Jump to content


BankFodder BankFodder


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About KrashBandikoot

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Actually this isn't true. I was caught via a speed camera in 2013 and because the DVLA won't issue me a photo ID licence because they claim I do not meet the ID requirements to be issued with one, (no idea what the hell they want since I have a digital passport and sent that off as proof of ID), I don't have a licence in my hand due to my last licence, (which was paper), being lost in a fire. I paid the £100 fine, 6 months later it was refunded and no further action was taken. So having the entitlement to drive but not a licence in your hand seems to be a way around NIP's and FPN's. And more recently I checked with the DVLA and they have confirmed my last motoring conviction was in 1998 which is when the last licence update was made. I suggest people don't lay down and take this sort of crap from speed camera vans. They have sod all to do with road safety and everything to do with revenue generation. And before anyone leaps on me, I got an email alert yesterday, (the 21st June), at 3:30pm stating this thread had been posted to though I can't seem to find the post contained in the email
  2. No it doesn't at all. It highlights the fact my intent on the day was to harm myself and nobody else hence why there was no provocation from me or causation by me for the police to attend. I had no idea I was going to get a visit from them and I'm saying if I had, if I had of been a threat then I would have taken a different course of action to the one that I took. I'm not willing to discuss funding issues with you. That has been discussed above. I didn't assault anyone on the day and that happened a number of days before hand. But I'm not going to discuss that as it's irrelevant to my point on this which is I did nothing on the day to provoke any response from the police and they lied when they said they were there to perform a welfare check nothing more. Had they of disclosed the allegation no doubt my response would have been different to telling them to F-off and telling them I didn't want to speak with them. Which is not something I'm willing to do. I would sooner set fire to the cash than to donate it to someone who has zero interest in making the police accountable for their actions. Would you like to explain to me exactly how it is justified that: The police lie as to the reason why they are at my home? The police lie as to when they entered and searched my home? The calling of armed police against someone who has made no threats to harm anyone else but simply refused to engage with them based on the reason they said they were there? From what you're saying, it's perfectly fine to break into someones home and point guns at them just because they don't want to talk to the police. I had no reason to suspect that an assault allegation had been made against me simply because the argument from which that allegation was raised was nothing. It was a bit of shouting and yes I laid hands on someone when they pushed me into a corner. It is also a fact that this person and I discussed what had happened after the event and as far as I was concerned we'd sorted it out with each other. But that's by the by on this matter, the fact is based on the given reason for breaking into my home, (in the process of a suicide attempt), that reason is an after the event reason. For all they knew when they surrounded the house I was simply ignoring them and watching television or cooking my lunch. They had zero indication of what I was actually doing and based on the fact there were no weapons in the house and I had no made any threats it is reasonable for them to perhaps kick the door down to arrest me and speak to me in relation to the allegation but unreasonable for them to seek firearms authority and use firearms officers to enter my home which would offer a perception that I was threatening them or someone else. And consider this, if I am "so dangerous" this course of action is warranted why would they send unarmed officers to speak with me in the first instance? I'm sorry but if you think what happened is right then it is you who is delusional, you clearly advocate the irresponsible and highly irrational use of firearms by authorities on whims which simply is not right. Unarmed officers could have easily have dealt with that situation and were willing to do so until I made it clear I did not want to speak to them. If that is enough reason to seek and have firearms authority granted then there is something very wrong with the system and there is little wonder people die in police custody and people are being shot and killed by the police even when they are unarmed. Such a train of thought would imply at the very least it is you suffering from mental health problems. Yes I know I have issues because at that point I was at rock bottom, however, this does not constitute my being a threat to anyone but myself on that day.
