Jump to content

BazzaS

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    7,020
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    41

BazzaS last won the day on July 25

BazzaS had the most liked content!

Reputation

3,400 Excellent

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It depends on why they didn't previously enforce it, and what they've been doing since. Compare and contrast a) Creditor knew you had assets to enforce against, and knew an address for you, but made no attempt to enforce, against b) Creditor found no assets to enforce against initially, you moved and they didn't know an address for you, and are now saying they have only just found the new address, and that you now have assets. Court unlikely to allow enforcement for a), likely to allow enforcement for b), applying a test of what is 'just' and 'reasonable' Which they'll likely find for you depends on the detail of why they haven't enforced up until now.
  2. Are CCS saying they are acting on behalf of DVLA? When untaxed, was as the vehicle a) used? b) on a road?, c) if not a road, a highway maintained at public expense, d) if not, details of the ownership (and access to the public!) of where it was parked. Additionally, was it insured (or SORN'ed??)
  3. If you are SURE (see below), discontinue. Why not ask for the claim to be stayed instead, on compassionate grounds. If you discontinue, and the situation changes such that you regret discontinuing, you can't restart the same claim once discontinued, but if instead stayed, you can just ask fir the stay to be lifted.
  4. Best to let the DoJ know they need to get the manual to make it clearer, as my (attributed!) quote was direct from p.34 of their manual …..
  5. See previous replies. Going down the “deeds of assignment” route, (trying to claim that Cabot had no standing unless they produced those deeds) was a non-starter. You also had an opportunity (“The judge also asking would I like monthly instalments to pay. “) to explain why you could only pay a nominal sum each month, but didn’t take that opportunity. Your options now are; A) Appeal / get the judgment set-aside. You should have come here first rather than attempting a “non-starter” defence, but we are where we are. However, Courts dont like endless re-litigation, and I’m concerned that any attempt to re-litigate on the grounds that you didn’t get it right first time won’t help you - you’ll likely need more substantial grounds of appeal. B) You now seek the minimal monthly payment, but yes, you’ll have a CCJ on your record. C) You don’t seek any appeal and also don’t pay anything. You’ll still have the CCJ on your record and Cabot can look at enforcement options. They “can’t get blood from a stone”, so if you can’t pay (rather than won’t pay!), and have no assets / property they can enforce against, then there is nothing they can do.* However: If your situation later changes you’ll still have the CCJ (even after it has dropped off your credit file), but they’d need permission of the court to restart enforcement after 6 years (& “they had no assets to enforce against, we kept in contact with them, they now have assets & the CCJ remains unsatisfied” is likely to be seen by a court as a reason why permission to enforce could be granted). * “Nothing they can do” to make you pay more than a nominal sum, if that is all you have, but they can look at enforcement such as: HCEO visits charging orders on property Attachment of earnings You having to attend court for an enquiry into your “means” to show that it is “can’t pay” rather than “won’t pay”
  6. Advice? 1) Clarify if you have grounds to appeal, or if it is you "being stubborn" based on your belief of being right 2) If called to court for an examination based on refusal to pay, find a better answer than " I don't care what a judge said, if he can't listen to me well I wont listen to him.", ......... or 'take a toothbrush' along with you.
  7. BBB (if Better Business Bureau) is a North American concept. OP, which region (U.K.? North America??) are you located in?
  8. Is their statement that you violated their site’s terms of service correct? (That a) you posted external links, b) that this was against their ToS, c) that they issued you with a warning (or more than one!) d) that you continued to do so, and e) used multiple log-ins to do so, creating new log-ins when a previous one was banned for breaking the ToS) I’m not saying you did or didn’t, merely that from what you’ve posted, and what you’ve said that they said, that you might have done so……
  9. The best (current!) reason for not vaccinating children in the U.K. in public health terms (assuming maximal U.K. adult vaccination) is that those doses of vaccine will do more good (for the U.K., let alone abroad!) being used for adults in the developing world. Less cases there, especially in the immunocompromised, less variant development, less imported variants, less U.K. cases.
