Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have had a secondary thought.  I borrowed £s from a completely separate entity 6y ago. It was personal and unsecured. I was going to repay upon sale of the property. But then repo and I couldn't.  Eventually they applied and got a charging order on the property.  Their lawyers wrote that if I didn't repay they may apply for an order for sale.  I'm not in control of the sale.  The lender won't agree to an order for sale.  The judge won't expedite it/ extract from trial.  Someone here on cag may or may not suggest I can apply for an order v the receiver?  But could I alternatively ask this separate entity with a c.o to carry out their threat and actually make an application to court for an order for sale v the receiver instead?
    • You left the PCN number showing, but no worries, I've redacted it. Euro Car parks are very well known to us.  I've just skimmed through the titles of the latest 100 cases we have with them (I gave up after 100) and, despite all their bluster and threats, in not one have they taken the Cagger to court. You stayed there for 2 hours &:45 minutes.  I'm guessing the limit is 2 hours and 30 minutes, right?  
    • If the claimant fails to draft directions the court can order a Case Management Hearing to set them but normally in Fast Track claims the claimant sets the directions...Unlike small claims track which are always set the court.
    • Not Evris offer, the court offers mediation service.   All claims proceed to hearing if mediation fails /not happen.   Why do you not wish to attend in person to stand your claim ?     Absolutely you must comply with the courts directions or your claim risks being struck out. Preparation for a hearing should happen irrespective of mediation.   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/460613-suing-a-parcel-delivery-company-when-you-dont-have-a-direct-contract-with-them-–-third-party-rights-copy-of-judgment-available/#comment-5255007   Andy  
    • LPA.  (I'm fighting insolvency due to all the stuff that he and lender have done).  He appointed estate agents - (changed several times). Disclosure shows he was originally appointed for a specific reason (3m after repo) : using his powers as acting for leaseholder to serve notice on freeholders (to grab fh).  There was interest from 3 potential buyers. He chose one whose offer depended on a positive result of the notice.  Disc also shows he'd taken counsel advice - which was 'he'd fail'.  He'd simultaneously asked to resign as his job (of serving notice) was done and he'd found a buyer.  Lender asked him to stay on to assign notice to the buyer.  Notice failed, buyer didn't buy.  So receiver stayed.  There was 1 buyer who wanted to proceed w/o fh but receiver/ lender wasted 1y trying to get rid of them!  Disc shows why. But I didn't know why at the time. In later months Lender voiced getting rid of receiver. Various reasons - including cost.  But there's a contradiction/ irony: as I've seen an email (of 4y ago) which shows the receiver telling lender not to incur significant costs and to minimize receiver costs.    Yet lender then asked him to serve another notice - again counsel advice indicated 'he'd fail'.  And he did fail.  But wasted 3y trying and incurred huge legal costs - lender trying to pass on to me. Lender interfered - said wanted to do works.  Receiver should have said no.  But disc. shows he agreed to step aside to let them do the works - on proviso lender would discuss potential costs first (they didn't), works wouldn't take long (took 15m), and lender would hold interest (they didn't) (this last point is crucial for me now - as I need to know if I can argue that all interest beyond this point shouldnt be allowed?)   I need to check receiver witness statement in litigation with freeholders to see exactly what he said about 'his position'. But I remember it being along the lines of - 'if the works increased the value of the property he didn't have a problem'.  Lender/ receiver real problems started at this point. The cost of works and 4y passage of time has meant there is no real increase in value. Lender (or receiver) didn't get any permissions (statutory or fh) (and didn't tell me) and just bulldozed the property to an empty shell.  The freeholders served notice on me as leaseholder for breach of covenants (strict no alterations).  The Lender stepped in (acting for me) to issue notice for relief of forfeiture - not the receiver.  That wasted 2y of litigation (3y if inc the works) and incurred huge costs (both sides).  Lender's aim was to do the works that every potential buyer balked at due to the lease restrictions.  Lender and receiver knew couldn't do works w/o fh permission. Lender did them anyway; receiver allowed.  Receiver remained appointed.  I'm arguing lender interfered in receiver duties.  Receiver should have just sold property 4-5y ago w/o allowing any works.  Almost 3y since works finished the property remains unsold (>5y from repo). The property looks brand new - but it was great before.  The lender spent a ton of money - hoping that would facilitate a quick sale.  But the money they spent and the years they have wasted has meant they had to increase sale price.  It's now completely overpriced.  And - of course - the same issues that put buyers off (before works) still exist.   The receiver has tried for 2y to assert the works increased value. But he is relying on agents estimates - which have proved highly speculative. (Usual trick of an agent to give a high value to get the business - and then tell seller to reduce when no-one buys.). And of course lender continues to accrue interest (despite 4y ago receiver saying pause interest). Lender tried to persuade receiver to use specific agent. Disc shows this agent was best friends with the lender's main investor in the property.  Before works this agent had valued it low.  After works this agent suggested a value 70% higher!  The lender persuaded receiver to sack one agent and instead use this agent.  No offers. (Price way too high).   Research has uncovered that this main investor has since died.  I guess his investment is part of probate? And his family want it back?    Disc shows the sacked agent had actually received a high offer 1y ago.  Receiver rejected it.  (thus I don't know if the buyer would have ever proceeded). He was relying on the high speculative valuation the agents had given him to pitch for the business. The agents were in a catch-22.  The receiver sacked them. Disc shows there has been 0 interest ever since (inc via new agent requested by lender). I don't think lender or receiver want all this to come out in public domain via a trial.  It will ruin their reputations. If I can't get an order for sale with lender - can I apply separately against receiver?
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Tachograph offences fine


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5944 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi,

not sure if i'm posting in the right bit here but here goes...

