Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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?
    • Ok many thanks. Just wanted to check that nothing else for us to do / send for the moment. Will update again once we receive a copy of their N181 and proposed directions for review. Our post is a bit hit and miss at the moment. Appreciate the help through this process.
    • Yes and will ask you if you are in agreement and or wish to add /remove any direction.
  • 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

Criminal Record? Do you get one for this?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4940 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

Hello,

 

I'm hoping that someone may have some knowledge on this. If you are convicted for a driving offence, i.e. driving without a valid tax disc or insurance or something similar, and are fined-do you get a criminal record?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most driving offences are classed as criminal and so you do have a record. However, usually when in a situation where you have to declare any criminal convictions, driving offences are excluded. (Driving without insurance is often not excluded)

HSBC

7th October 2006 - Prelim for £3078

24th October - LBA

7th November - Claim filed

11th November - Acknowledged with intent to defend

11th December - Defence filed

16th December 2006 - Offered full amount but no default removal. Rejection letter sent.

 

Halifax

7th October 2006 - Prelim for £3427

24th October - LBA

3rd November - Offered £913

3rd November - Accepted as partial payment

7th November - Claim issued

21st November - Acknowledged with intent to defend

11th December - Offered full amount but no late payment removal

4th January - SETTLED + removed adverse credit info

 

A & L

19th October - Prelim for £540

26th October - Offered £358

2nd November - Accepted as partial payment and LBA

27th November - SETTLED + removed adverse credit info

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any offence that carries a custodial sentence is recordable, along with a whole bunch of other stuff that's been added in recent years. Driving without insurance isn't recordable, nor (I think) is not having any road tax.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it then when you drive without insurance do you get summoned to court rather than a on the spot fine, I know that you can be given up to six points on your licence, but I have always thought it is a criminal offence as my brother in law got refused a job for the same thing?

Datxman v Lloyds TSB 2006 ** WON** 27/2/2006

With no conditions

Datxman v Capital One 2006

S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) letter sent - July 2006

Non-compliance letter sent - 11/09/2006

enforcement letter sent - 11/09/2006

Statements finally received - 27/09/06

Prelim Letter - sent 28/09/06 - £540

Lowell has bought the debt and I have asked them to wipe it clean due to lack of funds

Datxman v Barclaycard 2006

Won no conditions

 

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Time is running out for the banks :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you'll find that driving without insurance is a criminal offence - since about 1990 I think.

If you feel that we have helped you, or you would like to help keep this web site running so that others can continue to get their money back, please click the donate button at the top of the forum.

Advice & opinions of Dave, The Bank Action Group and The Consumer Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability.

Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

 

------------

 

 

Add me as your friend on FaceBook - I need all the friends I can get :-(

 

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=577405151

 

------------

Link to post
Share on other sites

driving without insurance is not a criminal offence . you do not get a criminal conviction..and it is not classed as a crime by the police..trust me.. I know...work it out..thanks

 

No insurance IS a criminal offence but it is not recordable hence it is not part of a criminal record.

 

You are genarally summons to court for No Insurance as the court has the option to disqualify you. The same would be the case if you exceed the speed limit by lots, have 9 point on your licence when trapped speeding.

 

This has however changed very recently and No insurance is now a £200 FPN

7 actions in progress

 

amount refunded so far £6500

Link to post
Share on other sites

PND's are an alternative to court. You can still be taken to court, and you can also opt for court yourself (not that you would want to if you admit the offence).

BEFORE starting your claim read through the FAQ's and if there's something you aren't sure of then ask.

If you win, donate to this site

Contents of my posts are purely my own personal opinions, some formed by personal experience and some from research. If in doubt seek qualified legal advice.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello....driving without insurance is a criminal offence...driving over the speed limit and getting flashed and subsequently fined is a criminal offence...Bandit you are completely wrong!!

 

All these offences ARE criminal offences under the Road Traffic Act 1988 - however, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act defines how certain criminal offences (and common law offences) should be dealt with ...some by arrest and some by remote detection and, more frequently, detected non-recorded.

 

You do not get a criminal record for any offence for which you are not arrested and subsequently charged with it. You may have a PNC record created, or even a crime report, however you will not have a 'record' which you need to declare.

 

Trust me, I was in the force and then went to Uni, did law and work the other side of the fence

  • Haha 1

Lived through bankruptcy to tell the tale! Worked in various industries and studied law at university. All advice is given in good faith only :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

the Police and Criminal Evidence Act defines how certain criminal offences (and common law offences) should be dealt with ...some by arrest and some by remote detection and, more frequently, detected non-recorded.

 

You do not get a criminal record for any offence for which you are not arrested and subsequently charged with it. You may have a PNC record created, or even a crime report, however you will not have a 'record' which you need to declare.

 

I'm not quite with you there. It all depends on what type of "criminal record" you're talking about. Any conviction for any offence will generate a "criminal record" in the broadest sense, i.e. a record that you have been convicted of the specified offence.

 

For the purposes of supplying a record of criminal convictions to people such as prospective employers this is carried out via the Criminal Records Bureau. Their own definition of "criminal record" is the same as that used on the Police National Computer (PNC). An offence only appears on PNC if it is a recordable offence as defined by the National Police Records (Recordable Offences) Regulations 2000. This is further reinforced by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, which states that (except for certain excluded purposes) convictions become "spent" after a certain amount of time and so do not appear on a "criminal record" generated by the CRB (but will appear on PNC).

 

So, whether you have a "criminal record" in the sense of someone performing a CRB check on you depends on what you were convicted for (is it a recordable offence?) and how long ago it was (is it spent?).

