Hey -Guys,

Please excuse the long absence but I just had to tell you that I won
the -Court Case about the horses which got out on the road.

-For those who do not remember in -December 2003 I went to the US for
Christmas leaving my God-daughter looking after her horses which I had
agreed that she could stable at my place and my dogs.

Whilst I was away she ran short of hay and decided to stretch it by
putting the horses into a newly fenced field.

There was a shoot on on Boxing Day and presumably the shoot spooked
the horses because the got out and ran across the road and one was hit
by a car.

The insurance company, I suppose believing that they had a better
chance of getting money from me than GD sued me for liability under
section 2 of the animals act 1971 and for negligence.

They were seeking to establish that I was the keeper and in possession
of the horses because they were on land occupied by me.

Had they won the case the implications for farmer renting fields out
for horse grazing would have been dire but in the event the Judge at
Trowbridge County Court dismissed the case against me with costs to
me.

Wonderful - such a relief.  In my mind it was perverse that they ever
persued me and I should, I think, have the right to sue them for the
stress they have caused me, but it seems that it is not allowed.

Grateful for small mercies!

Pat

On Sep 1, 3:59�pm, Pat Bryant  wrote:
> Hey -Guys,
>
> Please excuse the long absence but I just had to tell you that I won
> the -Court Case about the horses which got out on the road.
>
> -For those who do not remember in -December 2003 I went to the US for
> Christmas leaving my God-daughter looking after her horses which I had
> agreed that she could stable at my place and my dogs.
>
> Whilst I was away she ran short of hay and decided to stretch it by
> putting the horses into a newly fenced field.
>
> There was a shoot on on Boxing Day and presumably the shoot spooked
> the horses because the got out and ran across the road and one was hit
> by a car.
>
> The insurance company, I suppose believing that they had a better
> chance of getting money from me than GD sued me for liability under
> section 2 of the animals act 1971 and for negligence.
>
> They were seeking to establish that I was the keeper and in possession
> of the horses because they were on land occupied by me.
>
> Had they won the case the implications for farmer renting fields out
> for horse grazing would have been dire but in the event the Judge at
> Trowbridge County Court dismissed the case against me with costs to
> me.
>
> Wonderful - such a relief. �In my mind it was perverse that they ever
> persued me and I should, I think, have the right to sue them for the
> stress they have caused me, but it seems that it is not allowed.
>
> Grateful for small mercies!
>
> Pat

Thank goodness for that.  It seems that occasionaly now you find the
courts coming down
on the side of good sense and fair play.  Long may it continue.
Insurance companies
are forever trying to wriggle out of paying up, and trying to find
someone else to blame.

Hope all is going well for you.

Sarah Baddeley

On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 07:59:52 -0700 (PDT), Pat Bryant
 wrote:

>Wonderful - such a relief.  In my mind it was perverse that they ever
>persued me and I should, I think, have the right to sue them for the
>stress they have caused me, but it seems that it is not allowed.

Well done and my condolences they put you through such stress.

AJH

"Pat Bryant"  wrote in message 
news:6044741c-9e77-4fd0-ae3a-df2310502f86@k7g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> Hey -Guys,
 > Wonderful - such a relief.  In my mind it was perverse that they ever
> persued me and I should, I think, have the right to sue them for the
> stress they have caused me, but it seems that it is not allowed.
>
> Grateful for small mercies!
>
  Well done,

Pat Bryant wrote:
> Hey -Guys,
> 
> Please excuse the long absence but I just had to tell you that I won
> the -Court Case about the horses which got out on the road.

Well done.  The fact that you also got your costs means that the judge 
considered the insurance company had no case at all.  Surprised they 
tried it on.


-- 
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make 
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

In message 
, Pat 
Bryant  writes
>
>Had they won the case the implications for farmer renting fields out
>for horse grazing would have been dire but in the event the Judge at
>Trowbridge County Court dismissed the case against me with costs to
>me.
>
>Wonderful - such a relief.  In my mind it was perverse that they ever
>persued me and I should, I think, have the right to sue them for the
>stress they have caused me, but it seems that it is not allowed.

