DAS Group

DAS House, Quay Side,

Temple Back,
Bristol,
BS1 6NH
0117 934 2000
neil.coombs@das.co.uk *
personal@das.co.uk *

DAS Policy Nr. TS3 / 453 29 11

Comp. Nr. 165 09 - 226

10, Fulford Mns.,

Fairmead Rd.,
London,
N19 4DE
0207 502 61 18
077 514 666 52
t0mcahill@hotmail.com
with a zero in t0m
21. 09. 2010

FAO. DAS CLAIMS TEAM

EMAILED
AS PRESCRIBED OPPOSITE

& RECORDED POST

CONFIRM RECIEPT BY EMAIL IMMEDIATELY
Dear Neil,
LETTER THREE
Re. My Letters: One, 21.08.10; Two, 11.09.10; you responses: both dated after they were sent, but for
reference purposes, dated: 08.09.10; 16.09.10; failure to: answer numerated queries, rebut accusations,
define your position, tether your position contractually, locate the definitions cited (upon which this relies),
or, to produce the set of conditions.
Firstly to deal with DASs third correspondence; your (Neil Coombss, NCs) second, of 16.09.10, which I
received on 13.09.10. (77.) This followed a previous confirmation of my Letter Two. This is the second time that
you have written, the second time that you have displayed clear upside down thinking, and the second time that
this record has been left in the same, second part of your correspondence: the dates follow those of the receipt of
the correspondence, in both occasions. I grant that the address, being the first piece of information, is correct,
and that they probably were computer generated, but the issue is, you might be taken more seriously if you didnt
start your letters with such a blatant example of carelessness.
LATEST DAS NON-RESPONSE
I have been similarly dissatisfied with this letter. (78.) I dont pretend to know how you think it shall be acceptable
to not answer simple questions, (79.) or how it is that a response which omits through ignoring

all of the

serious accusations and liabilities which you are supposed to be limiting your company from - is going to be a
sensible contribution to countering a clear challenge to your Service, under our Agreement. (80.) The fact that I
have been forced to commit my communications with DAS to writing, is in line with my thinking that written
communication is more formal, displays effort, and demonstrates an unassailable implication that contractual
clarification is not only sought, but believed to be required; or that our respective positions, are in need of
accurate definition. Please confirm your understanding of this point, (81.) whether you have any objections to this
reasoning; (82.) what DASs policy is towards this conventional procedure; (83.) what the procedure is, that is
advised by DAS when advising a party, who is pursuant to a claim (non DAS related); (84.) Whether there has
been a change in the convention; (85.) if it does not apply here, (86.) how it is different in this case, from what is
usually demanded in a situation where professional services are underway. (87.) It would appear that the refusal to
answer questions is very clearly not proper provision of services or of the Service. (88.) Similarly, the apparent

1 of

lack of common, administerial compliance, on the matter of your not producing the DAS-borne set of conditions,
from the first, very clear request, which was made during the

Claim-log-prompting- call, would appear

suspicious. If it were not clear from that, the standard of the letters are evidently always poor, having no tangible
effect on the few percent of DAS Clients who know and enforce their rights, being in favour of the commercially
weighted calculation, which must say dealing with Claims properly is usually not cost effective.

FAILURE TO RESPOND CONSIDERED TACIT CONCENT

(89.) As has been raised and ignored, please reconsider the points raised in Letter One especially, and
answer all questions, or, clarify all of what you feel is inaccurate or untrue in my statements. Please Note
my Instruction to answer all points, in all instances, where this has not been done, but take special
attention to the following areas:
PRODUCE AGREEMENT
Our Agreement as per the set of conditions: Point 11., 12. & 13. - Provide the set of conditions.
INVESTIGATION

Apparent

investigation of Claim by DAS: Points: 7., 8., 9. & 10 - The fact that there was no Claim investigation by
DAS, as promised by the man during the Claim-log-prompting-call
DEFINITIONS
The definitions: 24., 25., 26., 27. & 28. - which you base your assessment on.

(90.) Where you extracted

the information that caused you to decide that you had reason to seek out such definitions, from me, (91.) from
the man from the Claim-log-prompting-call, (92.) other sources, and,

(93.) where and how this apparent

interface between possible definitions and, as yet unknown, sources of information took place. You shall explain
where the definition chosen came from. You are still to make clear why this definition is thought to apply.

(94.)

You are still to explain how any of this thinking came to be in your letter.
FANTASY CLAIM INVESTIGATION
Lying about having conducted an investigation in to the Claim: 17., 18., 19. & 20. (95.) Please let me
know if you are still seeking to be judged alongside Julianne Davis, with her lies about having conducted an
investigation, as per the subject of her letter, dated 10.08.10. (96.) Please state if you are claiming to have
conducted an investigation into her non-investigation, (97.) and if you found there to have been one, or not; (98.)
or if you have somehow done an investigation on the subject matter which Julianne claims to have investigated,
(99.) or has information on.
For the avoidance of doubt, seeing as you are (playing-at-being or genuinely) totally oblivious to the clear
inferences, which were made in my first letter, that you have not actually done any investigation, which is why
you cannot rebut any accusation,

or, answer any of my questions about your assessments of any claim or

Claim, I will formally accuse you here. (100.) There was no investigation into the Claim by Julianne;

(101.)

