Guys , calm down with the PAB. I doing this for a very specific reason.I have a year window to sue for libel which is mid march this year. I've been involved in plenty of court actions over the years but actually not done one for libel before and they are uncommon ground for me.Its 20k through the door right at the start and you have to be covered for 100k to see it through and i had to take some advice on this one.
You can get insurance to cover those costs and hence my thread as it leaves my options open. Should GIG decide to say no, we have no concrete evidence then i'm covered day one its a straightforward penalty kick, insurance granted. Should they say they have, well i know that it is erroneous and the fact they admit to having it means they have to produce it right away with the first solicitors letter from me.As it will be erroneous (i did nothing wrong) i will again be covered with insurance no problem and the first solicitors letter to get to that point is only a negligible cost.
Option 3 is the thread which is if they are asked and don't respond at all what other choice did i have but to go to Court in which case in the unlikely event i was not successful i can still get insurance on my costs, they gave me no choice but to sue them and did nothing to mitigate their position.
Option 4 was obviously to work something out with them, they didn't want to know and i'm not letting something like this go unchecked but i wish to cover my bases in relation to costs.They have had every opportunity to talk to me via phone/skype/email etc
Regardless of all that why would i need to PAB to ask a straightforward question of an accredited casino rep , surely the PAB service is busy and max can only ask the exact same question i'm asking? If reps/casino's can just "shut down" after making accusations like this it does not say much.If the answer to that question creates a liability for them then they caused it by saying what they said, not me, its not my fault they find the question and answer difficult.
I state again for absolute clarity there is no Court Action currently , not one solicitors letter has passed between the parties. This thread may well be a precursor to that but the fact that it might does not detract from its validity, for it to be closed would be denying me the advantage of option 3.