Congratulations!

How did they argue the case? I imagine they tried to show that the 
fencing was suspect in some way. Or that horses could have been expected 
to escape and should not have been there.
>
>Grateful for small mercies!

Quite:-)

regards

-- 
Tim Lamb

On 2008-09-01, Old Codger  wrote:
> Pat Bryant wrote:
>> Hey -Guys,
>> 
>> Please excuse the long absence but I just had to tell you that I won
>> the -Court Case about the horses which got out on the road.
>
> Well done.  The fact that you also got your costs means that the judge 
> considered the insurance company had no case at all.  Surprised they 
> tried it on.

They will.. anyone can sue anyone else for anything, the courts can only
punish those who do it agressively by giving costs. The prospects of
having to, maybe, hire barristers and solicitors to match the opposition
will bully a lot of people into giving way. I remember a person who tried
to get a neighbour's sheep in from the public road, during which a car was
damaged (not his fault), was prosecuted, and paid the fine to just get the
problem to go away. It needs people to defend such actions for the system
to work. 

-- 
Greymaus
 .
  .
...

On 2 Sep, 10:25, greymaus  wrote:
> On 2008-09-01, Old Codger  wrote:
>
> > Pat Bryant wrote:
> >> Hey -Guys,
>
> >> Please excuse the long absence but I just had to tell you that I won
> >> the -Court Case about the horses which got out on the road.
>
> > Well done.  The fact that you also got your costs means that the judge
> > considered the insurance company had no case at all.  Surprised they
> > tried it on.
>
> They will.. anyone can sue anyone else for anything, the courts can only
> punish those who do it agressively by giving costs. The prospects of
> having to, maybe, hire barristers and solicitors to match the opposition
> will bully a lot of people into giving way. I remember a person who tried
> to get a neighbour's sheep in from the public road, during which a car was
> damaged (not his fault), was prosecuted, and paid the fine to just get the
> problem to go away. It needs people to defend such actions for the system
> to work.
>
> --
> Greymaus

You are spot on there.  Had I had the money I would probably have
caved in and paid up - that is until I realised the implications of
the case.

Their Barrister argued that because I had allowed God-Daugher to
stable her horses on the farm I should have expected either for them
to get out of the stable (she was a Towny - brought up in Belfast!) or
for GD to let them into the field from where I should have expected
them to escape.

She also argued that I was negligent in not checking that the
energiser and battery on the fencing was in working order before I
left for my holiday.  I am not in the habit of checking fences on
empty fields - bearing mind that this was 5 months after my husband
died and I had no stock on the farm.  In any case I went away on the
15th December - the accident happened on the 27th and a battery which
was working when I left might well not have been working by the 27th.

The also tried to argue that in allowing the horses on my premises I
had become their "Keeper" which would make me liable under section 2
of the Animals Act 71.

The implications for farming diversification were obvious.  Anyone who
let land for grazing any animal would become the keeper of the animal
and therefore liable for any damage done.  I could see the insurance
companies excluding land let for grazing.  It would not only have had
an impact on anyone letting land for horse grazing but also on the
overwintering of hill sheep.

Anyways - I won and I am so relieved.  No all I have to do is to count
up my costs.  I am told that they will only pay costs at 9 ukp per
hour which really does not cover me for the working time I lost.  I
bet Solicitors do not have that restriction on them.

Best regards

Pat Bryant
>  .
>   .
> ...

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 07:59:52 -0700, Pat Bryant wrote:

> Hey -Guys,
> 
> Please excuse the long absence but I just had to tell you that I won
> the -Court Case about the horses which got out on the road.
> 

Excellent news Pat.  I'm really pleased for you.

