Right... well I am not to sure about that Perplexity. I am sure that Ebay has it's own policies, but what we are dealing with here is a contract between the OP and a private seller. I can't understand how you jumped to the conclusion that ebay was the seller... and thus the DSRs could apply. Besides, we have had cases here before where a seller has sought to enforce a contract made on ebay. The court usually treats it as a simple contract matter. I think we may be complicating the issue for the OP by trying to involve ebay etc. Speaking of the OP... I wonder if he ever received a claim form!?

Sorry, I disagree with everything you are saying!!!!..... Jokes aside, I think the main traffic that this forum attracts is those in need with help. People will approach those problems in different ways, so there is bound to be some confrontation. I have seen some advice given that is poor advice. This is often corrected... which in turn may appear to be argumentative. Another point to consider is that while posts appear to be confrontational, they are probably not meant to be read in that way. Something everyone should bear in mind is to pay attention to the way they phrase their posts, so that it is clear that no ill feeling is intended. As an example: Earlier this evening I made a reply, I made a note at the bottom of t explaining why I used the word "victim", this was so the OP didn't think I was referring to him as a wrong doer etc.

Lets get things into perspective: 1) Victim can go to the police to make a further statement. This is then sent to the CPS, they may: a) Decide that with this further statement, there is no point in carrying on. They then abandon the proceedings. Or; b) Decide that even with the new statement, there is evidence of a crime. They could then decide to pursue the case. It is likely they will then issue a summons for the Victim in an attempt to secure her attendance. If point B occurs, it is likely that all statements made by the victim will be evidence. This is alongside oral testimony from the victim. It is likely that the victim's oral testimony will weaken the prosecution case. The victim will be cross examined, her differing statements will be highlighted. Following this, the defence solicitor may be able to argue that there is no case to answer. It would be up to the magistrates as to whether the trial should continue. If it does continue, the OP will be able to tell his side of the story and obviously a decision will be made as to the verdict. 2) The victim does not attend the police station, does not make a further statement and no summons is made for her. In this case, the date of the hearing will come. If she attends, then the above will occur (prosecution evidence, possibility of an application of no case to answer etc etc) If she does not attend, a summons could be issued or the case abandoned. There are some other complications - if a witness is reluctant or 'hostile' the prosecution can rely on earlier statements as evidence etc. It is my feeling that for a minor offence, this would probably not happen. However it is possible, so don't rule it out. There is so much that could happen, it is impossible to predict how it will all pan out. Hopefully the above will give you some guidance on how it could turn out. Also - I have used the word victim. I am not making any judgement... just that victim was easier to write rather than "the OP's mother"!

Is there any argument that there was no consideration in this case?

They have 6 months I'm afraid.

The statement is not withdrawn as such. It is "amended". Your mother would have to contact the police to make a further statement. She may withdraw the allegations.. i.e That no offence took place, or she may state that something did happen and express her wishes for no further action to be taken. She will have to explain herself - i.e. why she said what she did in the first place. This will not be a great experience and I doubt the police will be too pleased. This statement is then passed to the CPS who will decide what to do next. They will have to decide what the outcome will be now that the original statement has been changed.

Not having a picture from the camera is not a defence per se. The standard reply seems to be that the picture is merely to record the offending vehicle and not for driver identification. Since this is a summary case, advanced disclosure is not required either, so any documentary evidence the police (or safety camera partnership) may have would be to aid the prosecution case and nothing else. However, should the police not provide a picture (or as you say, provide one showing the back of the car), one would be left with the option of just providing the details of possible drivers. It would then be up to the police to make the next move. Further to this, the front facing cameras (truvelo) do take pictures which usually show the driver. Despite this, the police do not have to disclose them. It is still worth asking for the picture however - if you believe it will help driver identification.