  3. So that's why they were pointing HK 9mm carbines at me is it as well as taser? It's also why they were given firearms authority. Firearms authority isn't required for taser use. Yes I agree I was in a position where I could have killed myself, but I'm at a loss at to who I was threatening or how a naked, unarmed man in a bedroom who is heavily sedated poses a threat to anyone but himself. Unless of course you can offer some rational and cogent reason why and how I was a threat to anyone but myself. I say again - I did NOT threaten anyone, not even the police so I don't want ti both ways at all. I'm not asking you to fund it so you need not concern yourself with that. I am not willing to throw money away on a solicitor who thinks the chances of success are minimal. I didn't say I wasn't willing to pay for legal representation. And yes my human rights were violated, I have the absolute right to be left in peace to die if that is my choice. The crucial question here is did I threaten, intimidate or make any other person fear for their life and safety? No I did not. Yes I'll pass on this piece of advice if you don't mind as you clearly think I was a threat to others. And also reinforces the fact they hid the real reason they were there in the first place so they lied as to why they were there. I was unconscious which is why I was not responding so even if I had of threatened someone else I was not in a position to do anything about it or carry out that threat. However the police have agreed I made no threats to anyone on the day so this stance I was placing someone else's life in immediate danger is total rubbish. I was a risk to one person and only one person on that day, myself. My home was surrounded by 10 armed officers and under heavy surveillance with zero prospect of me exiting it and escaping. What has this to do with the matter? The fact is they were not aware of what was going on until AFTER they came into the house and found me. If I had of died on the day and they had of found me dead then they would have said "Well we didn't know he was in the process of a suicide attempt" leaving them blameless for that. Which they weren't asked to do. If it weren't a police state they wouldn't have the right to interfere in what people in general do unless it's causing alarm, distress or harm to someone else. The fact of the matter is they had no idea what I was doing until after the event and I did nothing at all to provoke an armed response. I did not make any threats, I did not show any weapons, I made no attempt to intimidate anyone on the day. I quietly locked my doors, unplugged the house phone, switched off my mobile and lay down to fall asleep and die. Nothing more nothing less. Do you really believe it's right to deploy firearms officers with GUNS just because someone refuses to engage with them because they have given that person no reason to engage with them? And to compound all of this with blatant lies stating that my the ground floor of my home was searched some 2 1/2 hours before they entered the property seems OK with you. If you want to be pro-police that's fine. Just don't be surprised if/when you become a victim of these bullies in uniform who are willing to do whatever it takes to walk all over people and then justify their actions with blatant lies which on the face of it seems to be a case of they do this because they can and people like to allow them to get away with it. If I were a career criminal then yes they may have been justified, if I had of shown I was armed in some way then yes they may have been justified, if I had of made threats of harm towards them or other people again they may have been justified. However that isn't the case, they stormed the house armed to the teeth pointing loaded and ready to fire firearms at me with full authority to fire should the need arise simply because I was not responding to them. And think about this, if they sincerely believed I was in the process of a suicide attempt why did it take them so long to enter the house? I wasn't on top of a tall building threatening to jump, I was unconscious having taken an overdose and in a heavily sedated state. They have no way of knowing this until AFTER they entered my home and discovered what I was doing AFTER entry not before.
  4. At what point were they alerted and by whom? There is no log of a phone call being made expressing concern for my welfare. So the question remains who alerted them and when did they alert them? The police have no answers to these two crucial questions. The crux of the matter is at the time, based on what they had said I had no obligation at all to interact with the police. I was not told I was going to be arrested, I was not placed under arrest and I was not accused of committing an offense which needed to be investigated. I spoke to the officers via my bedroom window and told them to go away which was my right to do given the reason they offered as to why they were there. I had done nothing, I had not made any threats, I had not threatened them with any weapons, I had not even implied I was in the process of a suicide attempt and I certainly had not implied I was going to harm anyone else. The excuse for entry offered is hind sight, it was not the reason for entry.
  5. Sadly Steampowered I can't move on from this. The police behaved excessively in this situation, I cannot get past the lies or the fact that they cannot and will not admit that it was all a massive over reaction. What's eating away at me is if I had any idea the police were going to come to my house and that this whole situation was to get as out of hand as it did then because of my state of mind at the time I would have forced a situation where they would have killed me. I feel cheated by all of this and it's not right on any level. I did nothing wrong and I was blameless in causing this situation, yet I have to suffer the consequences of it without redress. I'm not going into the why' and wherefores, but I do know as fact had I of been with it on that day I wouldn't have been the only one who died on that day. Life for me is getting a little better as each day passes but this whole situation is eating away at me because it seems the police can do as they please when they please to who they please and that to me screams police state not a democracy.
