The gentleman at Lyons Davidson who sent the letter giving Fred less than 4 hours to agree the contents of their court bundle index has sent a rather tetchy email today in response to Fred's. Here it is....... Mr Fred, I note your actions The purpose of my sending you what I stressed at the time and now again was the draft index was for parties to agree the content of the same before we put it to the Court to assist its understanding of the claim and to allow it to pass judgment Had you asked for any additional documents we had omitted we would have considered the same before filing a single, agreed bundle. You have unilaterally taken a step that will cause confusion at Court, delay and further expense to all parties The Overriding Objective is on co-operation between parties on such matters I am now obliged to file my own bundle which means the Court will have to duplicate its reading Your step, without consultation, was not well-judged I reserve the right to bring this and my previous correspondence to the Court's attention on costs Yours sincerely, ...................... Oh dear, somebody's not happy tut tut. Now if this was a legitimate worry about costs, why didn't they suggest this with their previous two bundles and why leave it till the very last minute when Fred's bundle was already prepared to suggest we share one. It couldn't have anything to do with a sneaky false statement hidden in their bundle could it? One which alleges falsely that Fred has admitted to causing criminal damage.

I'm not entirely clear still whether Dexter is a witness or not. On the application for a stay, it refers to him as the representative of the College, but he has however produced a number of witness statements.

That's a good question, Bedlington, but we don't know the answer . We're certainly hoping it means the whole matter. The court staff have all got PHDs in speaking ambiguously:confused:

YES PLEASE!

Hey wow, thanks for that JonCris. We need to find out then whether he is actually attending as a witness and if so we'll go for it. Presumably we would also be allowed to question him if he does give evidence on the day? He has already made witness statements about which we've complained to the court as they contain false statements made with statements of truth.

Fred has just rung me to say that Lyons Davidson's bundle has just arrived and he's quite pleased with it although he's not saying why. He says I'll have to wait till I get over there to see it. He did tell me though that Lyons Davidson have applied for a stay in the proceedings to delay the hearing of 17th November on the grounds that Mr Dexter (Director of Finance Plymouth College of Art) cannot attend then. We're a bit puzzled whether that means he is coming as a witness, because we've written to Lyons Davidson twice to ask them if they intend to call witnesses to please inform us as to who they are, but they have completely ignored the request. It will be interesting to see what the court's response is.

I think you drove them away Noomill. Either that or they needed their sleep to prepare themselves for reading Fred's enormous court bundle which will be on it's way tomorrow.

Yep they got their reply before 2pm, but to be honest they probably read it first on the thread because there were plenty of guests looking in I noticed.

My mail comes around then too. Hey you don't live in the same sleepy village as me do you? Fred is a townie luckily for him so gets his post about 10 oclock. I bet they were hoping he would be out when it came, miss the deadline and do nothing about it.

Thanks Kiptower good point, I've reinforced that point now.

Thanks Kiptower. We will get onto that. Here's the draft of the email I'm ready to send unless I've missed anything out. Thanks to JonCris who's words I've largely used. Dear Mr,..... I have today received your letter dated 30th October.I can confirm that it contains one sheet of A4 paper (your letter) and your draft bundle index. I dispute that in the absence of any response by me, that you have a right to assume my acceptance. You do not. I am placing you on notice that until I have had an opportunity to study your bundle in detail, I will give no such approval. To demand a response within less than 4 hours from a Litigant in Person is not only an abuse of process, it is quite wrong. You must give sufficient time to examine your submission in detail and in order to do so, I shall need the full two weeks before the Hearing date. Furthermore I shall draw the attention of the court to your conduct. Hope that about covers it.

