Jump to content



Locked in car park


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3359 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

 

Princess Leia as 'Carrie' or am I getting confused there?

You're not confused and that's pretty good casting. Put a pair of specs on her. LOL.

 

Which will, of course, impress (and terrify) the howling pack of Media Hacks waiting outside the Court when you do this when Fred wins!

 

P.S. don't wear a frock!

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

No frock, got it I'll remember.

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

Top Posters In This Topic

:lol::lol::lol: OK well if she won't do how about Meryl Streep she's about the right age and she doesn't do regional accents (don't think)?

 

Not regional, but international. My goodness, haven't you heard her? Australian in "A cry in the dark", Polish in "Sophie's Choice", etc, etc... At one point, there were rumours that she only took a role if she could "do" another accent, lol.

 

Ok, if we're into confessions, then my role as a barrier may be a bit of a stretch, for starters, I have TWO arms, none of them broken. Also, lifting me would definitely take more than one hand, try a couple of middle-size cranes.

 

I have the bulk to be the ton of bricks to fall on their heads though. :-D

 

 

PS: About Roald Dahl. Little know fact is that he also is the author of porn novels. Always be VERY careful when picking a book for the kids!!! :shock:

Edited by Bookworm
Added trivia
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Bookie!

 

Ok, if we're into confessions, then my role as a barrier may be a bit of a stretch, for starters, I have TWO arms, none of them broken. Also, lifting me would definitely take more than one hand, try a couple of middle-size cranes.

 

There's another problem, to be the barrier requires someone to be a right plank (of wood) so, perhaps, that role should go to the opposition!

 

We need to keep you back for a more prestigious role.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well they've evaded responding to the order

 

 

 

It is also okay for Lyons-Davidson to change their case so drastically at such a late stage but apparantly it's now not okay for the defendant to amend their case in response to the new POC because it's too near the hearing date. (Fred filed his apps within 24 hours of receiving the latest POC from the Court).WTF are they on?

 

The rest is just a mixture of blubbing and untruths. :mad:

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

It looked to me that they were saying they hadn't seen his defence. If that were the case though wouldn't you think they'd have thought to mention it at the Directions Hearing?

Sent you another quick pm TLD btw, sorry......

Link to post
Share on other sites
It looked to me that they were saying they hadn't seen his defence. If that were the case though wouldn't you think they'd have thought to mention it at the Directions Hearing?

Sent you another quick pm TLD btw, sorry......

 

Sorry Patma you are of course quite correct it's the original defence they claim not to have seen. Very odd that this would not have come up before now but then didn't the Court make the most unholy cockup of the initial stages of these proceedings?

 

(Ignore much of what I wrote in the pm's then. :oops:)

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

I've gone through the pleadings from Lyons-Davidson Patma. It's a tragicomedy work of art. Notably they don't actually bother addressing any of the issues raised by the applications as ordered but then we know that would be rather difficult for them don't we. 30 minutes isn't very long to allocate to an apps hearing you have to wonder if HH has already made his mind up on some of the issues, be hard for him not to have done considering the weight of evidence.

 

The last few paragraphs almost had me in tears.... but I was peeling a bag of very strong onions at the time.

 

Basically they've tried very hard to get them dismissed but the Judge has refused to dismiss them and wants them adddressed.

 

In summary I'd have to say 'Very much in Freds favour' and quite obviously not at all what the claimant wanted .:p

 

And if I were being pedantic I'd add 'Still struggling with the concepts of truth and fiction in places'.

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

What's an apps hearing? Presumably its an abbreviation of applications so I guess my question should be what's an applications hearing? Is it to deal with the various documents that Fred has been sending to the court that resulted in the court ordering LD to respond? If so when is it, or will it be heard at the same time as the claimant's hearing on the second?

Link to post
Share on other sites
What's an apps hearing? Presumably its an abbreviation of applications so I guess my question should be what's an applications hearing? Is it to deal with the various documents that Fred has been sending to the court that resulted in the court ordering Lyons-Davidson to respond? If so when is it, or will it be heard at the same time as the claimant's hearing on the second?

 

 

A few weeks ago in response to the claimants amendment of case application Fred submitted some applications of his own.

Obviously he applied to file an amended defence particularised to respond to the new drastically changed POC he is defending.