  10. It (as ever!) isn’t that simple, I’m afraid, HB. You mention measles : no real variants, so good (but one can never say ‘lifelong’ as an absolute!) immunity. Yet the coronaviruses can gave different variants / strains (more like ‘flu) so you can get immune to one strain and have only partial protection against others. The coronavirus protection even for one strain isn’t lifelong (so, with evolving strains, too - expect ongoing booster programmes) You mention TB: BCG is a live (attenuated) vaccine, but never gave 100% (or anywhere close to 100%) protection. As a general rule (there is usually an exception to any rule, and then the exception to the exception!): attenuated vaccines give better protection than killed / sub-unit vaccines. The “stimulus” to the immune system ‘stays around longer’ than for the killed vaccine, giving both better functional levels, and better immune memory. Hightail : measuring levels is fine, but again, isn’t the whole story. “High levels must be better than lower levels” seems obvious, and is (usually!) correct, but it may be that once a threshold is reached, “higher” doesn’t always mean better protection (though, it may mean “stays above threshold” for longer) There is also the concept of “immunological memory”, so in some situations a lower level but with an immune system “primed” to react better offers more protection. So, there used to be a (near-obsession?) with antibody levels against Hepatitis B for healthcare workers. Regular (if infrequent!) testing, and ‘boosters’ if the level had waned. Then they found what mattered was “immunological memory”, and it didn’t matter if the level had dropped as long as the immune system responded well to a challenge: so they stopped doing regular testing for levels, just giving boosters if the worker had an exposure risk event. To add to the mix : “high antibody levels” must be better, right?. It seems obvious, yet initially there was the the theoretical concern of ADE : antibody dependant enhancement, where some antibodies can actually cause increased binding of the virus to a receptor - increasing infection risk. Fortunately not the case for the Covid vaccines, though this had to be shown not to be the case before work progressed on candidate vaccines.
  11. dx, Reading the OP's post, I'm not sure the TOC have their true address for them to be able to 'wait for the letter'. If not, then if the letter does go to the (false) address, and in the eyes of the TOC doesn't get replied to, and then the TOC prosecutes, the OP doesn't show up at court (being unaware of proceedings!), it'll be harder for the OP to get things unwound later. Perhaps the OP could clarify?. Did the conductor take your correct details including the correct address?. If not, then it may be wise for the OP to write to the TOC (in about 2 weeks time), saying :"I had an interaction with a conductor on X service, at Y time, on Z date, and am concerned that they may not have my correct address, which is ..........<Address>". You mentioned about e-mailing, but I suspect you'll have more chance of finding a postal address for the proecutions team, than an email address. Don't admit to anything, at that stage, just that factual statement, keep a copy of the letter, and send by your choice of: a) standard post (getting a certificate of posting) b) Recorded Delivery, or c) Special Delivery Or email, if you are sure you have a valid email address for the right team : each has its advantages and disadvantages....... I agree that railcard not valid / not produced with the ticket requiring a railcard does happen frequently. The OP has highlighted that (railcard) isn't the issue here, but the giving of false details at the time the the fare had not been paid (whether those details were given in in panic or not), this being a separate offence to the lack of valid railcard, (under S5(3)(c) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, if the TOC decide it is worthy of prosecution).
  12. No point in me answering the legal aspects, if like dx (who is a member of the site team and a valued contributor to the site!) it just puts me in line of fire for personal comments from the OP. OP : stop. Take a step back. Look at how people (who don’t know you!) will see your posts, and how likely they make it that you’ll get help. It is a self-help site, so your posts best starting helping you, not discouraging replies. If the OP chooses to lash out at this post (or me, in general), too : that, rather than anything I’ve said will be what inhibits advice / replies!
  13. “Paid cash” isn’t the issue. ”Paid cash, off the books to avoid VAT, so no receipt ” is the issue. a) they are dodgy. b) expect them to deny selling you anything if there is a major problem. Be glad they replaced it, as c) to enforce your rights, if they denied selling you the tyre, you’d have to persuade a court they had sold you the tyre “off the books”, (as the reason for cash, no receipt) which means you are willing to collude in their illegal actions….
  14. I doubt you have posted anything you shouldn’t. Just because Goosedale might hope (in vain) that this whole thing would *magically disappear* a) my understanding is that posts only get removed if they breach site rules, or there is an over-riding need (& can’t see that here!, though I’m not part of the Site Team) b) the fact there was a court case & (if the TO process succeeds) that it concluded by TO will be in the public record c) As an LiP (& consumer, not a business), if they haven’t offered to pay for formal legal advice for you re: the TO, it isn’t unreasonable for you to seek advice here on the TO process.
  15. Posted separately (so it can’t look like I’m “trying to put words in BF’s mouth”) You can be seen to be reasonable without having to agree with them that you can’t ever discuss ANY aspect of the case.
×
×
  • Create New...