Jump to content

RK08

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    81
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1 Neutral

1 Follower

  1. Is there any update with this case, my wife had a loan with 1st Stop, we went into financial difficulty and consulted a debt management company who have been paying this PDL for over 12 months. They have been sending her emails threatening Court action for the last 3 months despite payments still going from our DMC to them. This appears to be a similar case and look forward to the outcome
  2. If she is convicted and a criminal record then it could affect some job applications especially if they conduct a CRB check. Can certainly affect some jobs as it is part of the theft act. As for status in this country again it depends which country she is from.
  3. If it is a penalty ticket for shoplifting doing nothing will not help. It is an alternative to being arrested and charged and being put before the courts. If it is not paid or contested the Police could apply for a warrant. More trouble than its worth. I agree with Godmother in the fact that it should be contested which under the disclosure rules they will have to supply the defence with any of the evidence that supports the prosecution case. If there is no cctv and the statements are poor quality then it will strengthen the defence case. Also CPS are normally reluctant to prosecute if there is not at least a 90% chance of a successful prosecution. You need to try and get your girlfriend to contest the ticket and obtain as much evidence from the other store as you can, again cctv receipts etc.
  4. I have received a letter from the "BIG StORE" to pay another £130. This is a lot of money. My girlfriend is still confirming that she was WRONGLY accused. Why have you been asked to pay another £130 The £80 ticket is a away to keep out of court but to qualify you need to admit to an offence of theft. There will still be a crime number and therefore a cleared offence. A record of this will be on the Police National computer. binkus is quite right the onus is on the prosection to prove beyond reasonable doubt the offence and this will need to be done through witnesses/cctv property etc. It appears that the Police may have taken the easy option by not arresting, which saves time paperwork etc. Don't risk a criminal record if you did not do it. If you feel strongly enough fight the case.
  5. Okay since you have more time i will make a few more enqs and try and find out Royal sun alliance procedure
  6. Pat dont stand corrected (always better to sit down) i have been reading some of your threads and you really do know your stuff
  7. The point is that this is a controlled area as per the Zebra, Pelican and puffin pedestrian cossing regs 1997, not yellow lines. It ceased to be part of the regs when they took away the pedestrian lights.
  8. Yep correct answer, a private car first used after August 1978 MUST be fitted with two mirrors. One internal and one mounted on the offside and both must be able to be used by the driver. Reg 33 of the Con & Use regs sets out the requirements
  9. Quite right, quotas and money. Interesting to see the council in questions website and what they have been nominated for:rolleyes:
  10. Patdavies good bit of info and to back this i have asked around with a very very big law type company who have confirmed that if all the elements of the crossing are not present then the crossing is not complete. 'It would not be in the public interest to prosecute' The whole idea of the zig zag lines are to afford pedestrians and motorists a good view of the crossing and approaching vehicles. A common sense approach should really have been applied by the warden. I would be inclined to fight this one.
  11. Hi Mummybird hows things going. I was unable to speak with anyone from Norwich Union however i have spoken to a solicitor firm acting for one of the other major insurance companies who take on their claims. They firstly will try and obtain a copy of the Police report and then send out the usual threatening letters of pay up or else. The MIB will usually pay out for the insured persons vehicle especially if there is an injury. The claimant will lose the first £300 of the claim. The non insured driver will be sent numerous letters threatening Court action etc to try and recover the costs to the other party. If it is a company and there is a good chance of getting the money they will pursue it through the Courts. If it is not a company and there is little likleyhood of getting the money ie if the uninsured has no money to go after then they will normally drop the case as its not worth it. This apparently happens the majority of the time but is not 100%. I am not going to name the insurance company or the Solicitor company acting for them but they are one of the big ones and the Solicitors are nationwide who act for more than one insurance company. Hope this helps.
  12. Just picked up your reply and am looking into it will post back later
  13. Who are they. My son had the same problem and got some very good advice from members of this forum. If you search on Express mobiles you will find the threads. He telephoned them every day and eventually threatened them after advic from members with court action on the phone and surprisingly the cheque turned up next day
  14. also report each incident to the Police, i know you might think it is petty but even if they dont come out there will be a computer log generated each time. More evidence for the enviromental health and any impending legal action
  15. Hi can you give any more information How far into the 30 were you How were you done, by pro laser or following check. Did the Police give you a fixed penalty or were you reported. If fixed pen what was the code. Have you received a summons, when did it happen. have you any points already on your licence and if so what for.
×
×
  • Create New...