 

A friend of mine has just been fined nearly £2000 for tachograph offences, he received the court notification for it today - it says that the amount must be paid in 28 days:o

Can anyone tell me if this is right as he would really struggle to pay this amount in that time especially at this time of year. Is it possible for him to arrange installments?

 

Anyone :confused:

Thanks in advance,

kez.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He must have known about this. The Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (Vosa) prosecute for tachograph offences and they will have confiscated the relevant tachographs when he was stopped.

 

At the time he would of been informed that he is being reported for X offences.

 

He would have had the right to attend the court and defend himself and I’m guessing he did not and the court found in his absence.

 

Fines for tachograph offences are heavy and £2000 is about right these days in fact he should feel lucky, many drivers has been sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment for tachograph offences.

 

He can now write to the court asking for time to pay, he should do this ASAP.

If my comments have been helpful please click my scales

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather than write to the Court, I would suggest it would be better to attend. You don't need an appointment. Just go on a day that the Court is sitting, arrive at 10 o' clock and explain to the Court usher you want to be seen by the magistrates about case no XXXX. You might get in straight away or you might have to wait all day. When in, explain that the amount will cause hardship blah blah blah and ask for time to pay. The magistrates will listen and because you made the effort to turn up will consider you take the matter seriously, and should work out a weekly sum. They understand there's no point persuing somebody for money he doesn't have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From a different perspective, can you advise what the offence was ? Was it a case that he was "forced" by his employer to drive over the limits etc. If so then he could have a claim against his employer under H&S regulations. I'm not an expert on H&S law however I would suspect that there may be an arguement here that the employer may be liable.

 

Just a thought.

:p :p If my advice as been of help, please give me a quick click on the scales to your right ;) ;) :)
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that argument would work. I can't see that a driver's responsibilities when alone in a cab could be laid at somebody elses door. The company in this case would also have had a similar fine anyway.

Unles of course we are talking about an owner/driver here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem you have with saying the employer forced you to break the law is that the Traffic Commissioners consider that the driver is a professional and must refuse at all times to break the law.

The driver is 100% reasonable for his/her conduct on the road. When a driver is reported for tachograph offences, the employer is spoken to as well; this is because under their operators licence they are reasonable for their drivers conduct too.

If it is proven that the employer “forced " a driver to break the law then the H & S are the least of their problems, They can have their operators licence cut, suspended or removed, at the very least a heavy fine.

If my comments have been helpful please click my scales

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's enlightened me also. As I said, it was just a thought which funnily enough answers a questioned raised last month at work (insurance) by a colleague on behalf of a haulier.

:p :p If my advice as been of help, please give me a quick click on the scales to your right ;) ;) :)
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think that if the time restraints were so tight that speeding was involved or regulated breaks could not be taken, then the employer would have given him a vehicle without a taco.

Knowing you have a taco means that you cannot be forced to do something that is not allowed as everything is recorded, so the driver will have to take the full concequences.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think that if the time restraints were so tight that speeding was involved or regulated breaks could not be taken, then the employer would have given him a vehicle without a taco.

 

This would work unless he had driven an hgv that comes under the tacho regs in the same week. If that’s so then even if he had driven a vehicle without a tacho, he would still need to take the regulated breaks.

If my comments have been helpful please click my scales

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think that if the time restraints were so tight that speeding was involved or regulated breaks could not be taken, then the employer would have given him a vehicle without a taco.

Knowing you have a taco means that you cannot be forced to do something that is not allowed as everything is recorded, so the driver will have to take the full concequences.

But virtually all work in vehicles over 3.5 tonnes needs a tacho (few exceptions, recovery etc).

Link to post
Share on other sites

This would work unless he had driven an hgv that comes under the tacho regs in the same week. If that’s so then even if he had driven a vehicle without a tacho, he would still need to take the regulated breaks.

 

Can you correct your post please. I believe there was a court case than confirmed that any private driving or commuting the employee did in his own car cannot count towards his driving hours. I'm not quite sure what your point was supposed to be.

 

Also he could quite legitimately drive a vintage lorry (25 years old or over)to a show at a weekend, and this also wouldn't count in his driving hours.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you drive a non tacho fitted vehicle as part of your job in the same week as a vehicle fitting with one you come under the tacho regs for that whole week.

