Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • It's Hotpoint (but I believe they're part of the Whirlpool group now?). The part was bought direct from them as a consumer.
    • Thanks BankFodder for your latest, I'm in complete agreement on the subject of mediation and will be choosing to decline mediation, the longer timeline is not an issue for me, I will happily let the going to court run it's course. I really appreciate the support from the Consumer Action Group. I'll post the email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response. Regards, J    email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response:  
    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
  • 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
      • 160 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

Caught by camera... how long till fine?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6228 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 All,

 

Not strictly parking but wondered if anyone knows the answer to my question.

 

I was flashed by a camera back in March. Hands up, I did it, 35 in a 30. Things is I'm still waiting for brown evelope through the letterbox. Do you think it'd arrived by now if I was gonna get one? Wondering if I've been lucky & the film had run out or something.

 

Thanks,

TC

Yorkshire Bank £2201.24 - Settled in full

My Abbey £731.34 - Settled in full

Hubby's Abbey £1239.49 - Settled in full

Link to post
Share on other sites

Usually the letter should arrive within two weeks, if it is going to arrive.

 

Not all cameras that flash are real ones. Also, it may have run out of film.

 

I was flashed once at the bottom of the A1 at Apex Corner, doing 85 in a 70. Nothing ever came of it.

 

Jeremy

Jeremy

 

Computer Problems? Give me a shout...

Link to post
Share on other sites

One flash could have been a warning flash. usually 2 flashes and your out !!

There is no mechanism within a Gatso camera for a single 'warning' flash. A dummy camera can flash once.

 

The truvelo camera only has a single flash but that is magenta in colour and faces the driver

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

I'm pretty sure Truvelo cameras use infra-red, so there is no flash. That's why they can be positioned facing the driver without the danger of blinding...

 

Just thought I'd bump this so that people are aware of the law around speed cameras and the delivery of a Notice of Intention to Prosecute (NIP). Basically, the Road Traffic Act 1991 states that, Where a verbal NIP is not delivered (i.e. in the case of speed cameras), in order to ensure that a driver is able to recall details of the offence for which the NIP is issued, the NIP must be sent so that, subject to normal postage, it arrives within fourteen days of the offence, excluding the day the actual offence took place.

 

Unfortunately, if the car is not registered in your name, in the case of a company car for example, the fourteen day rule does not apply and the police are effectively given an unlimited amount of time to track you down. Crazy, huh?

 

Anyway, getting back to it, the phrase 'Subject to normal postage' is particulalry relevant. I managed to have a speeding prosecution stopped because they police had sent the NIP out on the 13th day following the offence, but had sent it by 2nd class post, so it arrived on the 15th day following the offence. I wrote a letter to the camera enforcement team pointing out the Road Traffic Act and stating that the NIP had not been issued in accordance. I received a letter back from them within a few days confirming that the matter would be dropped :D

 

So, in short, if you've been flashed by a speed camera, your car is registered privately and the registered keeper has not recevied the NIP after 14 days, you can consider yourself safe...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, now the true facts.

 

If you are flashed by a camera, the police must serve a NIP (Notice of Intended Prosecution) to the RK (Registered Keeper) within 14 days of the alleged offence; unless there are valid reasons -acceptable by a Court - that this was not possible (out of date V5, etc.). Such a NIP, if posted, may only be validly served by registered, recorded or first class post. If posted, it must be posted so as to arrive within the 14 days. As first class post is not signed-for, there is a presumption of delivery - this is a rebuttable presumption. If, on oath, you can convince the Magistrates that the NIP did not arrive within the 14 days, then you are free and clear.

 

Subsequent NIPs ,after the first, have no time limits and second class post may be used. However, for a prosecution to succeed, information (for the issue of a summons) must be laid before the Court within 6 months of the alleged offence.

 

Truvelo cameras are front facing and use a magenta flash - not infra-red. If the flash was white in front facing mode, then the camera was being operated outside its type-approval and any picture/reading is invalid. They can also operate as pseudo-Gatso in rear facing mode.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, now the true facts.

 

If you are flashed by a camera, the police must serve a NIP (Notice of Intended Prosecution) to the RK (Registered Keeper) within 14 days of the alleged offence; unless there are valid reasons -acceptable by a Court - that this was not possible (out of date V5, etc.). Such a NIP, if posted, may only be validly served by registered, recorded or first class post. If posted, it must be posted so as to arrive within the 14 days. As first class post is not signed-for, there is a presumption of delivery - this is a rebuttable presumption. If, on oath, you can convince the Magistrates that the NIP did not arrive within the 14 days, then you are free and clear.

 

Eh, is that not what I said!? :confused:

 

As for delivery of the NIP, the true facts are that the RTA states that a NIP must be sent so that it arrives within 14 days, subject to normal postage. So, whether you can convince the magistrate that it was delivered outside the fourteen day period is irrelevant. As long as the police can demonstrate that it was sent according to the law as set down in the RTA, the NIP will stand. For example, if a NIP is sent by recorded delivery 11 days after the offence, but delayed due to a postal strike and therefore does not arrive until 18 days after the offence, it is still deemed valid, as the police have complied with the RTA.

