Jump to content

StrawDog

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    139
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

17 Good

About StrawDog

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Thanks for the update hb Looks like you & the RK can breath a cautious sigh of relief as Islington Council have now well exceeded the 56 day statutory time limit in failing to respond to your formal appeal following service of their NTO. This matter is now dead in the water. Post back if there are any further developments, but resist any temptation to contact them yourself. Let sleeping dogs lie.
  2. Phew! you were lucky the iPod was still there when you got back - take it with you next time.
  3. Ok - Mossycat has summed up the situation from his perspective & I shall be doing the same in due course when time permits. Happy New Year to all
  4. No prob with that car2403, I certainly have no intention of deteriorating this thread further into a personal, undignified & boring 'bun fight'. I do however request that the direct, pointed, personal & gratuitious 'idiot' insult, to which I take the greatest exception, be edited/removed & if it helps the situation, my reference to 'careless' in the post which appears to have offended MC's sensibilities.
  5. The only evidence I can find of 'name calling' & 'insulting comments' on this thread is contained in the above post - consequently you must be refering to your good self in making that remark in which case I concur.
  6. Believe me I'm trying, as no doubt Buzby, you are too.
  7. Wow Buzby - as the result of your well thought out persuasive arguments & most reasoned logic I am rendered absolutely speechless - we may as well all just hibernate until the spring.
  8. In consideration of your distorted logic, I'm sure that anyone who has ever suffered a mishap in adverse weather conditions will be heartened to learn that they have first & foremost, pure & simple, been negligent (irrespective of whether damage has/has not been caused to third-party property as a result of that negligence (sic) ) - from the pedestrian who has slipped & fallen 'a' over 't' on an icy surface; the driver who is unable to control his vehicle at minimal speed to the pilot who has landed his plane & slid off an icy runway & maybe/or not demolished Farmer Giles' fence & ploughed up his field in the process. You are very careless, unreasonable & judgemental with your continued liberal use of the term 'negligence' which you also appear to be confusing with the term 'liability' as if the two had the same meaning & were somehow interchangeable.
  9. A Very Happy (& accident free) Christmas to one & all. Back with a response after Boxing Day. Cheers!
  10. You can be liable without being negligent - there are significant contributory factors at play here which you appear to dismiss as irrelevant. Perhaps the OP should be charged with careless driving & criminal damage - the elements of these offences are certainly present according to your interpretation of the incident.
  11. Just a thought Poggers, but under the probable t&c of your car insurance policy, it might be a good idea to inform your insurance company & seek their advice.
  12. How do you go about suing God? That's a tad unfair & judgemental - you've obviously never experienced trying to control a vehicle, even at less than walking pace, on snow & ice. There has to be some contributory negligence by NCP leaving a barrier in the down position in such adverse weather conditions - but hey, I accept I'm no expert in such matters.
  13. Hi gabey - whatever you do don't pay & don't be tempted to contact this bunch of [problematic] in any way, shape or form. You have received an unenforceable invoice which can be safely ignored. However be prepared to receive 5 or 6 increasingly threatening demands from them in the post itemising how they will cause your world to cave-in around you if you don't pay up. Ignore everything they throw at you - it's all bluff designed to part the unwary from their hard-earned cash.. I have personal experience of UKCPS & other similar low-life, so do trust my advice & that of others who no doubt will also be posting. Have a read round the forum for extra reassurance.
  14. Not quite Pat - on that basis you appear to be suggesting that the police could dispense with the requirement to serve NIP/Section 172 notices on any nominated driver & instigate proceedings for an alleged speeding offence against that nominated driver purely on the 'evidence' provided by the RK. Obviously this would not occur as, among other procedural requirements, it would not have been established beyond reasonable doubt that the nominated driver was indeed the driver at the time of the alleged speeding, or indeed any other offence arising from the use of the vehicle at that same moment in time. I maintain my view that this prosecution is premature, speculative & flawed.
×
×
  • Create New...