 

And, for info, driving without insurance is a criminal offence (s. 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988) but is not a recordable offence so it doesn't generate a PNC/CRB criminal record.

 

Note that some offences may appear on PNC if you were convicted of a recordable offence in the same proceedings. So, if you were convicted of drink driving (a recordable offence) and driving without insurance (a non-recordable offence) both would be recorded: Reg 3(3) of the National Police Records (Recordable Offences) Regulations 2000.

 

Bandit, I don't know what job you do/did but I hope you weren't a police officer.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Lets look at this scenario. You are fined under s.143(2) for using a vehicle without an insurance policy in force under s143(1) RTA 1988 and you are (as suggested earlier) fined £200. You don't pay the £200 and you are hauled back before the court, where magistrates inquire into your means and you are given more time to pay by virtue of s. 75 Magistrate's Court Act 1981. Still you don't pay and finally the court issues a warrant of of commitment to prison for default of payment for either culpable neglect or wilful refusal (take your pick). You are imprisoned for 7 days (the maximum you can serve for that sum as provided for in schedule 4 Magistrates Court Act 1980). You serve the 7 days in any prision in the UK (Pentoville, Brixton, Higdown) take your pick. You are released. Have you now got a criminal record? The answer oddly enough is that the mere fact that you have been committed to prison in those circumstances does not mean that you have a criminal record, even though you actually have a prison record because the court is simply enforcing what amounts to a civil debt which came into being because of criminal conviction.

 

So one part of the problem cleared up but what happens in respect of the original offence of driving without an insurance policy, Whether or not on conviction, a person has a PNC criminal record depends on whether the offence on conviction is or not a recordable offence. if it is not a recordable offence and most driving offences are not recordable (inclusive of a failure to have an insurance policy for a vehicle driven in force at the time of driving it) then there is nothig to worry about on that front and will safely be hidden away from CRB checks etc. However, for every conviction, distinct from the PNC records, you have the court register recording details of every conviction pronounced in that court and it is available on application in particular circumstances. This I'd submit, is ALSO a criminal record in the more unfamiliar sense of the word. Wheras the PNC will weed out spent convictions for some offences after about 10 years, the court register is always available for about 75 years. Again, and oddly enough wheras you have the PNC network being able to access the court registers it is not the other way round.

 

Hope this deals with some unansweredd questions raised by this thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I have gotten points for speeding, and I have also been given points and a fine for driving without insurance or MOT (No, I'm not proud of it :( )

 

I have recently got an enhanced criminal disclosure for a university course, and none of the above appeared on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest ian cognito
Trust me, I was in the force and then went to Uni, did law and work the other side of the fence

 

You mean you break the law for a living????:eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a look at policespecials.com to see how sure of the law your average bobby is:confused: . Lots of amazing arguments, basic questions that really shouldn't be needed to be asked by policemen, many appear to be clueless. I must however temper my comment with the statement that the majority of the members appear quite normal and level headed. That said there are far too many on the site that state 'if in doubt, report for summons and let the CPS et al sort it out. Make what you will of that!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to agree - after being threatened with a beating by some bouncers (whilst sober) pretty much in front of a police officer I was told it wasn't his problem - on probing and telling him it could be deemed assualt he responded with no its not I did law at university - my response - you obviously didn't do very well did you?

 

Had to walk away then as the copper looked more likely to nick me than the bouncers at that stage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the old bill are a joke. Had a quick read through some of that site posted previously.

 

" Went out in the car around kicking out time not much happening so we went for a coffe and a pizza with a local takeaway owner"

 

DISGUSTING

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Interesting discussion.

 

What about recorded personal information when people are arrested and charged but subsequently everything is dropped? My brother's father-in-law went through this (private citizen with a grudge made a false but really serious statement to police). He had to have his prints, photo and I think even a DNA swab/test performed.

 

He had done absolutely nothing wrong and went through what I gather was an extremely traumatic experience for him as he is one of those upstanding, never been in trouble with law types. My brother reckons his FIL will always have all those things on record even though he was completely innocent. Seems very wrong to me.

3 Active Claims:

Barclays Refund of Bank Charges (Sole account) - Applied to lift court ordered Stay

Barclays Refund of Bank Charges (Joint account) - Awaiting court date

Barclays Refund of Bank Charges (Joint account) Pre-6 yrs- LBA sent.

 

 

3 Wins :

Barclays t/a The Woolwich (Data Protection Act breach costs & compliance)

HSBC (on behalf of brother)

Settled Out of Court - £3,874.76

Alliance & Leicester (on behalf of friend)

Settled Out of Court - £723.41

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 months later...

Wykeite

The site you mention is for SPECIAL CONSTABLES - This is an unpaid role of volunteers. They only get weekly training sessions, although I guess they do work alongside their regular colleagues who should know the law and pass it on to them to enhance their skills. Some specials only manage to work a couple of hours a week due to work/family committments so please dont be too hard on them. They do the griefiest of roles and get stuck on road closures numerous times, hopefully so that the regular bobbies on the beat (or in the cars as it seems) can get on and do the job. (and yes I was once a special) I believe the most usual driving offences recorded on PNC are the DrinkDrive, TWOC etc etc I think no insurance although being a criminal offence is not shown on PNC and as already stated things 'fall off' after a certain period of time. But then again what do I know ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have to go through Disclosure for a job driving offences are on it.

 

I had an enhanced disclosure which is more in depth than your standard disclosure, and NONE of my driving offences were on it

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...