Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • the Town and Country [advertisments ] Regulations 2007 are not easy to understand. Most Council planing officials don't so it's good that you found one who knows. Although he may not have been right if the rogues have not been "controlling" in the car park for that long. The time only starts when the ANPR signs go up, not how long the area has been used as a car park.   Sadly I have checked Highview out and they have been there since at least 2014 . I have looked at the BPA Code of Practice version 8 which covers 2023 and that states Re Consideration and Grace Periods 13.3 Where a parking location is one where a limited period of parking is permitted, or where drivers contract to park for a defined period and pay for that service in advance (Pay & Display), this would be considered as a parking event and a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before you issue a PCN. It then goes on to explain a bit more further down 13.5 You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is. 13.6 Neither a consideration period or a grace period are periods of free parking and there is no requirement for you to offer an additional allowance on top of a consideration or grace period. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________So you have  now only overstayed 5 minutes maximum since BPA quote a minimum of 10 minutes. And it may be that the Riverside does have a longer period perhaps because of the size of the car park? So it becomes even more incumbent on you to remember where the extra 5 minutes could be.  Were you travelling as a family with children or a disabled person where getting them in and out of the car would take longer. Was there difficulty finding a space, or having to queue to get out of the car park . Or anything else that could account for another 5 minutes  without having to claim the difference between the ANPR times and the actual times.
    • Regarding a driver, that HAS paid for parking but input an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number.   This is an easy mistake to make, especially if a driver has access to more than one vehicle. First of all, upon receiving an NTK/PCN it is important to check that the Notice fully complies with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 before deciding how to respond of course. The general advice is NOT to appeal to the Private Parking Company as, for example, you may identify yourself as driver and in certain circumstances that could harm your defence at a later stage. However, after following a recent thread on this subject, I have come to the conclusion that, in the case of inputting an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number, which is covered by “de minimis” it may actually HARM your defence at a later stage if you have not appealed to the PPC at the first appeal stage and explained that you DID pay for parking and CAN provide proof of parking, it was just that an incorrect VRN was input in error. Now, we all know that the BPA Code of Practice are guidelines from one bunch of charlatans for another bunch of charlatans to follow, but my thoughts are that there could be problems in court if a judge decides that a motorist has not followed these guidelines and has not made an appeal at the first appeal stage, therefore attempting to resolve the situation before it reaches court. From BPA Code of Practice: Section 17:  Keying Errors B) Major Keying Errors Examples of a major keying error could include: • Motorist entered their spouse’s car registration • Motorist entered something completely unrelated to their registration • Motorist made multiple keying errors (beyond one character being entered incorrectly) • Motorist has only entered a small part of their VRM, for example the first three digits In these instances we would expect that such errors are dealt with appropriately at the first appeal stage, especially if it can be proven that the motorist has paid for the parking event or that the motorist attempted to enter their VRM or were a legitimate user of the car park (eg a hospital patient or a patron of a restaurant). It is appreciated that in issuing a PCN in these instances, the operator will have incurred charges including but not limited to the DVLA fee and other processing costs therefore we believe that it is reasonable to seek to recover some of these costs by making a modest charge to the motorist of no more than £20 for a 14-day period from when the keying error was identified before reverting to the charge amount at the point of appeal. Now, we know that the "modest charge" is unenforceable in law, however, it would be up to the individual if they wanted to pay and make the problem go away or in fact if they wanted to contest the issue in court. If the motorist DOES appeal to the PPC explaining the error and the PPC rejects the appeal and the appeal fails, the motorist can use that in his favour at court.   Defence: "I entered the wrong VRN by mistake Judge, I explained this and I also submitted proof of payment for the relevant parking period in my appeal but the PPC wouldn't accept that"   If the motorist DOES NOT appeal to the PPC in the first instance the judge may well use that as a reason to dismiss the case in the claimant's favour because they may decide that they had the opportunity to resolve the matter at a much earlier stage in the proceedings. It is my humble opinion that a motorist, having paid and having proof of payment but entering the wrong VRN, should make an appeal at the first appeal stage in order to prevent problems at a later stage. In this instance, I think there is nothing to be gained by concealing the identity of the driver, especially if at a later stage, perhaps in court, it is said: “I (the driver) entered the wrong VRN.” Whether you agree or not, it is up to the individual to decide …. but worth thinking about. Any feedback, especially if you can prove to the contrary, gratefully received.
    • Women-only co-working spaces are part of the new hybrid working landscape, but they divide opinion.View the full article
    • The music streaming service reports record profits of over €1bn (£860m) after laying off 1500 staff.View the full article
    • deed?  you mean consent order you and her signed? concluding the case as long as you nor she break it's conditions signed upto? dx  
  • 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

Will a conditional discharge affect the immigration process to the UK?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3176 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 guys,

 

Can you please advise if you have to disclose a conditional discharge as a conviction for immigration purposes?

