Locked in car park

[royboy68]

I would agree with you there Noomill. If these cretins didnt have the bottomless public purse at their disposal, would they have so energetically pursued Fred.

[Annoying Twit]

Well the police were of the opinion that Freds behaviour was entirely reasonable and thus any caution issued upon the facts presented within the video would be unjust. But getting it expunged isn't going to be very easy.

 

Wouldn't strong enough evidence that the caution was undeserved and that Fred was not guilty of criminal damage be, for the purposes of the current court case, as good as having it expunged?

[royboy68]

I didnt mean partial victory for Fred but for them to be able to claim costs.

[Toulose LeDebt]

Wouldn't strong enough evidence that the caution was undeserved and that Fred was not guilty of criminal damage be, for the purposes of the current court case, as good as having it expunged?

 

That would probably leave Fred at the mercy of the Judge lottery, it might satisfy one but not another.

 

I believe somebody very senior within the force is contacting the court directly and that this intervention could be very useful for Freds defence.

Edited August 20, 2009 by Toulose LeDebt

[royboy68]

Isn't it only £80 that the college has to pay? Surely anyone else involved is a private company.

 

No one Knows the deal between the college and solicitors for certain. Even if it did start as a no win no fee claim, then things could have changed if the solicitors advised that the claim be dropped and the college refused. Then it would be down to the college to fund the claim.

[bedlington83]

Isn't it only £80 that the college has to pay? Surely anyone else involved is a private company.

It depends on who the claimant is. If the college is the claimant and Fred wins, the college will be liable for Fred's costs. If the insurance company is the claimant they would be liable, assuming the convention that the loser pays the winners costs is adhered to by the DJ

[bedlington83]

I believe somebody very senior within the force is contacting the court directly and that this intervention could be very useful for Freds defence.

Wow! If true, that could be nearly as good as the caution ceasing to exist. Not that it matters any more

[Toulose LeDebt]

Wow! If true, that could be nearly as good as the caution ceasing to exist. Not that it matters any more

 

Well although the caution could not be expunged, todays meeting has otherwise proved extremely useful and heartening for Fred.

[Helford]

Let's not forget this action by Lyons Davidson has been brought by R & SA (Not PCAD) under their subrogation rights under the insurance policy in respect of a claim made by PCAD for apparent malicious/accidental damage allegedly caused by Fred to PCAD property. The claim appears decidely without foundation in so many respects; the proximate cause appears suspect, the time of loss is suspect, the policy would normally exclude any gradually operating causes, wear and tear, mechanical defect etc. etc. Certainly all R & SA policies exclude betterment and to boot, it is not possible to claim the VAT element if you are VAT registered. Insurance relies on the doctrine of 'Utmost good faith' Ummmmmmm

 

In my considerable opinion, the 'claim' should never have been dealt with in the first place, but repudiated at the 'NOL' (Notification of loss).

 

The Police 'Caution' and actions of Solicitors subsequently just compounds everything thereafter. You really couldn't make this one up!

Edited August 20, 2009 by Helford
Typo

[wobbly]

I hope the cretins end up having to pay Fred a substantial sum,I presume Fred is going to persue them for damages for their malicious actions,to have private eyes check you out to see wether you can pay if they persue you is amazing ,is this the norm in cases like this?.I reckon it would make a bloody good program for the telly to expose what goes on.

Wobbly

[royboy68]

Where did this idea that the claim has been brought by R & SA. The first mention of the claim which is on page 3 specifically states that the claimant owned the property. Surely this means that the claimant is PCAD

[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.

[royboy68]

Looks like a few from 2 certain establishments have finished for the day seeing the number of guests.

[Toulose LeDebt]

Looks like a few from 2 certain establishments have finished for the day seeing the number of guests.

 

Thursday is jobs day in the evening local paper, they're probably too busy for messageboards.

[royboy68]

Thursday is jobs day in the evening local paper, they're probably too busy for messageboards.

 

Wonder what its like looking for a job and seeing your present one advertised,

[Toulose LeDebt]

UK-Plymouth: building construction work

 

2009/S 137-199532

 

Address: Organisation: Plymouth College of Art,

 

Tavistock Place

, Financial Director, attn: George Dexter, Country code: UK-Postal code: PL4 8AT Plymouth. Tel. +44 1752203418. E-mail: [email protected]. Fax +44 1752203455.

 

(Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, 12.5.2009, ="129648-2009">2009/S 90-129648)

RE:CPV: CPV code: "Building construction work">45210000 , CPV code: "Construction work for college buildings">45214300 , CPV code: "Construction work for buildings of further education">45214500 , CPV code: "Site preparation work">45100000 , CPV code: "Building installation work">45300000 , CPV code: "Building completion work">45400000 , CPV code: "Architectural, construction, engineering and inspection services">71000000 .

 

Building construction work.

 

Construction work for college buildings.

 

Construction work for buildings of further education.

 

Incomplete procedure

 

The awarding procedure has been discontinued.

 

Other additional information

 

The College has not received funding from the Learning & Skills Council and accordingly this procurement is not continuing.

 

 

Sorry to hear this George. :D

[royboy68]

Careful students, looks like George might be looking for a different source of income.

[Patma]

Hi everyone I'm back and feeling pretty pleased with things. I know TLD has kept you informed as to what's happened, courtesy of Annushka, the undercover agent.

[royboy68]

Welcome back Pat

[Toulose LeDebt]

Careful students, looks like George might be looking for a different source of income.

 

Oh my goodness that's funny.

[Toulose LeDebt]

Welcome back Patma that's yet another very long day you've spent trying to sort out this pigs breakfast of a case for Fred.

 

I hope Fred is not too disheartened to learn that the police will be unable to overturn the caution before the 2nd of September, I feel the other undertakings they will be making on his behalf will more than make up for this.

[Annoying Twit]

If I remember correctly, the lawyer who advised Fred to accept the caution is now most embarrassed to have done so. Would it be possible to approach them and see if they will give a statement saying that had they seen the full unedited version of the footage, that they would never have advised Fred to accept the caution?

[Patma]

Long pm for you TLD:D

[Patma]

Welcome back Patma that's yet another very long day you've spent trying to sort out this pigs breakfast of a case for Fred.

 

I hope Fred is not too disheartened to learn that the police will be unable to overturn the caution before the 2nd of September, I feel the other undertakings they will be making on his behalf will more than make up for this.

No he wasn't discouraged at all thanks, in fact actually having a face to face meeting was really encouraging and we ended the meeting with everyone in complete agreement. The recommendations that were made in our presence by the very high ranking legal person covered all we could have hoped for. As you say not having the caution expunged by 2nd Septemeber will be more than made up for when things are sorted out. Really sorry everyone not to be able to explain properly, but you'll understand why when it is all explained.

[Patma]

If I remember correctly, the lawyer who advised Fred to accept the caution is now most embarrassed to have done so. Would it be possible to approach them and see if they will give a statement saying that had they seen the full unedited version of the footage, that they would never have advised Fred to accept the caution?

Thanks AT, can't say too much but again that's all in hand.