with a £2500 excess for this type of damage he would be unable to claim an amount of £1500 from the insurers. He has by this time had 19 days in which to check the policy.

Edited July 22, 2009 by Toulose LeDebt

[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

[Toulose LeDebt]

Welll.....Fred is still waiting for this 'other evidence' to be produced. Nobody seems to know what it is but both the college and the solicitors refer to it.

[Toulose LeDebt]

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

 

Thank you and your solicitor JC that's very reassuring.

 

I think upon playing catchup Patma and Fred might agree that another trip to see the nice Sergeant is in order.

[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

[Toulose LeDebt]

Now you probably understand just why the claimant has been so reluctant to disclose any information or documentation at any stage whether just requested early on or via CPR etc. As Patma says on an earlier thread today the evidence is coming in quite steadily now and each piece that arrives does nothing but substantiate Freds claims.

 

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? I really feel Fred has a right to know such simple and outwardly benign details as this yet the claimant will disclose nothing and the courts weren't exactly helpful in forcing them to.

[Toulose LeDebt]

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

 

" Liability certainly cannot be denied based on the amount of physical evidence against you"

 

[buzby]

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.

 

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?

[Toulose LeDebt]

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

 

And having taken this matter to a criminal level what are we supposed to think when the only evidence provided to the police is a very short and highly edited movie clip of the cctv footage which simply shows Fred raising the barrier and fails to show his attempts to summon help, him actually placing the already broken barrier back in the cradle and in the full version the barrier resetting itself and lowering normally exactly as the manufacturer designed?

 

What are we to think of the security company sign mentioned by the claimant suddenly appearing at some time after the barrier was replaced as proven by Patmas photographs?

 

More importantly what are the police going to think as its all spelled out to them?

[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??

[Toulose LeDebt]

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??

 

IMO R & SA MUST have been informed prior to the barrier being replaced ie between 4th and 17th March yet as of 23rd March the 'bill' was still for £1500 NOT £3468:confused:

 

"Nagging questions always remain

Why did it happen and who was to blame?" M. Jones and the BAD.

Edited July 22, 2009 by Toulose LeDebt

[Patma]

I've just been having a good read of what I've missed and I'm very impressed.

I'd never thought of the fact that the police weren't notified of the alleged crime until weeks after it had taken place and the "evidence" removed.

It's sooo obvious now you mention it, but I don't know why we didn't think of it before.

The threat aspect of it too is very clear once you consider it objectively.

There's certainly another little chat with the nice sergeant will take place tomorrow. Fred assures me of that and he will be bringing up all these new points.

He will also ask the sergeant from south central sector to provide him with the details of the inspector who will be dealing with this investigation.

If anyone has any more brainwaves between now and tomorrow, I will pass them on to Fred to share with the nice sergeant.

Edited July 22, 2009 by Patma
typo

[Patma]

Something keeps niggling both Fred and me and it's why having obtained their caution, didn't Plymouth College of Art make the most of it and mention it in their POC?

It may be very obvious, but it puzzles me.

Edited August 28, 2009 by Patma

[Patma]

You'll notice that both the invoice and the letter carry the same signatory (Mr Carter head of finance).

Just want to clear up the signature mentioned is actually G. Dexter.

The more I've been reading what you've all come up with this afternoon, the more impressed I am, wish I hadn't missed it now.

[Patma]

I sent a reminder to Plymouth College of Art's Mr. B Turner today to enquire about the progress of my FOI request, sent over a week ago, but for which I had not received any acknowledgment.

Just in case Mr B Turner, being a very busy man;) didn't have time to acknowledge FOI requests, I copied it to another person also, who has very kindly replied promptly and apologised for the delay in acknowledging my request and confirmed that it will be dealt with according to the proper procedure.

Edited August 28, 2009 by Patma

[Patma]

Hi TLD. What do you think of the idea I ran by you in the latest pm?

Shall I get it scanned in?