There has been no investigation since then. (102.) This is not simple misfeasance, or nonfeasance, seeing as you

2 of

have been paid, not only to carry out a Service, as failure to carry this out is significantly more damaging than if
you were a bricky not building a wall, as you are being trusted to be honest, and this trust carries with it a higher
burden, as you cannot always be tested in your work, as it happens out of sight. Furthermore, the fact that it is
clear that you have lied, and continue to lie; that you have ignored and continue to ignore, that you have been
presented with a clear presentment of a challenge, yet fail to honour in acquiescence, in matching it with the equal
level of reasoning that is required, creates very clear reason to support my initial letters accusation that you are in
fact preying on the British Public as standard practise, and, in doing so, expose them to crimes and negligence
from third parties, on a massive scale, which is fraudulent (which is criminal), and malfeasant. Premeditation to
commit fraud is instrumental to your business plan. (103.) IF I AM BEING UNFAIR, AND YOU HAVE ANY
EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING THAT WAS TRANSIMITTED TO JULIANNE OR YOU FOR YOU TO BASE
YOUR CLAIM INVESTIGATION ON, PLEASE STATE WHERE THIS CAN BE FOUND. (104.) I WISH
FOR THIS INFORMATION TO BE MADE KNOWN. (105.) IT DOES NOT EXIST. PLEASE CONFIRM
THE PROMISE TO INVESTIGATE A CLAIM AS A SEPERATE INCIDENT THAN THE PHONE ADVICE
INTERCANGE AND THAT THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO INVOLVE CONSULTATION WITH ME,

TO

CONCLUDE WITH AN ASSESSMENT WITHIN FIVE TO SEVEN DAYS OF THE Claim-log-prompting-call.

OBFUSCATION
(106.) The tactic of writing back to me, and giving no information, other than a clear indication that you have no
information to give, whilst possibly being the best that you can offer, is damaging my interests, and I fail to see
how you wish for me to act, under the Agreement which we stand. You are forcing my hand, with regards seeking
alternative remedy.
YOUR INDEMNITY INSURANCE
40. & 41. - put them on Notice for 250,000, and, let me have details of your provision, and provider.
(107.) You have not forwarded any information, which is clearly required by this Instruction. (108.) This is
because you have not Notified them, as per that instruction. (109.) I fear that this might have negative effects to
me, but also note that my net is wide, and there is no limit to liability to defraud, and no contractual mechanism
out of the laws as regards gross negligence, or fraud. This was made clear in Letter One.
ESCELATION & REMEDY TO COMPEL
I am not happy with this situation, and as has been said, whilst I can see that attrition is your policy when it comes
to insistent Clients, this will not avail. (110.) I will be alerting the LCS, SRA, and Legal Ombudsman (LO),
who will have this message, and those before it, for their reference. (111.) It has been over 28 days of inaction,
since my first written Note, (112.) and you have still to Notify your Insurers. They tell me that they can compel
you to submit to their rules, or, they can seek and forward these details to me. (113.) I am under no illusion that
these organisations will seriously improve my situation, but these are necessary steps, which I must take. (114.)
Any further Honourable, lawful leverage which I can find, will be used to enforce my just resolution. (115.) I see
that I still am not being taken seriously, and note that this shall not stand for too much longer.

3 of

AGRAVATED DISHONOUR
(116.) I Instruct you to state here if you wish to reiterate, alter, omit, endorse, or extend upon any of the
elements, which form your position; (117.) to state some reason that the set of conditions might be an issue
which is causing confusion, as per, them having changed at some time; (118.) noting my insistence that there is a
undisclosed policy of changing your Service - where you might think this is without any non-fraudulent or nonmalfeasant reason.
COSTS & FEES
(119.) The tiresome protraction of lying and omitting any substance from the discourse from DAS, makes the
maintenance of my efforts, which is not through free choice, a continued necessity, which is recorded at this
point, to be another 10 hours. Cumulatively, 20 hours, or 20 hours in total, to date. This totals 2,000, as
stated in Letter Ones Fee Schedule. This includes time related to reading and researching, and speaking with the
SRA and LCS, which I believe you prescribe.
I remain in Honour. You are in Dishonour. It remains your duty to act to serve and advise in line with my best
interests. You have a duty of care. As I write, I bear a great loss, through no bad judgement, ignorance,
dishonesty, or any other overt, or prescribed fault of my own. I came to you as the victim of a premeditated crime,
of fraud, negligence, and breach of contract. You respond from a premeditated, and what looks to be standard
position: of crime, fraud, negligence and breach of contract. This cannot be allowed to stand. It shall not stand.
Your Service shall take effect. All questions shall be answered in full. Make no mistake, silence in a situation
where answers are required in line with a contractual duty to answer, will be considered tacit consent, acceptance
by silence, and, an admission of guilt. This applies to this correspondence in its entirety, to every numerated
question/query, and every statement made here, if not directly and specifically rebutted.
I hold every DAS director, partner, beneficiary, shareholder and employee liable at this point. I have no way of
knowing who is involved, or to what extent, but it is unreasonable not to presume that a great deal of your staff are
guilty of complicity in the frauds which you specialize. You cannot contract out of law. You cannot incorporate out
of law.
NOTICE TO ONE IS NOTICE TO ALL. NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPLE. NOTICE TO PRINCIPLE IS
NOTICE TO AGENT. NOTICE TO ENQUIRY IS NOTICE TO CLAIM. NOTICE TO CLAIM IS NOTICE TO ENQUIRY.

Yours Sincerely,

Tom Cahill
Encls.: Letter One, 21.09.10; Two, 11.09.10; and, your letters, 3 in total, with the wrong dates on.
cc. LCS, SRA, LO, who will be sent your previous letters also.

4 of