The question is whether you have a conviction (not a criminal record, which you likely do) and it is arguably NOT a conviction. Different appeals for immigration or employment purposes have been won by appellants not having disclosed this as a conviction. Please advise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there, I have moved your post to its own thread so people can help advise you.

As this is a immigration purpose, I have moved your thread to a forum where you may get the right advice. If ytou get no feedback in 24 hours feel free to use the report option at the bottom of your post. (Triangle with ! in it)

 

 

Please can you help users by explaining what the conditional discharge is.

 

Regards

 

SS

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys,

 

Can you please advise if you have to disclose a conditional discharge as a conviction for immigration purposes?

The question is whether you have a conviction (not a criminal record, which you likely do) and it is arguably NOT a conviction. Different appeals for immigration or employment purposes have been won by appellants not having disclosed this as a conviction. Please advise.

 

I'm intrigued as to how they got a conditional discharge without either:

Pleading guilty, or

Pleading "not guilty" but being found guilty.

 

On what basis are you arguing that isn't a conviction?

 

 

At what stage of the immigration process?

Visa? (If so, which tier)

ILTR?

Naturalisation?

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/406368/Chapter_18_Annex_D_v02.pdf

 

Has, on p.30 (when referring to 'rehab' periods) a period of at least 1 year listed for conditional discharge

 

Was the offence one of "serious harm"? : where a longer period can be applied by the UKBA decision maker......

 

It may be worth disclosing it and allowing them to decide (appealing if necessary), rather than not disclosing it where (if they concluded an attempt to deceive) it could lead to a protracted period of exclusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was issued on the basis of pleading not guilty but being found guilty. The question on the immigration form is not about guilt. They ask if you have a conviction or not. Full stop.

 

ILR.

 

A conditional discharge by definition is not a conviction, however you get a criminal record.

 

Please refer to this case for more. https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/2014-ukut-314

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was issued on the basis of pleading not guilty but being found guilty. The question on the immigration form is not about guilt. They ask if you have a conviction or not. Full stop.

 

ILR.

 

A conditional discharge by definition is not a conviction, however you get a criminal record.

 

Please refer to this case for more. https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/2014-ukut-314

 

Referring to that case they cite

Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/6/part/II

 

ABSOLUTE AND CONDITIONAL DISCHARGE

 

12 Absolute and conditional discharge.

 

(1)Where a court by or before which a person is convicted of an offence (not being an offence the sentence for which is fixed by law or falls to be imposed under section 109(2), 110(2) or 111(2) below) is of the opinion, having regard to the circumstances including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, that it is inexpedient to inflict punishment, the court may make an order either—

(a)discharging him absolutely; or

(b)if the court thinks fit, discharging him subject to the condition that he commits no offence during such period, not exceeding three years from the date of the order, as may be specified in the order.

 

"Where a court by or before which a person is convicted of an offence"

 

Initially it would not be hard to argue that for a conditional discharge to be ordered, there must have been a conviction for an offence - the statute says so.

 

However, it then goes on :

 

"(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, a conviction of an offence for which an order is made under section 12 above discharging the offender absolutely or conditionally shall be deemed not to be a conviction for any purpose other than the purposes of the proceedings in which the order is made and of any subsequent proceedings which may be taken against the offender under section 13 above."

 

Are they still within the period of the conditionsl discharge?

 

There may be an effect if the conditional discharge conditions might be broken and the discharge revoked ....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as it states that:

 

(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, a conviction of an offence for which an order is made under section 12 above discharging the offender absolutely or conditionally shall be deemed not to be a conviction for any purpose other than the purposes of the proceedings in which the order is made and of any subsequent proceedings which may be taken against the offender under section 13 above."

 

 

 

There are several arguments on that thread, ultimately coming to the conclusion that a discharge is not a conviction and granting the appellant leave to remain. This is noted in the Case title and explained in the end.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as it states that:

 

(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, a conviction of an offence for which an order is made under section 12 above discharging the offender absolutely or conditionally shall be deemed not to be a conviction for any purpose other than the purposes of the proceedings in which the order is made and of any subsequent proceedings which may be taken against the offender under section 13 above."

 

 

 

There are several arguments on that thread, ultimately coming to the conclusion that a discharge is not a conviction and granting the appellant leave to remain. This is noted in the Case title and explained in the end.