If she has no witness summons, then no, she does not have to attend. However the prosecution have up to the trial to apply for a summons. The prosecution could also use her statement as evidence, so long as she signed a declaration of truth and that the statement has been served on the defence. If she does not turn up, the magistrates may adjourn or dismiss the case. It is hard to say what will happen. As you say, your solicitor cannot mislead the court. If you maintain your not guilty verdict, you would be hoping on A) witness not turning up and the case being dismissed. B) Witness turning up but departing so far from her statement and falling to pieces under cross examination that the defence is successful in applying for a decision of no case to answer. If you plead guilty then obviously you get the criminal record... but a discount in sentencing.

For the benefit of Dragon Keeper: When a someone is caught speeding (by a speed camera for instance), the registered keeper of the vehicle in question is sent a form asking them to identify the driver at the time of the offence. (a section 172 request.) There are three options - 1) They were the driver, 2) They were not the driver, in which case, they must state who was driving and 3) they were not the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the offence. In scenario 2, the person to whom the driver identification request is sent to is expected state who was driving. In the case of a hire car, the company would pass on the details of the person who had use of the vehicle at that time. Where most confusion occurs is when the car is owned by a private individual but is used by other people - for example a family car driven by the wife, son and daughter. Failing to identify the driver is an offence and it is expected that one would be able to ascertain who the driver was. In such a case, the person to whom the S.172 was sent would have to name the driver (after interrogating the family) or, as a last resort, offer a list of possible drivers. One may request photos in order to aid identification. However the police are under no obligation to send them. After this, the police may decide to drop the case or investigate further to see if they can find out who was driving. Who pays in the end? As Lamma said, whoever is prosecuted successfully! It may be that they never get to the bottom as to who was driving! In this event, your friend would inform the police that he was not driving. He would give them your details. They would then contact you.

If he wins, you will only get a CCJ if you fail to comply with the judgement in 28 days.

One may not exclude or limit their liability in respect for any negligence that results in death or personal injury. UCTA 1977 s2(1) One cam exclude or limit their liabilty for negligence resulting in loss or damage... so long as long as the term is reasonable as defined by s11 and further defined in Eric Smith Bush .

One may not exclude or limit their liability in respect for any negligence that results in death or personal injury. UCTA 1977 s2(1) One cam exclude or limit their liabilty for negligence resulting in loss or damage... so long as long as the term is reasonable as defined by s11 and further defined in Eric Smith Bush .

In simple terms, yes - the signs could be binding. The signs would have to be prominent though and they can't limit liability on some things. The concept of agreement by notice is not new though.

I never said that what he done was illegal. I said that one could act perfectly lawfully and still become an irritation. I have always said that the attendants reaction was not a good show of behaviour. All I have said is that I am not too surprised that the attendant became annoyed. I would be annoyed too - except I like to think that I would handle it in a better manner. To film the attendant going about his job is fine. But surely it does not require walking around, following the car, then walking nearer to the attendant as he inspected a vehicle.

This is incorrect, the person with the camera filmed the attendant as he walked out of the car, walked to another car and returned to the Smartcar. This 1min 11secs into the film. The camera man actually appears to take particular interest in the attendant - apparently walking a few steps towards him - for some time the car (which the 'film maker' was so interested in) was not even in shot at all. There is a huge difference in having a CCTV system in force to having your own personal stalker walk around and film you. The camera guy attempts to appear inconspicuous by loudly whistling while filming the car and its occupants... as if it is something any normal person would do! We all have rights. However they come with responsibilities. For example - I have the right to stand in my street. It would be acceptable for me to do this for 10/15 minutes to catch some air and appreciate this glorious August evening. However, the occupants of the house I choose to stand outside of may get annoyed... especially if I stand there for ages.... especially if I decide to take a keen interest in their brickwork and continue to stare at their house for ages. The point I am trying to make is that there is a limit to what one can lawfully do before they become an irritation. It seems that in this video, the guy set out to be irritating and to make some kind of 'point'. He seemed to have got the reaction that he was after.

Well, If everyone else on the street is being watched by CCTV, then the Traffic Wardens are also being watched by CCTV. I would find being filmed by CCTV a lot different to being followed by an individual with a camera.

