The following evidence clearly demonstrates that the Company failed to provide a safe system of work this includes letters from the manufactures j.c.b original parts book Showing the safety step picture of a identical j.c.b 3cx sitemaster i had my accident on. Also Picture showing j.c.b 3cx sitemaster of a new design clearly showing the posistion of the fuel tank to the left side , and hydraulic tank on the right hand side of the machine.This new model came into production around the year of 1990 to the present day.This clearly demonstrates this model j.c.b could be fueld from ground level. And there was no further need to climb into posistion on this model as mentioned above.

The posistion of the filler cap was posistioned just in front of the wind screen in clear view of the j.c.b driver. This model j.c.b 3cx sitemaster was in production from Approximately 1980 to 1990.

FURTHER INFORMATION

1

I would like point out that the front bucket of the j.c.b 3cx sitemaster that i had my accident on could be lowerd with the engine switched off when you operate the controls by doing this it re-leases the pressure in the hydraulic system and the front bucket drops very fast as the weight of the front loader arms and bucket increases the drop speed, as you will see from the manufactures j.c.b evidence. .

2

On the new model j.c.b 3cx sitemaster that came into production from 1990 to present day had allot more safety features and due to the technology that came available there was a hydraulic or electronic cut out switch that would prevent the operation of the controls.

After i discovered about the safety step in early 2003 my acting solicitor philip reeve of smith partnerships of derbyshire contact the manufactures j.c.b in a letter dated 22 october 2003 after i had brought this information to his attention to request a visit to see mr allsopp with myself to discuss this matter in detail and also the reason why the j.c.b 3cx sitemaster had been completely re-designed in 1990 and what instigated this change.This information they supplied regarding the safety step was misleading as this is what they wanted us to believe this was the correct information when in fact it wasn't.The information they supplied was referring to additional access steps into the cab i can confirm this by the original parts book as the safety step is on a separate page and the diagram drawings are different.When i discovered this information in early 2003 i was informed by mr allsop that the safety step was a optional extra fitment in other words you had to pay for it,to me this is quiet clear is that the manufactures j.c.b were putting profit first instead of safety i then checked a j.c.b 3cx sitemaster brochure from 1985 period which i obtained from them in 2001 under the section the same as car manufactures standard equipment and optional extras listed and i discovered the safety step was not listed under the as claimed by mr allsop that it was.

In my honest opinion and belief that there was a potentially claim against the manufactures j.c.b for product liability for a possible design defect to the j.c.b sitemaster that was manufactured between 1980-1990 as this comes under the 1974 health and safety at work act this is mentioned in a letter from the h.s.e in 2004 this would be a completely separate law suit to the original action against gary hather plant hire and my former legal advisors for professional negligence .After a lengthy discussion regarding the missing safety step my acting solicitor at that time draughted up a statement for the purpose of a legal aid application on the grounds for the above mentioned.

The next acting solicitor of bryan armstrong solicitors mansfield who took over conduct of the professional negligence claim in late 2004.In A letter dated 5 th january 2005 he informed me the previous acting solicitor had wrote a letter to j.c.b . saying that if they provided them with certain information i would not take proceedings against them.This was done without my consent or knowledge so in effect his letter is invalied this indicates to me is that he was trying to severely damage my prospects of a possible product liability claim against the manufactures j.c.b . and also to the fact it indicates to me the manufactures j.c.b.had something to hide they didn't want to come out into the open and become public knowledge ,and also through there own admissions in there letter dated 9 th december 1996 they were putting operatives in a exstreamly dangerous posistion to cause them serious injuries.

The time limit and starting point is the discovery of knowledge for such a claim and that you recognized,became aware that you had a potentional claim for product liability in this case mine was january-february 2003 and you have 3 or 10 years this been the outer limit to set down your case as you can choose either time limit