1

The following evidence clearly demonstrates that the Company failed to provide a safe system of work this includes letters from the manufactures jcb original parts book Showing the safety step picture of a identical jcb 3cx site master i had my accident on. also the picture showing jcb 3cx site master 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 jcb could be fueld from ground level and there was no further need to climb into position 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 jcb driver. This model jcb 3cx site master was in production from Approximately 1980 to 1990.

FURTHER INFORMATION

2

I would like point out that the front bucket of the jcb 3cx site master 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 jcb evidence. .

3

On the new model jcb 3cx site master 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.

3

Also you will from the manufactures jcb letter dated 9th december 1996 they did confirm the following was that in 90% of all cases the operatives stood on the main frame to refuel in order to avoid spillage ,which was very supportive and crital evidence to my case which confirmed what i was saying all along to all the lawyers involved on my case from the beginning and this in effect strenghened my case and weakend the defence of gary hather plant hire.

4

When you have a tank of fuel on the back of the pick up truck and the fuel had to be pumped by hand to the filler neck on the jcb this was accordingly a two man job as another person needs to hold the fuel hose in position of the filler neck of the jcb to prevent the fuel hose coming free due to the force of the fuel been pumped through the hose and spilling every where other words the man who is operated the hand pump cant be in two places at once this was actualy confirmed from the manufactures jcb in a letter dated 9th december 1996. The design of the filler neck was a 90 degree unrestricted flow elbow type is very shallow in depth 75mm = 3" to the fuel tank on this particular model of jcb 3cx site master which was positioned in the bulkhead of the machine directly in front of the drivers windscreen who had clear good all round visability to the left and right of the machine and to the front from the drivers seat.

5

The only possible way that the fueling operation could be carried out by one person is by a powered source electrically or pto shaft which both operate the pump fitted to a fuel tank fitted to a truck etc or towed fuel bowser and at the end of the hose is a fuel trigger gun that allows you to control the flow of fuel but you would still have to stand in the position that i did on that particular jcb 3cx sitemaster model to be adjacent to the filler neck to do the job safely and avoid spilling fuel every this was also confirmed by the manufactures jcb in the same letter dated 9th december 1996.Here is a example for you to understand what im talking about when you go to the garage to fill your car up with fuel its electrically pumped and you have a trigger gun on the fuel hose and you have to stand adjacent to the fuel neck of your car to control the flow of fuel into the tank of your car.

6

After i discovered about the safety step in early 2003 my acting solicitor philip reeve of smith partnerships of derbyshire contact the manufactures jcb 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 jcb 3cx site master 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 jcb were putting profit first before safety i then checked a jcb 3cx site master 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 optional extras list as claimed by mr allsop that it was.

. 7

In my honest opinion and belief that there was a potentially a claim against the manufactures j.c.b for product liability for a possible design defect to the jcb site master 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.

8

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 jcb.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 extremely dangerous position to cause them serious injuries.

9

The time limit and starting point is the discovery of knowledge for such a claim and that you recognized,became aware that you had potentially a 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