  6. Actually I believe them when they say they didn't call the police just on the basic fact they had no reason to. Based on what exactly? I know as fact, (mainly because 1) There was no reason for my family to contact the police & 2) I believe them when they say they didn't call the police & 3) There is no police log of any such call being made) they had no reason to suspect what I was doing. I didn't tell anyone and I certainly didn't tell the police when they were at my door. And at what point does a "concern for safety" mean firearms authority is given? It's madness to confront someone who is suicidal with a firearm as given the intent and state of mind of the person it would be the easiest way to cause "suicide by cop" by putting the police in a position where they face an immediate life threatening situation and causing them to open fire. So this doesn't wash on any level. There was no stand off, I was asleep at the time. Which covers people suspected of committing an offense which wasn't the case at the time. The police stated at the time they were there to speak to me for a welfare check which gives me no obligations at all to interact with them. If they had genuine concerns for my safety and stability then the next course of action would be contacting a crisis team from mental health services and gaining "authority" from them after assessment to put me in a place of safety. That did not happen. They discovered me in the process of a suicide attempt AFTER they entered the property and found me. They had no indication prior to finding me. I'm finding more and more solicitors want the easy and quick turn over cases requiring minimal effort for a good return. Along the lines of minimal investment for maximum profit. No idea, I just keep getting told it's not a case they're willing to take. However I haven't actually spoken to a solicitor but have only got as far as the "front line" telephone staff. This is the thing, I'm not going to throw money away. The facts are the police are guilty of trespass and excessive force. It is not reasonable to make assumptions when firearms are involved. As stated I told NOBODY of my intent on that day and I do not believe a phone call was made. The police attended because of a complaint made about an assault a few days earlier but this was brushed over by the investigating inspector and the reason specified for entry is I was "In the process of a suicide attempt" which; unless they're psychic, they could not have possibly known because at that time I was the only one who knew. So the excuse is a hind sight excuse and not a valid reason for entry. As stated the police offered no reason for their attendance other than they were performing a welfare check which, (the investigating inspector has agreed to this), offers me no obligation on any level to speak to them. They are not allowed to lie and clearly hid the reason why they were there until after they entered my home and even then the arrest was an afterthought rather than a primary reason to enter. They could argue I was evading arrest but I wasn't because they didn't tell me I was going to be arrested or that they wanted to speak to me about a complaint made. I can only assume the real reason for their attending my home on that day was going to be a surprise AFTER I had opened the door to them. There is also the fact that in the police logs, they claim they searched the ground floor of my home at 13:34 on the day but didn't enter it until 5pm so how they could have done this escapes me. The letter i have contains many contradictions and anomalies which simply do not ring true. Specifying a reason for entry that I was in the process of a suicide attempt and they had a duty to save life BEFORE actually ascertaining I was in that process is complete and utter bull. There is nothing in the police logs to suggest I had mentioned or they had reason to suspect this prior to them finding me so how can a reason for entry based on 'discovery' after the fact be at all a reason? And to reiterate, why confront someone intent on suicide with live firearms and putting those officers in a position where they may have to use lethal force and pull the trigger? It makes no sense at all.
  7. Fair enough on the solicitors, what about pointing me in the direction of issuing proceedings against the police myself? There seems to be nothing on the web about this unless I'm missing something.
  8. Hi all, I hope someone can help. I'm not going to go into the full details of this but in short last August the police attended my home following, (what they claim), calls from members of my family with concerns for my welfare. I refused to speak to them, or let them in. About 5 hours later fully armed police burst in through the door, (both front and back door was locked), and found me in the bedroom in a heavily sedated state. The crux of this is that in my complaint to the police the findings state that forced entry to my home was used because I was in the process of a suicide attempt. However they could not have possibly known this as I didn't tell them. In fact I told nobody. After speaking to my family I find that nobody called the police as nobody had any reason to worry about me. So the police lied when they said they were there to do this welfare check. They were there to arrest me over an assault allegation but didn't tell me this at the time. I only found this out 2 days later when I was released from hospital. On the face of it, I have a case; the police lied about their reasons for attending my home, they lied on the reasons why they forced entry, they used excessive force by using firearms officers, they had no warrant for my arrest and no warrant to enter my home. The problem I'm having is finding a solicitor who will take the case and it seems nobody will touch it. I suspect it's because there's a lot of work there and it's not a simple accident or excessive force matter, it's a lot more complicated. Can anyone help me find a decent solicitor or if not, offer some guidance on how I would take matters to court myself and sue the police? They were out of order big time and the final report from the inspector who investigated my complaint is a complete joke. There are plenty of contradictions in the conclusion letter along with many things skipped over or just ignored. Thanks
  9. You should have given the insurance the counter part, (as you would with any new keeper), and sent off the V5 yourself. Contact your insurers and get them to deal with this as since they had the V5 it's up to them to complete the paperwork. If you are still showing as the registered keeper then the insurance company hasn't done its job and they should be liable for any costs such as fines. I'd put a flea in their ear and say if it's not sorted out I'd be taking them to the county court to recover any costs. That should spur them into action.