Pat Bryant wrote:
> 
> Anyways - I won and I am so relieved.  No all I have to do is to count
> up my costs.  I am told that they will only pay costs at 9 ukp per
> hour which really does not cover me for the working time I lost.  I
> bet Solicitors do not have that restriction on them.

Pat, you could try the legal group again.  Someone there may be able to 
confirm or advise.  There will be a limit for LIPs but £9 per hour does 
seem a bit low.  There will also be a limit for solicitors, although I 
suspect somewhat higher.  If the court considers a solicitor's costs to 
be high they can also subject them to assessment (can't remember the 
right legal word for that).


-- 
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make 
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 07:59:52 -0700 (PDT), Pat Bryant
 wrote:

>Hey -Guys,
>
>Please excuse the long absence but I just had to tell you that I won
>the -Court Case about the horses which got out on the road.
>
>-For those who do not remember in -December 2003 I went to the US for
>Christmas leaving my God-daughter looking after her horses which I had
>agreed that she could stable at my place and my dogs.
>
>Whilst I was away she ran short of hay and decided to stretch it by
>putting the horses into a newly fenced field.
>
>There was a shoot on on Boxing Day and presumably the shoot spooked
>the horses because the got out and ran across the road and one was hit
>by a car.
>
>The insurance company, I suppose believing that they had a better
>chance of getting money from me than GD sued me for liability under
>section 2 of the animals act 1971 and for negligence.
>
>They were seeking to establish that I was the keeper and in possession
>of the horses because they were on land occupied by me.
>
>Had they won the case the implications for farmer renting fields out
>for horse grazing would have been dire but in the event the Judge at
>Trowbridge County Court dismissed the case against me with costs to
>me.
>
>Wonderful - such a relief.  In my mind it was perverse that they ever
>persued me and I should, I think, have the right to sue them for the
>stress they have caused me, but it seems that it is not allowed.
>
>Grateful for small mercies!
>
>Pat

Bullying has become a way of life in Britain.

Some of these people need exposing. They can't take bad publicity
though.

Anyway, every individual that fights back successfully does everyone
else a favour. 

I fought the local council who tried all the dirty tricks, including
taking it to a higher Court and threatening me with their massive
costs. I forced it back to a lower Court and presented my case against
their solicitors.

It was not a big case, but somebody could have been killed thorough
their neglect, had I not stepped in,to take action on my account to
remove the public danger.  I took them to Court for the costs.

I got the money plus the costs. They got a good old-fashioned
rollicking from the judge. 

Just to make sure I went back after them again and they suffered the
humiliation of having to come onto my land and clear up a mess to my
satisfaction.

They will not be pulling that stroke on anyone again.

Y,ou have done a damn good job at a time of great distress.That
knowledge should help compensate for all the worry and unpleasantness.

Well done.

PG

"Old Codger"  wrote in message 
news:48bd8cba$0$2916$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
 .  There will be a limit for LIPs but £9 per hour does
> seem a bit low.

It is about the same as the weekly maximum for state redundantcy payments. 
So likely to be about right.

Buddenbrooks wrote:
> "Old Codger"  wrote in message 
> news:48bd8cba$0$2916$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
>  .  There will be a limit for LIPs but £9 per hour does
>> seem a bit low.
> 
> It is about the same as the weekly maximum for state redundantcy payments. 
> So likely to be about right.

Discussions in the legal group indicate that it is unlikely to be much 
higher, maybe a little.  However, it hasn't yet, and therefore may not, 
attracted any of the more knowledgeable (IMHO) posters.