Lyons-Davidson don't seem to think he should be allowed to amend his defence to cater for the new POC.

Fred also raised concerns about the accuracy of certain statements and provenance of certain evidence.

Lyons-Davidson don't seem to think there are any issues.

Fred applied as fully entitled under CPR that the claimants POC be amended to reflect the agreement made between all parties and the judge on 1st July.

Lyons-Davidson seem to ignore the existence of this agreement yet clearly remember Freds app for a stay being refused (upon the basis of it).

Lyons-Davidson have complained about the costs involved, the time involved, the timing of the apps, the merit of the apps, the manner in which the apps should be dealt with etc. etc. They've called the apps 'unwarranted', 'unfortunate', stated they should have been given the opportunity to address them directly, said 2 weeks (4 weeks shurely) is not enough notice, blah, blub, blah, blub.

 

The letter from Lyons-Davidson is a blubfest of staggering proportions and does not actually cover any of the points ordered by the court, concentrating as it does on portraying Fred as the villain and themselves as victims....... But then the Court has almost a whopping 50 pages more evidence in support of any allegations made by Fred than the claimant has so is perfectly able to see who plays which part in proceedings to date.

 

The judge has ignored all their protests, all their attempts at belittling Fred or the issues and ordered a hearing to be held immediately prior to the small claims hearing in order that these applications may be addressed.

 

Fred wants them addressed, the claimant quite patently does not so we have to take this as a small preliminary victory and a point in the bag.

 

So now there are two hearings planned for tuesday. This doubles the chances of Fred winning and the second hearing could prove very interesting if say for example Fred were to blurt out his 'little secret' in the first hearing....:shock:

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
Gosh, I wish I could get to Plymouth for the hearing. :-|

 

I think a lot of CAGers feel the same! Maybe we should make up a charra? :D

Any knowledge I possess or advice I proffer is based solely on my experiences in the University of Life. Please make your own assessment of legality, risks & costs before taking any action.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
:) make sure you wear the "free the plymouth one" tshirts that were designed a while ago

Please note:

 

  • I am employed in the IT sector of a high street retail chain but am not posting in any official capacity,so therefore any comments,suggestions or opinions are expressly personal ones and should not be viewed as an endorsement or with agreement of any company.
  • i am not legal trained in any form.
  • I have many experiences in life and do often use these in my posts

if ive been helpful kick my scales, if ive been unhelpful kick the scales of the person more helpful :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the update TLD

So now there are two hearings planned for tuesday. This doubles the chances of Fred winning and the second hearing could prove very interesting if say for example Fred were to blurt out his 'little secret' in the first hearing....:shock:

Lol. Can't wait to learn what the little secret is

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lol. Can't wait to learn what the little secret is

 

Neither can I! All this cloak andd dagger is adding to the reasons why I can't wait for Fred to win this one :p

 

H

I am not a lawyer - I'm an Engineer with an interest in law. Advice is given with out prejudice and is my opinion on the information I have been provided with based on my experience, understanding and interpritation of law. If you are in any doubt please seek the advice of a qualified and insured legal professional.

 

Victories:

Abbey (OH) - £680 ..... Barclaycard (OH) - £2200 ..... MBNA (OH) - £1800 ..... Shop Direct (OH) - £220

Brunell Franklin (a.k.a. Conkers) - Out of "contract" & no charge

:D

 

In Progress:

MBNA (OH) - PPI & bad default with premature termination

Capital One (OH) - ~£800 Penalty Charges

Suzuki Finance/Blackhorse (OH) - Commission, Unlawful removal, PPI, Charges

 

A Lightbulb Shop - "loss of bargain"

 

If i've helped, please feel free to hit the star ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Neither can I! All this cloak andd dagger is adding to the reasons why I can't wait for Fred to win this one :p

 

H

 

It's very tempting to reveal the 'little secret' on this thread at about 1:45 pm on tuesday just 15 minutes before the hearing is due to start. Just leaving them enough time for a panic call to the barrister but heck let them find it out at the application hearing when it's too late to withdraw.

 

The truth is all the pertinent facts were there before them but either they failed to pick up on it or more likely simply chose to ignore and/or deliberately suppress it. :eek:

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

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3359 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...