Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I hope you mean I try to help people stand up to bullying - and not do the bullying!   I'll assume it's a compliment!     Well - that sort of demonstrates that you've not understood my point and (perhaps?) haven't actually read the OP?   My point is that it is not the boyfriend (the supposed "owner" of the car park) who is posting, but his girlfriend who believes that he "owns" his car parking space.  Yes - it usually makes sense to believe that what the OP is posting is the truth, but in this case there is every reason to believe that there is a possibility that the OP might be mistaken about her boyfriend's ownership of the parking space, because...  well, how would she know for sure whether he does or not?  He might be boasting or lying or simply mistaken.  (My understanding is that many people who "own" flats are often under the mistaken apprehension that they "own" a parking space when they don't.  All the more reason then that somebody else other than the "owner" might be even more mistaken).   I suppose what I'm getting at is that I was a bit surprised that both you and dx100uk were able to give such definite and certain answers to the OP without exploring her situation a bit more fully and ensuring that she fully and correctly understood her boyfriend's rights in respect of the parking space in question.  I was simply concerned that without getting more information from the OP, then the replies given to her might prove to be less than useful.  I wouldn't want her to leave thinking that there was absolutely nothing to worry about and then find out there was because she'd been misadvised because she didn't understand whether her BF "owned" the space or not.   Of course, it may be that my concern here makes absolutely no difference to the answer that needs to be given to the OP because it doesn't matter whether her boyfriend actually "owns" the parking space or not, which is fine.  But sometimes I think it would be helpful to the OP (and other readers like myself) if some of these legal niceties could be spelled out rather than left unexplained.    
    • I've spoken to my son in law and because the gearbox can be very expensive to repair, he would prefer to reject the car.   The garage isn't going to charge storage at the moment.   I feel they have been mislead regarding the service history.   How difficult would it be to get the finance company on our side in rejecting the car and sending back to the dealer?
    • The first thing to say is that you better go ahead and refund the buyer because otherwise she will end up getting negative feedback as well. We will try and help you get your money back from Hermes. Have you made a formal claim through Hermes and have they formally declined you and giving you reasons why? Presumably the item was properly declared and properly valued when the delivery was booked. You don't say whether or not you took out their so-called insurance. Please start off by reading around the sub- forum focusing particularly on the Hermes threats. There are lots of them. Get to understand the principles in respect of the arguments – the insurance element, your third party rights despite the fact that you booked it through Packlink. Have a look at other people's experiences of having sued Hermes, the process of issuing the claim, the defence, the mediation and have a close look at the advice that we give about how to handle mediation. It's highly likely that you will have to issue claim papers so also read around to understand the steps you need to take to bring a small claim in the County Court. It's straightforward but understanding the steps will make you far more confident about what you are doing. Have you started a formal complaint against Hermes and Packlink?
    • Christmas Wonderland has been allowed to reopen because it sells real Christmas trees. View the full article
  • Our picks

Locked in car park


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3360 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Is it just me or are there two or three different conversations going on here:confused:

We're just letting off steam about the LD letter that came today, Bedlington.

Don't worry we're just being silly. :rolleyes::D;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

We're just letting off steam about the LD letter that came today, Bedlington.

Don't worry we're just being silly. :rolleyes::D;)

Fair enough, but don't forget there are many of us who are desperate to know what's going on but accept that we can't because it may jeopardise Fred's case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fair enough, but don't forget there are many of us who are desperate to know what's going on but accept that we can't because it may jeopardise Fred's case.

 

Good things come to those who wait...

The REAL Axis of evil: Banks, Credit Card Companies & Credit Reference Agencies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Patma.

 

Witness statement part 8 final sentence. Oh dear.;)

 

Look at the date of the lecturers incident statement then look at the date of the other incident statement and then re-read the final sentence of the second statement. Should it read 'has been identified' or 'will be identified next week' as......:D

The photo of the sign was taken at the same time as the other photo they sent (door open plywood leaning against frame) . Notice they don't give the game away by showing the new barrier, still Fred already has a copy of other photo which does have the new sign and the new barrier and he has a photo of the old sign and the new barrier just to really make it interesting should there be an issue over this point.:eek:

 

(Oh man we're going to have a field day tomorrow when we go through the statement objectively, told you the best thing they could say was 'nothing').

Edited by Toulose LeDebt

You have the right to food money.

If you don't mind a little investigation, humiliation, and if you cross your fingers rehabilitation..............

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fair enough, but don't forget there are many of us who are desperate to know what's going on but accept that we can't because it may jeopardise Fred's case.

You can read the letter which came because it's posted on P69 and the only other thing which arrived today is the LD court bundle which is woefully thin.

Other than that we're waiting for the Police legal unit, who are being very helpful, to finish their investigation.