[Toulose LeDebt]

Hi TLD. What do you think of the idea I ran by you in the latest pm?

Shall I get it scanned in?

 

It's a good idea but I would keep that to yourself just for now, why not for the moment spend the time we would have spent discussing it quietly gathering the information for presentation to 'you know who' just to make sure they are left with no other option than to follow it through?

 

This afternoons 'chat' with JonCris was very helpful indeed as you can see. He makes a great point about the threat of criminal action, I can see that when you see the Sergeant again, show him the letter, then point to the postdated 'quote', the way the video evidence was presented, then drop in a copy of the invoice dated both before the 'quote' and the letter, he might just feel they've been 'used'.

If you laid all the evidence out and drew the connecting lines it just goes round in circles. Somethings wrong and someones to blame, I can provide a motive for each party involved but cannot from the information we have isolate the elusive 'Mr Big' as they say. Maybe some police involvement to establish who authorised what and who exactly is responsible for what is more than overdue? Certainly from the matters already and quite validly put before the Police I would reasonably expect 'further enquiries' to be made.

 

ps don't forget to wear your T shirts when you visit the police station.

 

[Patma]

Absolutely priceless!!:lol:

 

I didn't know you were so artistic, TLD.

Can I order one please?

You could make a small fortune marketing these.:lol:

[Patma]

It's a good idea but I would keep that to yourself just for now, why not for the moment spend the time we would have spent discussing it quietly gathering the information for presentation to 'you know who' just to make sure they are left with no other option than to follow it through?

Yes you're right. I was just feeling like sticking the boot in a bit, most unladylike. I should know better.It can be held in reserve and trotted out in due course.

[Toulose LeDebt]

Something keeps niggling both Fred and me and it's why having obtained their caution, didn't PCAD make the most of it and mention it in their POC?

It may be very obvious, but it puzzles me.

 

You don't watch the American courtroom dramas then? you know the ones where the case is pulled back from the brink as the smartly dressed and strangely young and attractive looking attorney swivels on her heels and says " But if as you now claim you are not liable for the damage then pray tell the Court exactly why you admitted culpability and were cautioned by the Police for this very same damage on the 23rd April 2006?"

 

Defendant. I confess, it was me.

Attorney smiles as she leans forward to the claimant.

(whispers comfortingly) It's over now.

Judge. order, order I will not tolerate such behaviour

Judge. Order, silence in court

Judge smiles and shakes his head, grinning broadly

Judge. I sentence the accused.......

 

Cutaway to steps outside court. large throng of photographers surround attorney on third step down, channel 9 mic prominent, sounds of flash photography.........

Edited July 22, 2009 by Toulose LeDebt

[Toulose LeDebt]

Can I order one please?

You could make a small fortune marketing these.:lol:

 

Well I reckon if we charge about £1200 plus VAT each we'll only need to sell four to cover Fred in the event he loses.

[Patma]

You don't watch the American courtroom dramas then?

No I confess my education's been lacking.

Is that the secret source of your legal knowledge then TLD. ? Better ask for that bit of info to be cagbotted cos we don't want Lyons Davidson employees to find out how to educate themselves better.

Edited August 28, 2009 by Patma

[Patma]

Well I reckon if we charge about £1200 plus VAT each we'll only need to sell four to cover Fred in the event he loses.

 

I could ask Fred to sign them and then they'll be signed, limited edition specials. No probs getting £1200 a piece for them.

[Toulose LeDebt]

No I confess my education's been lacking.

Is that the secret source of your legal knowledge then TLD. ? Better ask for that bit of info to be cagbotted cos we don't want LD employees to find out how to educate themselves better.

 

:D

 

That and Granada TV's 'Crown Court' but we're okay there as I don't think the people dealing with the case were around in the '70's.

Judge Judy is pretty good too, I'm not convinced all her findings are meritorious in law but I'm dying for a chance to use the Herzog Vs Herzog episode 12 [2] 2008 precedent, it's a killer.