 

For some background on this, it was decided in Groome v Driscoll (1969) 113 SJ 905, that a Notice of Intended Prosecution posted the day after the offence which failed to arrive within 14 days was deemed to have been served. Conversely in Nicholson v Tapp [1972] 1 WLR 1044, it was held that a Notice of Intended Prosecution sent by recorded delivery on the fourteenth day after the offence was deemed NOT to have been served.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, is that not what I said!? :confused:

 

As for delivery of the NIP, the true facts are that the RTA states that a NIP must be sent so that it arrives within 14 days, subject to normal postage. So, whether you can convince the magistrate that it was delivered outside the fourteen day period is irrelevant. As long as the police can demonstrate that it was sent according to the law as set down in the RTA, the NIP will stand. For example, if a NIP is sent by recorded delivery 11 days after the offence, but delayed due to a postal strike and therefore does not arrive until 18 days after the offence, it is still deemed valid, as the police have complied with the RTA.

 

For some background on this, it was decided in Groome v Driscoll (1969) 113 SJ 905, that a Notice of Intended Prosecution posted the day after the offence which failed to arrive within 14 days was deemed to have been served. Conversely in Nicholson v Tapp [1972] 1 WLR 1044, it was held that a Notice of Intended Prosecution sent by recorded delivery on the fourteenth day after the offence was deemed NOT to have been served.

 

The cases that you quote are irrelevant to the use of first class post, as they pre-date the RTA 1994, which first allowed its use. Prior to this, normal practice was to use recorded delivery. Once a NIP is sent recorded, it is deemed served whether it is delivered or not.

 

However the 1994 Act first allowed the use of Fist class and also specifically makes the delivery of the NIP by this method presumed. The presumption is rebuttable in court.

 

So why, I hear you ask, do the police not send all NIPs by recorded delivery? The answer is cost. There was relatively low demand for the use of postal NIPs prior to the deployment of speed cameras. The costs were such that the specific use of first class post was written in to law in the 1994 Act. Since the commencement of conveyor-belt 'justice', the costs need to be kept in check to maximise the 'take'.

 

So the fact remains, that delivery by first class post can be rebutted in court and if the Magistrates believe the testimony of the rebutter, he/she is free and clear due to non-delivery of the first NIP with 14 days of the alleged offence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...however, full records are kept by all camera enforcement teams showing when the NIP is issued. When presented in court any magistrate will take this as evidence that the RTA has been complied with. It is clear from the RTA that the significant factor is the date that the NIP is issued. As long as it is issued such that, subject to normal postage, it will arrive within the 14 day limit, it complies with the terms of the act, even if it does not arrive within the 14 day period. As you mentioned previously, delivery is presumed. Try going to court and arguing this one. As long as the police can show from their records that the NIP was issued in accordance with the RTA you won't have a leg to stand on...

 

The quoted cases are particularly relevant as they clearly demonstrate how this will be dealt with in a court of law. The fact that they took place prior to the introduction of First Class post within the RTA makes no difference as the method of delivery does not change the significance of the date of issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The RTOA 1998 1(1)(b) requires that a NIP be served (in legal terms, served means delivered - not 'sent') within 14 days of offence. It further states in 1(2) that this will be deemed to be served if delivered by registered or recorded post whether or not it is actually delivered.

 

RTOA 1988 Section 1 (3) states that Section is deemed to have been complied with unless and until proven to the contrary. This provides the means for rebuttal; testimony on oath, if accepted by the Magistrates, is proof.

 

On first sight however, there is no 'wriggle-room' on delivery; service is deemed proven even if not delivered. However, the CJPOA 1994 Section 6 (3) adds section 1A to the RTOA 1998. This allows the use of first class post. First Class is public acknowledged not to be next day delivery and, in fact, there is no record of delivery at all. This leaves the delivery (ie service) as rebuttable.

 

Believe me, if you visit PePiPoo: Helping the motorist to get justice , you will find that this defence has been used time and time again - resulting in aquittal

 

 

 

Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, Section 1

 

1.—(1) Subject to section 2 of this Act, where a person is prosecuted for an offence to which this section applies, he is not to be convicted unless—

  • (a) he was warned at the time the offence was committed that the question of prosecuting him for some one or other of the offences to which this section applies would be taken into consideration, or

  • (b) within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a summons (or, in Scotland, a complaint) for the offence was served on him, or

  • © within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a notice of the intended prosecution specifying the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed, was—
    • (i) in the case of an offence under section 28 or 29 of the [1988 c. 52.] Road Traffic Act 1988 (cycling offences), served on him,

    • (ii) in the case of any other offence, served on him or on the person, if any, registered as the keeper of the vehicle at the time of the commission of the offence.

(2) A notice shall be deemed for the purposes of subsection (1)© above to have been served on a person if it was sent by registered post or recorded delivery service addressed to him at his last known address, notwithstanding that the notice was returned as undelivered or was for any other reason not received by him.

 

(3) The requirement of subsection (1) above shall in every case be deemed to have been complied with unless and until the contrary is proved.

 

(4) Schedule 1 to this Act shows the offences to which this section applies.

 

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 Section 6

 

(3) In section 1 of the [1988 c. 53.] Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (which requires warning of prosecution for certain offences to be given), after subsection (1), there shall be inserted the following subsection—

 

"(1A) A notice required by this section to be served on any person may be served on that person—

  • (a) by delivering it to him;

  • (b) by addressing it to him and leaving it at his last known address; or

  • © by sending it by registered post, recorded delivery service or first class post addressed to him at his last known address.
     
     

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...