rtbiscuit Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 take note of the time at which it was written, and also fo rthe fact i'd had about 8 pints of cider and yes it is possible to have dyslexia and be a teacher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cragus Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 and yes it is possible to have dyslexia and be a tech teacher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spursmaddave Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 and yes it is possible to have dyslexia and be a tech teacher I once had a dyslexic English teacher called Miss Spellings... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rtbiscuit Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 and yes it is possible to have dyslexia and be a tech teacher at least my students can count past 10, write their own name, and wipe there own arse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaydnH Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 "to act as parking enforcement at the your Bath Road office." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricey Posted February 6, 2011 Author Share Posted February 6, 2011 "to act as parking enforcement at the your Bath Road office." I'm sure they'll get the point........... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cragus Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 and yes it is possible to have dyslexia and be a tech teacher at least my students can count past 10, write their own name, and wipe there own arse. Can they also use capital letters and correctly determine whether they should use the word 'their' or 'there'. BOOM! P.s. The comma before 'and' is not required as it is the last point in your list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rtbiscuit Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 capital letters and the correct use of their and there, are only for nerds and homo's thats a fact Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ebized Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 OK guys lets cut the English lessons on Ricey's thread. Any added will be deleted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricey Posted February 14, 2011 Author Share Posted February 14, 2011 Ahem............well its back. Paint flaking off round the fog light......exhaust - bent as a dinner guest at Michael barrymoors house.....and now decorated with some new scratches. .......going back this week. I have literally (and I don't mean throw away comment 'literally...I meant LITERALLY literally ) given up on the world. Its populated by utter cretins who need their fat neanderthal faces slapping with a dead rotting polecat corpse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rtbiscuit Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 i never use the insurers reccomended bodyshop; i always get them to transfer the job to my own one. that way i know the quality of the work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricey Posted February 16, 2011 Author Share Posted February 16, 2011 Ok couple of updates (for those that haven' died of boredom - i.e everyone apart from biscuit!) Insurance are taking the car back for a bumper respray again and also they've bit the bullet and ordered a new Scorpion from Demon Tweeks. After a few well placed emails advising the landowner that they were going to court I got this from the clamping company From: Direct Car Park Solutions [mailto] Sent: 16 February 2011 15:17 To: Rice, Paul Subject: 28th January Vehile Imobilisation. Dear paul, i'm sorry to hear you were caught out on one of our clients car parks and i do sympathise with you. However, the sign is in a well lit area and is a contractual agreement, which our clients are very happy with. You had no permission and no permit to park their, therefore you were parked illegally as their is no public right of way or thoroughfare on the fore mentioned land (Trespassers Act, 1977). Feel free to take action as we have three photographs of your vehicle illegally parked with the sign in the background, clearly on display and you were immobilised by an SIA license holder in accordance with current law and legislation. once again i emphpise with your current frustration, but you must understand you were not in compliance to rules of the land owner, were trespassing and we have a duty to our client to protect their intrests. I uinderstand your situation but sorry their will be no refund. Kind regards Mr J. Dawson Appeals manager DCS. To which they got back Mr Dawson, Firstly thank you for taking the time to respond to my queries. I would appreciate it if you could provide me with the photographic evidence of the vehicle with a clear sign anywhere in the background as the only signage present to my knowledge is in an unlit area approximately 13 ft in the air in a font that is clearly illegible from that distance. Other sites where signs had previously been sited had adhesive on the wall at head height had been torn down as confirmed by the DSC operative and evidenced by further photographic evidence in my possession. I am assuming that you have responded to me as a result of Giles Insurance forwarding my emails on to yourselves as my recorded delivery letter was not collected from your 'business premises'. Therefore attached is a copy of the full details and photographic evidence of the inadequate signage (noting that as per your photographic evidence - my car is situated approx 20-30 ft from this sign against the opposite wall). If you can provide me with a photograph of any adequate signage in the area where I was parked I will respectfully withdraw any appeal regardless of my other points regarding your company. Should you not be able to provide this I feel I have sufficient evidence to be successful in court and will continue to pursue this course of action (citing the case law in point - Vine vs Waltham Forest - which is a clear indication that I could not enter into any contractual agreement with Giles Insurance or DSC due to being unable to read the sign). Again I thank you for your time in considering this matter and look forward to provision of this information by the 21st of February as per my original deadline. Many thanks Paul Rice ............totally the wrong person to call a bluff on I'm afraid chaps Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cragus Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 BOOM! I like how you cited a case which sets the precedent....smooth bastard! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glrnet Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Excellent reply, and you can spell!! Ok couple of updates (for those that haven' died of boredom - i.e everyone apart from biscuit!) Insurance are taking the car back for a bumper respray again and also they've bit the bullet and ordered a new Scorpion from Demon Tweeks. After a few well placed emails advising the landowner that they were going to court I got this from the clamping company From: Direct Car Park Solutions [mailto] Sent: 16 February 2011 15:17 To: Rice, Paul Subject: 28th January Vehile Imobilisation. Dear paul, i'm sorry to hear you were caught out on one of our clients car parks and i do sympathise with you. However, the sign is in a well lit area and is a contractual agreement, which our clients are very happy with. You had no permission and no permit to park their, therefore you were parked illegally as their is no public right of way or thoroughfare on the fore mentioned land (Trespassers Act, 1977). Feel free to take action as we have three photographs of your vehicle illegally parked with the sign in the background, clearly on display and you were immobilised by an SIA license holder in accordance with current law and legislation. once again i emphpise with your current frustration, but you must understand you were not in compliance to rules of the land owner, were trespassing and we have a duty to our client to protect their intrests. I uinderstand your situation but sorry their will be no refund. Kind regards Mr J. Dawson Appeals manager DCS. To which they got back Mr Dawson, Firstly thank you for taking the time to respond to my queries. I would appreciate it if you could provide me with the photographic evidence of the vehicle with a clear sign anywhere in the background as the only signage present to my knowledge is in an unlit area approximately 13 ft in the air in a font that is clearly illegible from that distance. Other sites where signs had previously been sited had adhesive on the wall at head height had been torn down as confirmed by the DSC operative and evidenced by further photographic evidence in my possession. I am assuming that you have responded to me as a result of Giles Insurance forwarding my emails on to yourselves as my recorded delivery letter was not collected from your 'business premises'. Therefore attached is a copy of the full details and photographic evidence of the inadequate signage (noting that as per your photographic evidence - my car is situated approx 20-30 ft from this sign against the opposite wall). If you can provide me with a photograph of any adequate signage in the area where I was parked I will respectfully withdraw any appeal regardless of my other points regarding your company. Should you not be able to provide this I feel I have sufficient evidence to be successful in court and will continue to pursue this course of action (citing the case law in point - Vine vs Waltham Forest - which is a clear indication that I could not enter into any contractual agreement with Giles Insurance or DSC due to being unable to read the sign). Again I thank you for your time in considering this matter and look forward to provision of this information by the 21st of February as per my original deadline. Many thanks Paul Rice ............totally the wrong person to call a bluff on I'm afraid chaps Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rtbiscuit Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 i look forward to the reply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neilp Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 You remind me of someone i know lol. I'm a bugger to argue with as i can talk for scotland and a bro who's a lawyer Luckily in scotland there is no trespassing laws but i did get another parking ticket today at work. I cant wait to see the response from them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricey Posted February 28, 2011 Author Share Posted February 28, 2011 Ooooooooo I got a response........most entertaining - last email from me then follows response (there is also an even lengthier response to the land owner - Giles Insurance but I forgot to forward that one home) From: Paul.Rice@xxxxxxxxxx To: info.chester@gilesinsurance.co.uk; enquiries@gilesinsurance.co.uk; directcarparksolutions@live.co.uk Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 10:52:13 +0000 Subject: Letter Before Action Dear Sirs/Madam, As per my previous correspondence please find attached a 'Letter Before Action' stating my intentions to bring court proceedings to you regarding the unlawful clamping of my vehicle. The N1 Court Summons Form has been completed and will be submitted Chester County Small Claims Court on Monday the 28th of February should a full settlement of £152.95 or sufficient photographic evidence be received. Hard copies have been sent in the post to Giles Insurance Chester address and to DCS Birkenhead address (although there is some doubt as to weather this is a legitimate address where post is collected from - hence the email copy) Giles I have also attached a copy of the response received from DCS last week and my subsequent request that was not/cannot be complied with. Regards Paul Rice From: Direct Car Park Solutions [mailto] Sent: 28 February 2011 13:02 To: Rice, Paul Subject: RE: Letter Before Action Dear Paul, i spent most of my sunday afternoon investigating your claims with my operatives and they tell me you and yuor girlfriend had WPC attend to the site on the Day in Question. My operatives also told me how rude you were and also the phone operator mentioned your rudness also. I am also informed your partner did not pay the full release fee which you are trying to claim for , which after deliberation with our legal team, can be portrayed as a fraudulant claim. I also attended the site myself and took more photographs. Their are two new yellow lines painted in front of the aforementioned site. and as explained before THEIR IS NO THROUGHFARE, so you were tresspassing, the contract is irrelevant. Show me your written permission, from Giles Insurance to park their and yuor receipt and i will gladley, immeadeatly refund you. Kind regards Mr Dawson. From: Rice, Paul Sent: 28 February 2011 14:02 To: 'Direct Car Park Solutions' Subject: RE: Letter Before Action I think you might have the wrong chap there Mr Dawson. I was on my own - I was perfectly polite to bother the phone operator and operative in attendance (in fact I even thanked the operative for coming back to release the car so quickly and for pointing