DAS Group

DAS House, Quay Side,

Temple Back,
Bristol,
BS1 6NH
0117 934 2000 NC
0117 934 0066 CC
neil.coombs@das.co.uk
personal@das.co.uk
CustomerRelations@das.co.uk
caroline.caldwell@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
22. 09. 2010
EMAILED ONLY

FAO. Carloine Caldwell, CII (Claims)

CONFIRM RECIEPT BY EMAIL

Dear Caroline,
COMPLAINT DEPARTMENT REPLY
Re.: Parameters of subject matter; my initial queries; my purported claim, and formal - accepted request for DASs assistance with my - subject matters - options; the Claim-Log-Prompting-Call; my
Claim, with Claim Ref.; the apparent Claim Investigation; DASs failure to produce the set of conditions;
the Service; and, our Agreement.
I am glad to hear from you. The problem, which I have with dealing with Neil Coombs (NC), or, before Neil,
with Julianne Davis (JD), is that neither of them appear to be interested in looking into the subject matter, which
has been bought to their attention.
The Claim non-Investigation
by Julianne Davis
There never was a Claim Investigation (by JD), which is abundantly clear from her response, as per evidence
which has been illustrated in my writing. Also, and very significantly, there is no evidence of any transmission of
documents or of any phone calls, as there were none. This fact did not stop JD from saying that shed reviewed
the Claim (which you can see verbatim in my Letter One, and in her letter of 10.08.09). She rebutted the Claim,
with no information to base her assessment on. She was out of time, by a factor of two, according to DASs
promise, and she skipped fundamental steps to produce this late, non-compliant response. She never looked into
the injunctions which had been agreed to be done by the man whom received the Claim-Log-Prompting-Call,
which triggered the issuance of a Claim Reference Number.
The Claim non-Investigation
by Neil Coombs
This is where special Notice must be taken, for it at this point that the situation takes on another dimension, and
the more of these which are mixed in, the more complicated the likes of your organisation will try and say that
things are. Any complication which is built into this situation is clearly as a result of the fact that DAS have not
complied with their duty, will not answer questions, so attempt to cause distraction, by what could be described as

1 of

a game of pass the parcel. The hope is that the music (distraction), and the parcel (of liability, obligations,
and, the constantly amassing volume of superfluous information) will suppress me into a situation of apathy and
hopelessness. I am no fool, and fully appreciate why large organisations, and professional bodies tie themselves
into self-regulatory and regulatory systems, and how complaints procedures and wasted time writing to, or
otherwise involving regulatory bodies, simply tires the Client/complainant/enquirer, confuses them, and, creates
an illusion of legitimate processes, which must be followed, that serve to shield the participant organisations
whilst these unnecessary steps are blundered through.
Neil has not produced any information that I have seen that shows any evidence of an investigation into the
apparent Claim Investigation, or lack of one; he has not produced anything by way of explanation as to the
findings of his investigation, the lack of anything to investigate, or the methodology, or materials incorporated in
this.
Secondly, the Claim Investigation has still not been done, as this would expose JD, and, in turn, NC, and DAS,
in a wider sense. For the avoidance of doubt, the lack of actions does expose DAS, as a whole, as well as, and
very significantly, each and every complicit person, in their personal capacity, which specific reference to
fraudulent, or grossly negligent misstatements, and their standing in law, insofar as not being able to be
incorporated/contracted out of.
Therefore, we have several components, which are subject to expand, and each expansion following the Claim
Reference being given, has been directly caused by DASs gross negligence, malfeasance, and premeditated,
fraudulent intentions, with regards their contract to their policy holders, albeit, with them being in contract with
various providers (Endsleigh, for example).
You are held to the Service. NC, who has been very prompt in responding, has not done so yet, on this occasion,
as hes presumably thinking that hes palmed this off to you, thinking that the Service stops as hes not been
doing anything, but it does not stop. I doubt very much he or you would be able to explain where in the
Agreement this is allowable. He was investigating a complaint. But, that triggered a cessation of DASs Claim
Investigation, which JD was meant to have done, but had not done. You see since the Claim-Log-Prompting-Call,
there has been no Service, as promised by the man who took the call. He had promised to look into injunctions,
etc., or to pass this information on for the Claims Team. So now, somehow, the idea is to con me into thinking
that my rightful entitlement under the Agreement, so far as the illusive set of conditions are eroding through your
protracted inaction, which only extends, and extends, in terms of its ridiculousness, and far-removedness, the
more time, obfuscation, and dishonour, which DAS evidence.
The first principle matter (that should be at hand, but is) not-at hand, which was initially receiving DASs
attention, which you have tried to avoid, but are not going to avoid, has not been forgotten. DASs policy of
inaction and lies have put DAS squarely in line, in terms of liability, and the fact that you dont want to know why
this is, shall not stand, or act a shield.

2 of

Whether you think you are dealing with the complaint, or the complaint about the complaint, or, the lack of
Service, or the lack of services, or, the lack of answers to questions, or rebuttals of accusations, or the first
principle facts which DAS were meant to have looked at, the answers have not been given to my numerated points,
and your (CCs) involvement, which I am careful to state, I do not actually want to prejudice, despite my
suspicions that it is in line with DASs evidenced policies, does look like a protraction of the nonfeasance.
If it is DASs intention that JD and NC are off the case, please state so here, and explain how the matters that
they failed to deal with are to be dealt with, as had been put to NC, in my Letter One, when Julia had done
nothing, as evidenced in her letter.
I demand the answers to my questions.
I demand DASs Professional Indemnity Insurance details, and conformation that they have been put on Notice for
the sum, which is creeping up.
I demand a substantively proven rebuttal of the accusations raised in Letter One, and the following letters.
I demand clarification, with a copy of the set of conditions, including any information regarding when they were
changed, if this happened, and when I was alerted of this, and, anything that can substantiate the basis of
definitions which have been used to rebut my Claim, and anything which can prove that I am bound by these.
This letter started getting written shortly after arriving, so that was before 09.00. I have just finished it now at
14.13, and am due to print it, check it, then email it back to your prescribed email address. This is a total of 5
hours work, which has been made necessary, and this will be taken into account alongside the other fees, on the
fee schedule. If it transpires that this is your fourth letter and NC will not be writing again, and that this is my
fourth letter, it will be added to my response to what NC sends. If NC isnt going to be writing again, be warned
that the ten day response time offered, had better encompass all of the salient parts of this ever more-complex
matter.
Yours, in eager anticipation.
Sincerely,

Tom Cahill
cc. Neil Coombs, by email, and personal@DAS

3 of