Just to explain what the Applications Hearing will address. Remember back when the climants were allowed to amend their POC and Fred filed an application to amend his defence in response, well instead of giving him permission, the judge asked the claimant's to comment on the application and then ordered an Applications Hearing to take place immediately before the full hearing to decide the matter. Fred also fully particularised his counterclaim (as instructed by the Judge) and filed an Application to allow that too, with the same result. Likewise Fred's application to strike out the caution from their POC to reflect the agreement made at the Directions Hearing. This also rests in limbo pending an Applications Hearing. All these applications were submitted on 6th August along with an Application to enforce the order for disclosure of 3rd July, ordering the claimant to disclose the make, model and age of the barrier. As waiting for an Applications Hearing left Fred's defence and counterclaim in limbo and bearing in mind that we would have to submit the court bundle without knowing whether the defence and counterclaiim would be allowed, we filed applications at the beginning of October asking for the defence and counterclaim to be allowed immediately. The response to that was to allow the other side until 2nd November to submit comments and after then the Judge would make a decision. Lyons Davidson have sent 2 copies of something they have called a "Reply and Defence" to the counterclaim, and said they have filed them with the court, but the court doesn't appear to have recognised them and have sent no notification of any defence having been filed to the counterclaim. We presume this is because the counterclaim is still in limbo, but haven't been able to get a sensible response from the court. When the latest order came from the court, yet again keeping the defence and counterclaim in limbo Fred objected to the order and wrote complaining to the court, to which he received a reply saying that in view of his comments the matter would be dealt with by a different Judge. So basically that's the story so far.

Good point, hightail. I guess we can take heart from the fact that they must be pretty desperate

Yep! Absolutely! They just can't help themselves.

Thanks JonCris. That's excellent advice. I'll do just that. The final hearing is 17th November and before that there's an Application Hearing on 12th November. I'll give some background to how the Apps Hearing has come about shortly too.

I agree grockle, that's one of the reasons we felt very suspicious about it.

The latest Application filed with the court a week ago, which I promised to tell you about was an Application to strike out the claimant's case on the grounds that it is vexatious and citing their various abuses of court process with detailed evidence. We also asked the court to send the papers on to the Attorney General with a view to proceedings for contempt of court being instigated. No answer so far.

Thankyou so much Joncris, farmlama, Mattyg, you're all stars. Fred and I felt sure there was something dodgy afoot, but didn't know what. This is the first time they've pulled this one. Their last 2 bundles just arrived, one by post and the other delivered by hand, but there was no asking for agreement.

Sorry I should have explained they haven't sent the bundle , just the bundle index.

Hi everyone I'll give you the info on the latest Application as ap, but first I have an urgent question please. A letter has arrived today from Lyons Davidson saying the following...... Please find enclosed draft bundle index. Please confirm that this is agreed and we will proceed to file our bundle of papers with the court. Please send confirmation to .........(EMAIL ADDRESS GIVEN) by 2pm Monday 2nd November to allow the court sufficient time for receipt. If we do not receive confirmation we will assume this agreed and we will proceed to file bundle. We are confused by what it's asking us to agree to. The previous 2 bundles have not come with any such letter and given LDS track record we don't trust them. This is the first time they've asked us to email them too and I can't believe that assuming agreement if no response is given by 2pm today, when the letter has only arrived today can be right. HELP PLEASE!

I wish I could say he had told me something in confidence, Booworm, but the last email I had from TLD was on the 19th September and he was enthusiastic and talked about how he planned to conduct the case at the Hearing. I've sent several updates since, but no response. I very much hope he's ok. As for the freight train, Bookie, well it's picking up speed and there will be a visit to the court tomorrow to deliver possibly our most hard-hitting yet. I'll let everyone know about it once we know the claimant will have got it. As for the Judge, lets hope not:wink:

I hadn't thought of anything like that pebsham, let's hope nothing like that has happened. The only horses heads I've seen have been attached to their bodies fortunately, let's hope TLD can say the same.

I don't know to be honest. I hope he's ok, but I haven't heard from him for about a month.

There's been an update today consisting of a letter from the court and a court order. Both of them are confusing and I don't want to post anything about them till I've got some clarification from someone who can make sense of them and/or clarification from the court. Any legal eagles out there, willing to cast an eye over them, please let me know.

Good idea.It would be very interesting indeed to see how the previous people exited before Fred. It's supposed to operate via a free exit loop which is triggered when a vehicle goes over it, but that clearly wasn't working.