I don't think I would hold in with this. Its tantamount to saying that one is owned by whoever pays one's wages. Why not extend it and say "If you want a council job, then you should be prepared to receive a kicking from those who pay your wages." I am sure that "being chased by members of the public with camcorders" is not listed on the job description. In the same sense, someone who works in a shop should expect to be recorded by customers... since, ultimately, they pay the staffs wages. Or demanding to enter the flight deck of an aircraft so we can 'watch' the pilots; we bought our tickets and so we pay their wages and therefore have a right to watch! While I maintain my original position, (that the council guy should have handled the situation better) I still do not blame him for getting a tad annoyed.

But time is not on your side. You have to get this done before the deadline.

Well, this is really a political point... and I have not studied politics in a long time! As far as I am aware, there is a fair amount of debate about consent. Some say it's overt (i.e. One actually has to say "I agree!"). Others say its tacit and some say both ideas can be used together...for example moving to a different country could be an indication of ones consent to be governed by that countries government. Whatever way you have it, there has to be rules. Its a sad fact of life that you may not agree with them. But to say that one can "withdraw" any consent is outrageous. Aswell as this, its not a point for the courtrooms. So to suggest that a criminal charge can be countered with some political theory is not on. Common Law is law made by Judges. It stems from the 1300s (I believe) when an attempt was made to ensure that the country had a body of law common in all areas... Common Law. As the years have gone on, the judiciary have moved from a law making body to a body responsible for interpreting statutes. They merely 'pad out' the substantive law with interpretations of acts etc. In many cases, the Judiciary have said that it is no longer the role of the courts to legislate. To try and say that common law, civil law, commercial law etc are all different makes no sense. Civil law for example embodies Common law decisions (the definition of negligence for example) along with statutory controls - the Limitation Act being one of many. All law can be split into their common law rules and statutory rules. But these rules will exist side by side. More importantly, statutes may override common law rules. I have come to the conclusion that advocates of FOTL have no idea about the workings of the English legal system. All I could see on that site was a bunch of hopefulls who want to make change. I have no issue with that. I did see some very poor definitions of common law and some odd descriptions of the English Legal system. This is what I take issue with. The fact that some people try and pass FOTL theories of as a tried and tested legal advice. Stating that one can just ignore summons... or use all these presumptions etc. I feel this is dangerous. It should be made clear that FOTL is a group of people that have beliefs about how the legal system should work. They should advise anyone in need of legal advice in accordance to the current legal position of the UK. I have explained this, in part, above. FOTL sites often claim that only common law can apply to all people. By definition, this means that statutory law will also apply to all people. The courts have ruled many times that Parliament is the supreme law making body.

The head of the herd are not jailed. The likes of Rob Mernard and John Sinclair never put their selves in danger. They spout their nonsense for their own gain and place others at the risk of prosecution. Monaco - Questioning anything is healthy. Just watch yourself and be careful. Do some more research.

There is no need to "volunteer consent". The FMOTL stuff is so flimsy. Such as the hype about people only being bound by common law, which means statutes do not apply. This falls apart though when one gains knowledge of common law. Especially the fact that judiciary have held themselves inferior to Parliament for many years. All of the FMOTL stuff I have seen has no basis in law whatsoever.

I have requested proof from a load of FMOTL.... I never get any. They never answer questions, and never provide evidence. None have ever worked. I can provide an example where someone has been jailed by following Freeman advice.. Why don't they answer questions? Because they don't have the facts....

I have studied it. A few people here has. The conclusion was that it is a load of cr*p. Its a fun theory - but don't take it as legal advise. It will make things worse.

Blimey - I didn't even realise it was two years old... My apologies for being a dumb a*s on that account!!

Think twice about visiting that link. The freeman stuff doesn't work. They will try and convince you that law doesn't apply to you and all sorts of crazy stuff. Are you actually damaging the grass verge?