-- 
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make 
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

"Old Codger"  wrote in message 
news:48c1a42a$0$2510$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
> Buddenbrooks wrote:
>> "Old Codger"  wrote in message 
>> news:48bd8cba$0$2916$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
>>  .  There will be a limit for LIPs but £9 per hour does
>>> seem a bit low.
>>
>> It is about the same as the weekly maximum for state redundantcy 
>> payments. So likely to be about right.
>
> Discussions in the legal group indicate that it is unlikely to be much 
> higher, maybe a little.  However, it hasn't yet, and therefore may not, 
> attracted any of the more knowledgeable (IMHO) posters.
>

I would guess that you are probably teated as a witness to your own case so:


1. Ordinary witness allowances
a) Subsistence expenses:
up to 5 hours - £2.25
up to 10 hours - £4.50
in excess of 10 hours - £9.75
overnight stay (inner London) - £95.00
overnight stay (elsewhere) - £65.00

b) Loss of earnings:
up to 4 hours' absence - £32.30
in excess of 4 hours' absence - £64.65

c) Financial loss allowance in respect of expenditure incurred - £64.65

Buddenbrooks  wrote:

> "Old Codger"  wrote in message 
> news:48c1a42a$0$2510$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
> > Buddenbrooks wrote:
> >> "Old Codger"  wrote in message 
> >> news:48bd8cba$0$2916$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
> >>  .  There will be a limit for LIPs but £9 per hour does
> >>> seem a bit low.
> >>
> >> It is about the same as the weekly maximum for state redundantcy 
> >> payments. So likely to be about right.
> >
> > Discussions in the legal group indicate that it is unlikely to be much
> > higher, maybe a little.  However, it hasn't yet, and therefore may not,
> > attracted any of the more knowledgeable (IMHO) posters.
> >
> 
> I would guess that you are probably teated as a witness to your own case so:
> 
> 
> 1. Ordinary witness allowances
> a) Subsistence expenses:
> up to 5 hours - £2.25
> up to 10 hours - £4.50
> in excess of 10 hours - £9.75
> overnight stay (inner London) - £95.00
> overnight stay (elsewhere) - £65.00
> 
> b) Loss of earnings:
> up to 4 hours' absence - £32.30
> in excess of 4 hours' absence - £64.65
> 
> c) Financial loss allowance in respect of expenditure incurred - £64.65

Hmm, spectacularly short of the actual costs of travel and subsistence.
I've just stayed at a budget hotel in outer London and that came to more
than £95 a night. For a "budget" hotel in central London the cheapest
rate quoted was £240 for room only. My loss of earnings for a day out
would be "quite a bit" more than £64.

In article <1imunji.li4tv1113pnm0N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, Steve Firth 
<%steve%@malloc.co.uk> writes
>Buddenbrooks  wrote:
>
>> "Old Codger"  wrote in message
>> news:48c1a42a$0$2510$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
>> > Buddenbrooks wrote:
>> >> "Old Codger"  wrote in message
>> >> news:48bd8cba$0$2916$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
>> >>  .  There will be a limit for LIPs but £9 per hour does
>> >>> seem a bit low.
>> >>
>> >> It is about the same as the weekly maximum for state redundantcy
>> >> payments. So likely to be about right.
>> >
>> > Discussions in the legal group indicate that it is unlikely to be much
>> > higher, maybe a little.  However, it hasn't yet, and therefore may not,
>> > attracted any of the more knowledgeable (IMHO) posters.
>> >
>>
>> I would guess that you are probably teated as a witness to your own case so:
>>
>>
>> 1. Ordinary witness allowances
>> a) Subsistence expenses:
>> up to 5 hours - £2.25
>> up to 10 hours - £4.50
>> in excess of 10 hours - £9.75
>> overnight stay (inner London) - £95.00
>> overnight stay (elsewhere) - £65.00
>>
>> b) Loss of earnings:
>> up to 4 hours' absence - £32.30
>> in excess of 4 hours' absence - £64.65
>>
>> c) Financial loss allowance in respect of expenditure incurred - £64.65
>
>Hmm, spectacularly short of the actual costs of travel and subsistence.
>I've just stayed at a budget hotel in outer London and that came to more
>than £95 a night. For a "budget" hotel in central London the cheapest
>rate quoted was £240 for room only. My loss of earnings for a day out
>would be "quite a bit" more than £64.