  10. Wrong! For vehicles attending a pre-booked MOT, all that is needed is the pre-booked MOT appointment and insurance. You are allowed to drive to and from the MOT station without an MOT, (unless it passes of course then you drive back with an MOT ), without any road tax. You cannot tax a vehicle without either valid insurance or a valid MOT.
  11. I got a "fine" for no declaring a SORN a few years back. I rang the debt recovery company and invited them to try and enforce this fine. I got a couple of letters afterwards with exponentially increasing "fine" amounts. I think after ignoring the 3rd or 4th letter they moved on to someone else and easier target. Such "debts" won't show on your credit score and it's just a low life debt recovery company along with the DVLA paying a craps game hoping to scare people into coughing up. Just ignore them
  12. Fill out the V5 yourself and send it off. That way you'll know it's been done. Also send it recorded delivery so it needs a signature as proof of delivery.
  13. Long story but perhaps worth the read. I'm one of the fortunate ones the DVLA has successfully managed to screw up but it's actually worked to my advantage. Just to be clear, I passed my car test when I was 17 way back in mid 1980's and my bike test the following year long before the latest theory test and staggered motorcycle test [problem]s were introduced. Anyway, being a bit of a lad I went through a period of shall we say I felt the requirement for things like road tax and insurance didn't apply to me, (yes I was young and stupid), so naturally I found myself in and out of court a lot as well as sending my licence back to DVLA due to disqualifications. Around 1996 I served my last ever disqualification which was 6 months and duly applied for my licence back, (at the time they were still paper licences), and to my horror found I have no motorcycle entitlement, only a provisional car but oddly a full Class 1 HGV entitlement despite never having taken a lesson let alone passed a test. So DVLA backed down and I got my entitlements back. At the time I made the decision never to update my licence address and hang onto the licence I had in my hand. On stops with the police they seemed understanding as to why my current address wasn't on my licence and advised me to sort it out but didn't take any action. Skip forwards to 2010 when I was once again stopped because the local police had a report I didn't have a full licence. I argued I had and was willing to produce my licence. Sadly I couldn't find it so was reported for failure to produce and driving otherwise in accordance with a licence. I applied to the DVLA for a photo card licence who informed me they had no records of my ever having passed a test. So I offered an ultimatum, either they issue my licence as it should be, (full car and bike), or I would re-take the tests and then issue county court proceedings to recover the costs. DVLA then decided I wasn't who I'm claiming to be, (despite confirming my driving licence number(s) -- For whatever reason I have 3 of them even though this confuses the DVLA and myself somewhat -- and confirming my previous and current address. So the matter goes to court and based on the evidence I presented, (I took the precaution of keeping the stop forms I'd been issued in the past by the police and presented the originals to the court), the case was thrown out. So, 2 years go by with my arguing with the DVLA I am who I am and I should be issued a photo ID licence and them refusing on the basis I do not meet the "photo ID evidential requirements despite my application form bearing my photograph and my police officer neighbough signing my form to say that is me on the photograph), and it came to a stale mate with the DVLA refusing point blank to issue me with a photo ID licence on the basis I don't meet the ID requirements. Skip forwards to October last year and I get nabbed by a camera van doing 68 on a 60 road. So I filled out the form, paid the £100 fine on line and explained why I couldn't offer my licence for the points to be added. In May this year the safety camera team REFUNDED the £100 fine I paid and I've heard no more about it. Also in Feb of this year I made a mistake, (due to really bad road signs), of driving the wrong way down a 1 way street straight into the 'arms' of a police officer. I was told I would be reported for driving otherwise in accordance with a licence and for driving the wrong way down a 1 way street. I was allowed to drive off, (the police officer actually stopped traffic for me), and go about my business. I have yet to hear anything about that matter. So in essence I've "got away" with technically 3 minor traffic offenses because the DVLA can't get it's act together. I have them