 

I'd just edited my post to reflect that

 

So, if you knew the answer, why pose the question?

 

Depending on if the applicant is still within the period of the conditionsl discharge (where it could be reactivated), one might distinguish such from the appellant noted above.

Link to post
Share on other sites

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd just edited my post to reflect that

 

So, if you knew the answer, why pose the question?

 

Depending on if the applicant is still within the period of the conditionsl discharge (where it could be reactivated), oneigjt distinguish such from the appellant noted above.

 

Just wondering what people's views are on the case and how they're bound to argue that. I am still unclear in my head regardless of the successful appeal I posted whether it would be honest to answer NO to the question. :/

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If so, the conditional discharge may well still be "active".

Was it for fraud by false representation?? They would be hard pushed to describe such (for £30!) as falling into the "really serious harm" category....

 

How long was the conditional discharge for (it can be for up to 3 years)

 

What if they argue that the appellant in the case you cited knew the conditional discharge couldn't be reactivated because they were outside of its period, and an offender still within the period of the conditional discharge doesn't have that certainty.

 

Why not disclose it an any application, noting that strictly speaking you don't have to do so, (citing the upper tribunal case) and that you believe a decision maker should disregard it. However, you want to give them no reason to believe you are attempting to conceal anything, hence you are disclosing it.

Would that not be the best of both worlds, if you can ensure they must disregard the conditional discharge?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the more you disclose, the more it confuses them so I'd rather not, unless I have to.

 

It is for £30 that ruined my life even though I maintained my innocence until the end but it is for dishonesty and they don't take lightly to that.

 

Furthermore, they have mandatory grounds for refusal now and they won't think twice to weigh the severity of the crime but refuse straightaway, regardless.

 

The appellant in question had applied BEFORE their conditional discharge was spent (applied on 5 Aug 2012, spent on 29 Oct 2013). Of course the appeal seems to have taken ages (May 2014) so eventually I think their conviction became spent too! That's not why they won though, their sol seemed to have successfully argued that they didn't have a conviction to answer for. Mine won't be spent for 2 years either.

 

I think I might disclose it in a cover letter after ticking NO and explaining the details of my offence and the Upper Tribunal decision so at least I won't be done for Deception.

 

I could always get Further Leave to remain (not Indefinite) for which the the conviction isn't a bar, but I just am so mad and frustrated with how they dragged out my case that paying 100 times the £30 in costs wasn't sufficient but now the rest of my life will have to be ruined by said conviction too!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Last post to that thread (until today) was December 2014.

So, your case was decided I'm the last 4 months?

 

Only just.

 

I have now added a bit of info on the original thread too.

 

I am immensely grateful for your help BazzaS, the support of the whole forum but especially YOUR advice always correct and to the point has been of great help.

 

I am still in a living hell as my life's been turned upside down but will have to learn to live with it. Thank You for everything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

as you say speranza, was obiter according to archbold, to be decided on 'another day'.

but, according to the govt, a cond discharge goes on a persons 'criminal record'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

a cond discharge goes on a persons 'criminal record'.

 

Hi guys,

 

The question is whether you have a conviction (not a criminal record, which you likely do) and it is arguably NOT a conviction.

:?::!:
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys,

 

The question is whether you have a conviction (not a criminal record, which you likely do) and it is arguably NOT a conviction.

 

:?::!:

 

yes, it is arguable, as said in that case you posted. that was decided re dishonesty ie on reading of the statute wasnt dishonest in stating no conviction. whether it is/shld be a 'conviction' re such 'other areas' is 'for another day'.

just saying what the govt says, and prob wld be a matter of statutory interpretation, and semantics either way as archbold suggest; 'found guilty of' cf. 'convicted'

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

I have been following this and I am wondering since you got a conditional discharge Speranza I hope you will appeal? Sounds to me like you have been a VICTIM in all of this and not a perpertrator. I go with a previous poster that you may have been sold a counterfeit product in the first place?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am in the process of appealing right now. I have been through hell and back but there's some light at the end of the tunnel. :)

 

Many people said it's not wroth the cost for such a 'light' sentence but I'd rather die than have my name tarnished for something they had no evidence against me but the item which THEY sent me.

The crown offered no evidence of order fulfilment from the warehouse or garment history (if it may have been purchased/ returned before etc) as I had asked for disclosure, but my barrister was beyond incompetent and decided to go for lunch after 1 hour and the jury were instructed to convict.

The process was unfair. Fingers crossed it won't take too much time and money to appeal. Thanks everyone for the support.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it is something to discuss.

what i meant re 'another day', is that the tribunal on the day said that and didnt consider that particular issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...