Today's Times Travel supplement lists 16 London hotels for £100 or less, 
most B&B, a few room only. And they're not all out in the sticks, e.g. 
Belgravia, Chelsea, Fulham, Notting Hill, Hoxton, Chiswick, Camberwell, 
Paddington, Southwark, Bloomsbury, etc.

The Premier Inn, Southwark, belongingto what I would call a "budget 
hotel" chain - I use them when travelling in Scotland - is £99 room 
only. The Holiday Inn, Bloomsbury, is £100.

-- 
Malcolm

Malcolm  wrote:

> The Premier Inn, Southwark, belongingto what I would call a "budget 
> hotel" chain - I use them when travelling in Scotland - is £99 room 
> only. The Holiday Inn, Bloomsbury, is £100.

I wouldn't believe what you read in the papers. The rate at the HI
Bloomsbury is £230 to £290 a night. The Premier Inn, Brentford is £150 a
night, when they have vacancies, which isn't often.

The cheapest rate in any London Holiday Inn at present is £140. It's
sometimes possible to get rooms at Jury's Inn for £70 a night, but never
at their Kensington hotel and only if you book months in advance.

"Malcolm"  wrote in message 
news:M6Kq$jei$owIFw4Z@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>
>  The Premier Inn, Southwark, belongingto what I would call a "budget 
> hotel" chain - I use them when travelling in Scotland - is £99 room only. 
> The Holiday Inn, Bloomsbury, is £100.
>


  The have  YHA  hostels and the underpass at Waterloo has a no-book drop in 
arrangement on a bring your own cardboard box basis.

In article <1imutnm.sqvo3g16n4r8sN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, Steve Firth 
<%steve%@malloc.co.uk> writes
>Malcolm  wrote:
>
>> The Premier Inn, Southwark, belongingto what I would call a "budget
>> hotel" chain - I use them when travelling in Scotland - is £99 room
>> only. The Holiday Inn, Bloomsbury, is £100.
>
>I wouldn't believe what you read in the papers. The rate at the HI
>Bloomsbury is £230 to £290 a night. The Premier Inn, Brentford is £150 a
>night, when they have vacancies, which isn't often.
>
>The cheapest rate in any London Holiday Inn at present is £140. It's
>sometimes possible to get rooms at Jury's Inn for £70 a night, but never
>at their Kensington hotel and only if you book months in advance.

Checking the Premier Inn website, I see that it depends on the day of 
the week.  Friday, Saturday or Sunday nights at their Southwark, County 
Hall, Euston, King's Cross St Pancras, Tower Bridge and Tower Hill 
hotels are between £88 and £100. During the week, these rise to £110 - 
£135. This was not mentioned in the newspaper article :-(


-- 
Malcolm

"Malcolm"  wrote in message 
news:EnM4Yap6J4wIFw4M@indaal.demon.co.uk...
 > Checking the Premier Inn website, I see that it depends on the day of
> the week.  Friday, Saturday or Sunday nights at their Southwark, County 
> Hall, Euston, King's Cross St Pancras, Tower Bridge and Tower Hill hotels 
> are between £88 and £100. During the week, these rise to £110 - £135. This 
> was not mentioned in the newspaper article :-(
>

  Presumably all those MPs claiming expenses push up the cost.
  With London's public transport system us 'ordinary' folk need to stay in 
the Home Counties for visits to London.

Pat Bryant  writes

>Had they won the case the implications for farmer renting fields out for 
>horse grazing would have been dire 

Indeed so with very much wider repercussions.

>but in the event the Judge at Trowbridge 
>County Court dismissed the case against me with costs to me.

Excellent.

>Wonderful - such a relief.  In my mind it was perverse that they ever 
>persued me and I should, I think, have the right to sue them for the stress 
>they have caused me, but it seems that it is not allowed.

I know, unfair I say since probably everyone involved were getting paid,
except you!

-- 
Oz