on the run as having been found not guilty by a court I'm now in a position where I have proof I have indeed passed a test, (although the DVLA refuse to accept this proof regardless of it being from a magistrates court), so as long as I don't do anything really dumb they've made me immune to prosecution for minor offenses, (I add - Not that I will go out of my way to commit any. The speeding issue was just bad luck and the one way street was a genuine mistake. Even the police officer at the time said it happened 5 or 6 times a week on that particular street), purely because of their incompetence. The bottom line here is the DVLA won't want to test my challenge to their records in a county court as such a decision is based on the balance of probabilities rather than absolute proof. Also, one has to question WHY is the DVLA database is 'so accurate' WHY newly qualified drivers are now issued with a pass certificate they are allowed to keep as evidence of passing the test? If the database is so accurate why would there be a need for this? Simply put there wouldn't be any need at all but as we all know the DVLA is a law unto itself who makes its own rules as and when it pleases with no right of appeal or outside governing agency who drivers can turn to for help. All investigations are internal and of course biased in their favour. My advice to anyone with an issue over entitlement is to argue the point with them. Keep every letter you have sent and every letter to get from them so if you do end up in court for whatever reason you have the evidence you have done all you can to resolve the situation. Sadly for those with a licence in their hands, I'm sorry to say you're screwed as you can only drive based on the licence in your hand. I'm lucky because the DVLA won't issue me with one and they're powerless to revoke my licence as I can't present what they themselves won't issue. If you do however have a licence in your hand and have to go through the test again. I'd strongly advise gathering a much evidence as you can to your previous entitlements. Go back to your driving instructor and ask them for a letter saying they gave you lessons and you used their car/bike to go through the test. Claw together anything you can, be it a letter as above, an old speeding endorsement, whatever you can lay your hands on to prove the DVLA has made a mistake then sue them in the county court for the costs for lessons, going through the theory test, passing the test again, time off work, loss of NCD, etc. If your insurance company took a copy of your licence, get them to issue you with another copy and a letter to say they took the copy of your licence. A line has to be drawn with these clowns as they've been getting away with ripping people off by making them go through another test for way too long now. Make the DVLA accountable for its mistakes as it's all getting way out of hand.
  14. Oh dear! Some people just don't get it. For years now road tax has run from the 1st of the month to the last day of the month which is the 28/29th Feb, the 30th or the 31st. Just because your initial payment came out on the 14th doesn't mean your road tax ran from the 14th, it was back dated to the 1st which is why in the confirmation Email DVLA will have sent you it will have said your vehicle is now taxed. It's also why if you sell your vehicle in the middle of the month you won't be refunded any part of the road tax used, the DVLA haven't offered partial refunds for road tax for years now, only whole months. All of my vehicles, (2 cars, 2 motorcycles and a van) are now on the DD scheme and all are paid on the 1st of the month for that months road tax. It's paid in advance not in arrears.
  15. That's a fair comment Ray BUT ... (Oh there's always a but isn't there ), the OP said he'd paid the fine on time and makes no mention of the money being returned then getting a summons to court. I would imagine the court action is for failing to produce his driving licence rather than the speeding offense itself as with the fine paid and the cheque cashed then surely the admission that he was speeding has been accepted by the money being accepted by the FPN team??? Now I know the laws of the land change on an almost daily basis in favour of the authorities, but surely they haven't changed so you get pinched for the same offense twice and so have to double up on the points and fines??? I would imagine a guilty plea along with sending off his licence to the court will result in a paper exercise and at the most a 'modest fine' along with a victims surcharge and a token costs amount as the original offense isn't being challenged, it's been admitted by the form returned and the payment sent. At least that's the way I look at it.
  • Create New...