out the appeals address to me) and there was no police attendance because although I refute the clamping fee ETC I understand that you were only doing the job you have been contracted to do - regardless of weather it is enforceable or not - and I appreciate that. I would suggest you check your facts before making accusations such as this as they can land you into further legal issues (defamation of character). However in this instance a simple apology will suffice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cragus Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Hey mate - good to see you are still chasing this up! On a side note, you wanted to use the word 'whether' twice over in your letter and have accidently used the word 'weather'. I only point it out as you want people to take your seriously and little things like that count. However, looking at this guys mistakes, I am sure he won't have noticed. Keep it up and don't let them get away with it! After a brisk read of his reply: i - This should be a capital when used alone. yuor - your (I will give him that as a typo) Day in Question (no idea why this has capital letters) rudness (the classic drop the e when you don't need to) ....also told me how rude you were and also the phone operator mentioned your rudness also. I am also..... (loving the word also - must of been word of the day) their (that will be 'there' then) tresspassing - (that's a new spelling for this word) gladley - (ach, lets throw an extra 'e' in for good measure) immeadeatly (Bless him, he has tried to sound it out. Poor phonological awareness though .) Don't even get me started on his use of full stops and commas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricey Posted February 28, 2011 Author Share Posted February 28, 2011 The dangers of touch typing and relying on spellcheck! His responses are fecking laughable. I bet he was well chuffed when he thought id been really arsey.......then my response landed to advise him he had the wrong person. What a chimp. :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pimm Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Cannot wait for the outcome of this I had one of my delivery drivers clamped last week that I had to pay cash up front would not take a card payment over the phone. He was only delivering a pizza, gone for no more than 2-3 minutes, that is all it took to get clamped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricey Posted March 4, 2011 Author Share Posted March 4, 2011 Well its not exactly what I wanted never the less I'm calling it a win!!!!!!!! 75 smackers refunded in cold hard cash by the clamping company today. They said this was in no way an admission of guilt but given that they accused me of being abusive ETC when they'd actually got the wrong person, the refund of £75 would be a gesture of good will. The bloke I was dealing with kept banging on about how he was an 'educated man' and had all these law degrees and what not. Had it not been for the fact I wanted my cash I'd of been quite tempted to query how such an educated man had such a poor grasp of basic English and grammar! I could of pushed it to court and I'm sure I would of won but for the sake of another £75 I really couldn't be arsed with a day off work in a court room with a bunch of washed up scouse ex cons. Bottom line.......I rule Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATTAK Z Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 Nice one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brown7758 Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 Been reading from the start and it was quite an intriguing short story well done on your win (and it is just that) everyone could do with taking a leaf out of your book and avoid being bullied into submission if there is a case to fight, ask for the proper advice and do it.. nice Win, Will Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricey Posted March 4, 2011 Author Share Posted March 4, 2011 Cheers Will. This was my last email to the landowner that I think broke him - sent it straight after my reply above Giles - out of courtesy I'm sending this to you. Are you really sure you want to keep this kind of dialogue open? Its adding quite beautifully to my file for court but to be quite honest I'd much rather not have to take it that far. To quote from the response DCS have provided "However, the sign is in a well lit area and is a contractual agreement" however apparently now "the contract is irrelevant" and unless I'm missing something there is no such act as the (Trespassers Act, 1977). I've been very patient and polite throughout all this - even going to the lengths of mentioning that the operatives were courteous and polite to me. All I have asked for is 1 photograph of my car with adequate signage which has not been provided (because it doesn't exist). This kind of correspondence really is just piling the issues on and given that they appear to be investigating a totally different clamping - my patience is beginning to wear a little thin. So - once again I'll extend you the courtesy of another 7 days to deliberate this matter - I've provided photographic evidence and cited case law backing up my claim for a refund (proven case law that has stood up in court). You (Giles/DCS) have provided a vague reference to an act that by all accounts doesn't appear to exist and failed to provide any photographic evidence. The fact that "THEIR IS NO THROUGHFARE" is irrelevant - you charged me a fee to release my car and for that you require a contract that both parties can enter into under no duress and with full clarity of the terms. I never intended for this to be any kind of 'nasty' affair (hence me being so understanding with the DCS operatives on the night in question - they were only doing a job) and I trust that Mr Dawson will be apologising regarding his statements below shortly (acknowledged that this was a genuine misunderstanding on his part). I would gladly of paid the release fee had I known I was illegally parked - however the bare facts are that you simply do not clearly show that it is private land. Kind regards Paul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kregb Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Thanks for posting the whole story... Very useful... weve just been done by DCS as well... im even more impressed by the fact you kept calling them polite than by your eventual victory... I hope you wont mind us using your letters for inspiration... Thanks... Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.