And we're also waiting for the results of the applications we filed with the court and complaints to the court manager about the conduct of the claimant sent about a fortnight ago. We know they were with the judge on Friday, so it shouldn't be long before we hear something.;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey Patma.

 

Witness statement part 8 final sentence. Oh dear.;)

 

Look at the date of the lecturers incident statement then look at the date of the other incident statement and then re-read the final sentence of the second statement. Should it read 'has been identified' or 'will be identified next week' as......:D

The photo of the sign was taken at the same time as the other photo they sent (door open plywood leaning against frame) . Notice they don't give the game away by showing the new barrier, still Fred already has a copy of other photo which does have the new sign and the new barrier and he has a photo of the old sign and the new barrier just to really make it interesting should there be an issue over this point.:eek:

 

Durrr! Foiled again. They just can't help dropping themselves in that stuff BRW keeps going on about can they?:D

As to the photos...all I can say is "bollards" to them.....that's a clue TLD...(SORRY Bedlington, all will be revealed, promise)

Link to post
Share on other sites

False statements

 

32.14

 

(1) Proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against a person if he makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

(Part 22 makes provision for a statement of truth)

 

(2) Proceedings under this rule may be brought only –

(a) by the Attorney General; or

 

(b) with the permission of the court.

Oh dear someone has been digging themselves in deeper.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have spent the last week reading this amazing thread and have at last got to the end. I wish Fred the best of luck and can not see how he can possible lose with all the help here.

 

 

 

The important part to take from this is that both parties to this subrogated claim are in the position to have reclaimed VAT against their losses. This is not normal as Bedlington hs already highlighted and it means that the amount of VAT being claimed on the POC is not valid and should be removed from the claim.

Either the insurer should have paid the claim gross and then reclaimed the VAT or the insurer should have paid the claim net and the claimant should have reclaimed the VAT.

In the scenario presented to the Court neither the insurer or the claimant is admitting to having reclaimed the VAT against their losses.

I find this situation implausible, one or the other must have reclaimed this VAt and it's just as likely to be the case that both insurer and claimant have reclaimed against the same amount (That paid by US (UK) ltd).

 

 

With regard to the VAT issue it is my understanding that Insurance Companies are unable to reclaim VAT, and this is the reason they always deduct VAT from claims if the Policyholder is registered.

 

Regards

SC

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible to hear more detail on how PCAD are claiming that Fred admitted criminal damage at an early hearing, when the transcript shows that he didn't?

 

No problems if you don't want to give any more detail just yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Funny how anything in French sounds far more stylish!

 

I do prefer the Anglo-Saxon "fart" though!

 

Nearly a thousand years since the Norman invasion an Englishman can still fart, rather than errr...péter!

 

*waves defiant cardboard and string longbow across the Pas de Calais* :-)

 

Taisez vous mes enfants!:p

 

Sorry, Sir. :-(

 

Pssst, Noom, see you in the playground:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bear-garden/215475-fart-p-ter-question.html#post2371811

 

;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Have spent the last week reading this amazing thread and have at last got to the end. I wish Fred the best of luck and can not see how he can possible lose with all the help here.

 

Well done for persevering, Staying Calm and thankyou so much for your good wishes:D

 

 

 

 

 

 

With regard to the VAT issue it is my understanding that Insurance Companies are unable to reclaim VAT, and this is the reason they always deduct VAT from claims if the Policyholder is registered.

 

Regards

SC

Thanks for that too. The insurance angle is a bit out of my depth, but we do have it in writing from the insurers that the claimant told them they were not registered, so perhaps that's why.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it possible to hear more detail on how PCAD are claiming that Fred admitted criminal damage at an early hearing, when the transcript shows that he didn't?

 

No problems if you don't want to give any more detail just yet.

My guess is that because the caution is pretty much all they have left, they're trying it on.

I've no idea other than that.

They may not have seen a transcript, and be relying on what their representative at the directions hearing has said. All along they've not had any regard for the truth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to think that win lose or draw any chance Lyons Davidson ever had of getting costs awarded in this case went flying out the window last friday afternoon.

You have the right to food money.

If you don't mind a little investigation, humiliation, and if you cross your fingers rehabilitation..............

Link to post
Share on other sites
My guess is that because the caution is pretty much all they have left, they're trying it on.

I've no idea other than that.

They may not have seen a transcript, and be relying on what their representative at the directions hearing has said. All along they've not had any regard for the truth.

 

From what was written earlier on in the thread, it seemed to me that they were claiming that Fred had made an admission of criminal damage independent of the caution. If this had actually happened, then it would become important evidence for them. And evidence that might survive the caution being struck out. If they were planning on getting such an admission on record, then that could explain why they didn't have the caution in their case from the beginning.

 

Is it possible that they could be thinking along these lines?

 

Step 1: Get Fred to admit, on record, to the existence of a caution.

Step 2: Rely on reasoning that a caution is only given if the offence has been

admitted at the time of the caution.