 

Also there has been a case that where a driver uses a private car to drive to meet a vehicle to take over duty which is away from its normal base, then it has to count as duty time and be recorded.You are correct that commuting to work does not count unless as above.

 

My point was, that a poster said”

 

I would think that if the time restraints were so tight that speeding was involved or regulated breaks could not be taken, then the employer would have given him a vehicle without a taco."

 

Meaning as part of work so my post is 100% correct.You are mixing driving hours with duty hours.

 

Also if the person driving a show truck at the weekend gets paid to do this then it forms part of his working week and must be recorded.

If my comments have been helpful please click my scales

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cal,

 

The time driving in a car to take over a truck would count as duty time (in tachograph terms, as "other work") - in my opinion, driving a transit van for work one day would also count as "other work" rather than as "driving" - simply because the vehicle is out of scope (as far as the new tachograph regulations are concerned).

 

Isn't it the fortnight that matters, not the week?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Advisee,

 

If you drive an out of scope vehicle in the same week as an in scope vehicle then you must follow UK Domestic driving rules while driving the out of scope vehicle.

 

(A driver must not drive for more than 10 hours in a day. The daily driving limit applies to time spent at the wheel, actually driving. Off-road driving for the purpose of agriculture, quarrying, forestry, building work or civil engineering counts as duty rather than driving time. Daily duty limit a driver must not be on duty for more than 11 hours on any working day. A driver is exempt from the daily duty limit on any working day when he does not drive. A driver who does not drive for more than 4 hours on each day of the week is exempt from the daily duty limit. )

 

This is where the law gets complex, if you drive an out of scope vehicle in the same week as an in scope vehicle then under EC driving rules,you must record the work ( driving and other work), staying within the EC regs. So which laws do you follow? Who knows really but the intelligence officer at VOSA I spoke too advised to record all work and keep within both UK domestic and EC hours to be sure.

 

Its very complex and many drivers and employers have come foul of the law but basically, if you get paid for it then record it. There are a few exceptions i.e.: retained firemen, TA soldiers etc but people involved in these will be well aware of their exceptions.

 

This site gives some advice FTA - Information on Key Issues - Member Briefing Notes Digital tachographs and GB domestic hours' rules guide

 

This one too Page 3 rules

 

And this one DVTA Compliance: FAQs: Tachographs

 

It’s all a minefield and the Haulage industry is the most heavily regulated industry in the UK. I have been involved in the industry since before I could walk, my father owned before his death a company running 71 tractor units and 140 trailers my brother still runs it today. Although I made a career change 5 years ago I’m still very much involved with the family business and in fact own 49 % of it :)

 

Over the years I have seen the rules change over and over again and in fact one traffic area might interpret a law differently than another traffic area ( i won`t even go into other EC states ).

 

We are not really dealing with the courts (or they are not what worries us) but dealing with the traffic commissioners, these can end your business at a click of their fingers.

 

Just to make a point, you can only be fined for speeding if caught by a policeman or a camera yes? well 6 months back the family business was before the traffic commissioners because tacho records of 5 drivers showed that they regularly speeded when leaving the operating centre doing 56 MPH ( there are no motorways within 20 miles ), the traffic commissioners put a temporary licence restriction on us, reducing our licence by 10 trucks for one month.

 

The drivers had their HGV ( or LGV if you’re a young one) suspended for one month. All this without a single court case.

 

You see even if a driver was banned by court say for drink driving and after 12 months gets it back, they still have to go before the traffic commissioners and they might not give back the HGV licence at all effectively ending his/hers career.

 

Let’s not even get onto the working time directive, they can conflict and ever counteract each other.:confused:

If my comments have been helpful please click my scales

Link to post
Share on other sites

The drivers had their HGV ( or LGV if you’re a young one) suspended for one month. All this without a single court case.

That was a fascinating post. Your paragraph above concerns me, however.

 

Presumably it was just the HGV part of these peoples' licences that was suspended? How did they know which peoples' licence to suspend? What about people who were casual with you and had a main job elsewhere?

 

What if anyone had both bus and truck entitlement - would they have their whole licence suspended?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it was just the HGV or more correctly their vocational licence that was suspended. The traffic commissioners have the power to suspend / revoke or even refuse an application for a provisional vocational licence.

 

If they had both Truck and Bus the both would be suspended, when a person gets banned for drink driving say, then their drivers licence is suspended To hold a HGV or PSV licence you must hold a full car licence too. The HGV part is not suspended in that case but they can not drive a truck because their full car licence has been suspended by the ban.

 

When a traffic commissioner suspends a HGV licence he does not suspend (nor has the power too) a car licence, so you can still drive a car.

 

They suspended the 5 drivers who’s tacho`s had shown them speeding. Personally we do not employ casual drivers but even if we did, we would have to provide the tachos for the trucks they drove.

If my comments have been helpful please click my scales

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, so it was just the errant drivers, rather than all your drivers? I misread your previous post.

 

 

Yes thats corect, sorry if the post was not clear.

If my comments have been helpful please click my scales

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...