Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I see the poops are still trying to deflect from their own criminality and and abuses by whinging on about raynors buying her council house - now about election registration - anyone who owns a flat or house understands that you dont give up your and your childrens home just because of a new relationship and while we are on about that ..   lets start with When is jenrick being revisited for both lockdown abuses and self admitted (claims estate is his main home - not the property in his electorate or his london property) - and electoral registration abuses as he claimed he was at his estate 'main home' away from both London and his electoral 'home'  - much of which paid for by the taxpayer   Cabinet Minister Robert Jenrick 'breaks lockdown rules twice' by going to 'second home' - Mirror Online WWW.MIRROR.CO.UK Key Cabinet Minister Robert Jenrick drove 150 miles to his 'second home' after urging the nation to remain in their homes in a bid to...   ... perhaps follow with more self admitted lobbying while in a potion where they shouldn't “A few of us in parliament have lobbied the government – and with the help of the Treasury select committee, the chancellor has listened,” John Baron wrote.   Tory MP faces lobbying questions over Treasury committee role | Investing | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Co-owner of investment management firm called for ‘urgent’ post-Brexit changes to City rules at committee meetings     About time labour got in the game and started pressing for these self admitted/bragged Tory abuses were properly investigates.
    • No I didn't I got the dates mixed up.   
    • Sorry about that, TJ. The person who posted it specifically said it was free access. Here's another version of the FT article. https://archive.is/KYrPa
    • Isnt there some indication in there of at least intent to inform arbuthnot? IF he wasn't then it would seem to be Vennells decision to keep him 'uninformed .. Although seems to me if arbuthnot was unaware - he was either incompetent or should have very detailed records of denials. Seems vennells is constantly at the core of all the lying about all these issues though.
    • Paywalled/subscribe HB I'm unaware of the details on this HB but why is it a potential taxpayer burden? Hasn't a judge already ruled port has rights of access - so shouldn't costs be on the private company (South Tees Development Corporation) trying to change established access?     LIVE: High Court updates as CEO gives evidence in access rights row between STDC and PD Ports - Teesside Live WWW.GAZETTELIVE.CO.UK The face-off between the Teesport operator and Mayor Ben Houchen's South Tees Development Corporation continues in the High Court  
  • 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

Notice of Prosecution - speeding on the M25


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2310 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,

 

I was recently on the M25 around 2:45am.

 

Car was set on cruise control on the legal road limit i.e. 70mph.

 

All of a sudden, due to roadworks up ahead, the variable speed limit kicked in to 50mph.

 

I tried to slow down in time gradually, being cautious of traffic behind me. (didnt want to slow down all of sudden and risk getting hit from behind).

 

the speed camera got me @ 59mph (variable speed limit - 50mph).

Now I've received an intention of prosecution in the post.

 

What are the chances I can get away from this with as little pain as possible?

Link to post
Share on other sites

so everyone else behind you must have gotten a ticket too if you couldnt slow down by the cameras...?

excuse doesn't wash sadly.

 

moved to the speeding forum

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

I was recently on the M25 around 2:45am.

 

Car was set on cruise control on the legal road limit i.e. 70mph.

 

All of a sudden, due to roadworks up ahead, the variable speed limit kicked in to 50mph.

 

I tried to slow down in time gradually, being cautious of traffic behind me. (didnt want to slow down all of sudden and risk getting hit from behind).

 

the speed camera got me @ 59mph (variable speed limit - 50mph).

Now I've received an intention of prosecution in the post.

 

What are the chances I can get away from this with as little pain as possible?

 

"Cruise control" ; irrelevant.

'all of a sudden" ; you mean there wasn't a '50' sign?. The sign 'popped-up' out of concealment as you drew level with it??. It came on just as you passed under it? (how did they get the roadworks to suddenly appear at the same time, too?)

"Didn't want to get hit from behind" ; there were 3 lanes of traffic all at or exceeding the 70mph speed limit and none of them saw the 50 limit either?.

 

 

Define " as little pain as possible" : how many points (if any) do you have currently?. Have you done a speed awareness course before, and if so how recently?.

I suspect the "least pain' will be a FPN, 3 points and a fine, or a speed awareness course.

 

Of course, you can decide to (instead) go to court to explain why the circumstances are such that you shouldn't face even that. I'm sure the bench would listen sympathetically ........ and then punish you more severely than the FPN route, as the excuses just won't wash.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"all of sudden" here meant, i saw it all of sudden. It was possibly on well before i got to it. I currently have no points and haven't done any speed awareness courses before. I was in the middle lane with no traffic in front of me. i was doing approx 68mph.

 

It is very likely drivers behind me got a ticket too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"all of sudden" here meant, i saw it all of sudden. It was possibly on well before i got to it. I currently have no points and haven't done any speed awareness courses before. I was in the middle lane with no traffic in front of me. i was doing approx 68mph.

 

I wouldn’t go down the “I” (only) “saw it all of a sudden” route : because you were of course paying attention to a well lit sign, at night.... so would have been aware of it in good time (You wouldn’t want to be saying your attention wasn’t that of a careful and competent driver, as that’d be saying “stick me on for careless driving ......”

 

You were in “the middle lane”, so why not pull into lane 1? (If there was a slower moving car in lane 1, either behind it or in front of it .....)

 

Return the firm, identifying yourself as the driver and you should get a speed awareness course offer.

 

It is very likely drivers behind me got a ticket too.

 

Irrelevant to your case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...