Step 3: Claim that Steps 1 and 2 add up to an admission in court of criminal damage.

 

I'm no lawyer, and this is just empty reasoning. But if I were involved in the case, I'd go over their new claim, and the transcript it's based on, VERY VERY carefully. And look for any loopholes like the one above which might not be immediately obvious to the unwashed masses, but might be used by a clever and skilled lawyer.

 

I'd like to think that win lose or draw any chance Lyons Davidson ever had of getting costs awarded in this case went flying out the window last friday afternoon.

 

Can you explain your reasoning further?

 

I don't mind at all if you don't want to explain more in a public forum just yet. As I've said before, I'm a very patient person.

Edited by Annoying Twit
Link to post
Share on other sites

PCAD incident form 06/03/06

 

'snapping'!! What's that all about?

 

PCAD incident form 06/03/06

 

Contrary to claimants claims in WS part 3 the member of staff simply identifies Fred as the person 'raising' the barrier, there's no mention of Fred damaging it.

 

Witness statement sec 5 - Crikey that's going out on a limb especially when the cctv footage clearly shows it wasn't.

 

Sec 8 Freds photo of the sign in Summer 2009 clearly establishes the chronology of the signs. The unpainted area around the latest sign does not exist on Freds first picture with the new barrier and the 'no parking' sign proving that was taken prior to the claimants picture which I think is a lot more recent than they would have us believe. This puts the witness in a bit of a corner having made that statement in the final sentence.

 

10- Did they really? Thought it was fait accomplit.

 

Will you be scanning and sending over all the evidence they've provided later today Patma? I've looked through what you sent yesterday and there doesn't actually seem to be any proof of damage or evidence the barrier needed repaired or replaced in their bundle. This is odd because I'm sure Fred put them to strict proof of the damage caused right back when he filed his original defence. It appears the only proof they've entered is the say so of an accountant who watched the cctv footage. :confused::confused:

You have the right to food money.

If you don't mind a little investigation, humiliation, and if you cross your fingers rehabilitation..............

Link to post
Share on other sites
Will you be scanning and sending over all the evidence they've provided later today Patma?

That was it yesterday, TLD.

 

I've got an update for you now.

An order has just arrived from the court and Fred has read it out to me over the phone.

 

"IT IS ORDERED THAT THE CLAIMANT DO REPLY IN WRITING TO THE FOUR APPLICATIONS OF THE DEFENDANT, DATED 6TH AUGUST, ON OR BEFORE 28TH AUGUST 2009.

UPON RECEIPT OF WHICH THE FILE WILL BE REFERRED BACK TO THE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR HIS CONSIDERATION."

 

That's it

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Can you explain your reasoning further?

 

I don't mind at all if you don't want to explain more in a public forum just yet. As I've said before, I'm a very patient person.

 

 

It's a CPR thing AT, failure to comply with the overriding principles can cost you dearly.

You have the right to food money.

If you don't mind a little investigation, humiliation, and if you cross your fingers rehabilitation..............

Link to post
Share on other sites
That was it yesterday, TLD.

 

I've got an update for you now.

An order has just arrived from the court and Fred has read it out to me over the phone.

 

"IT IS ORDERED THAT THE CLAIMANT DO REPLY IN WRITING TO THE FOUR APPLICATIONS OF THE DEFENDANT, DATED 6TH AUGUST, ON OR BEFORE 28TH AUGUST 2009.

UPON RECEIPT OF WHICH THE FILE WILL BE REFERRED BACK TO THE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR HIS CONSIDERATION."

 

That's it

 

 

That is more than enough.:D:D

You have the right to food money.

If you don't mind a little investigation, humiliation, and if you cross your fingers rehabilitation..............

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh good.Fred was a bit puzzled by it and I didn't know what to make of it either.

:D

 

It means any hearing in this matter might not be exactly the type of hearing Lyons-Davidson intended. Fred has made certain applications and provided substantial evidence in support of those applications. The claimant is now quite rightly being given a chance to provide their side of the story.

 

Knowing what those applications were and what evidence was filed at Court in support of those apps would you like to be the one who has to try and convince the Judge that Fred is wrong and provide the evidence to prove it????

 

I wouldn't that's for sure, especially when you consider that half the evidence provided the Court in support of Freds apps originated with the claimant as purported evidence of their claim. Which would you go for, dozens of pages of carefully researched evidence including expert testimonial, photographic evidence, documentary evidence, video evidence or the hearsay of an accountant and a stand in member of staff because the head of dept. didn't want his name appearing at the bottom of the paperwork??

Edited by Toulose LeDebt

You have the right to food money.

If you don't mind a little investigation, humiliation, and if you cross your fingers rehabilitation..............

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok thanks I understand that, but Fred wasn't invited to respond to their app to amend their POC. It was just accepted.

I can see how they're going to struggle to have anything useful to say though.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3360 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...