Correct, not giving your name and address to a Police Officer for the purpose of reporting your for summons autmatically gives the Police a right to arrest you under SOPCA. Under SOPCA, this triggers a power of offence for *ANY* offence what so ever. Stop Search is a power that can be abused. An officer can conduct a Section 1 PACE search based on 'current intelligence' and they don't have to specify the source of this intel when making the search. I'm certain they have a get out in the dataprotection act to not supply this info. Otherwise, every drug barron in the UK would be doing subect data requests (crude analogy as this has nothing to do with your situation) I do think the whole situation stinks so far as your case is concerned. Have you considered making an official complaint to the Police?

There was a thread to do with credit reference agencies and their right to process data. The company told the judge that their were posts on this forum. They also tried claiming copyright breaches with regards to their own letters being publically posted. I believe the thread was made private. Companies do read these forums (regardless of what the sites terms and conditions allow).

I suspect you are correct. But as I have said, I've seen it occur on a couple of occasions. Those cases may have been charges that were going to be commited to the Crown Court. perhaps the rules are different (isn't drink drive and DIC an either way offence?) ITs been a while. The vast majority of Police are honest in my opinion. What I can also tell you is that most police officers hate giving evidence in court. You need to weigh up the cost to you if you lose your license. I know you say you can't get legal aid. I think it might still be worth paying for a solicitor. Having the officers professionaly cross examined may end up in the solicitor tearing up their MG11's for loo paper if he does a good job. Of course you can self represent yourself. How well it goes down depends a lot on the court clerk (if you have a panel of lay magistrates). I witnessed one case where a lad represented himself over a charge of theft from employer (a pretty serious matter if convicted). He was in tears. I could see the bench sided with him and the solicitor sitting next to me in the public bench admitted he could not have defended better ! :o) I have also seen a very grumpy stipendary mag (qualified lawyer basically as apposed to a bench) who was not impressed with a guy self representing. I too deplore drink drivers / drunk in charge. However, I expect the Police to comply with the law and conduct themselves with integrity.

Apologies, I misread that. CPS can have the charge ammended at court. I've seen this on a couple of cases.

Wrong I'm afraid. Driving in law is being in control 'of the vehicle's steering and propulsion'. Having the engine running is driving. There are stated cases. Even if you are sat in the passenger seat. Ref the offence 'quitting' (leaving a parked car with the engine running). There is a case that says if you have a person with a driving license sat on the passenger seat this is a defence. Back to the 'driving' definition, there is even a stated case where a man was pushing his car down a hill, using his hands to reach through to the steering wheel. This was confirmed by the court to be driving. Unforuntalnely from what I have read and my understanding, the full offence may be complete. In any case. Even if the engine was not running and you were in the vehicle with keys you are drunk in charge. I hate to say this, but local mag courts appear to be very biased towards Police (in my experience anyway). The law is very tough indeed on offences involving intoxicating liquior and motor vehicles.

I can't believe stores are allowed to get away with this. He has arrested you and I would argue it was unlawful. I take it the Police weren't called? You can't deny a person of their liberty in order for them to answer for an alleged or suspected offence without calling a constable as soon as it practicable. It doesn't matter whether he said the words 'you are under arrest' or not. The words do not have to have been spoken for an arrest to have been made.

Could one not put in a claim at the small claims court for misprepresentation? Then, make an application for a witness summons. What are the chances of the call operator who processed the upgrade attending court from overseas? You only have to prove on the balance of probabilities?

I signed up for a new Blackberry phone on a three contract from a three retail store on saturday. At no point did I sign anything (even electronically). I had no terms and conditions read to me (I did see a link on the staff member's screen called 'terms and conditions' for which the staff member clicked the box 'accept'. The phone was 'free' on the proviso that I remain on contract for 18 months (this was explained to me verbally). Out of interest (and I have no issue with three), who on earth could they enforce this contract against me (I've never seen the terms and conditions unless they are going to post them to me). Surely I am subject of an agreement regulated by the credit act? Does it not follow then that they should be in posession of a correctly signed (by me) agreement specifying the terms. Cheers FP

Is this private individual vs private individual I thought CPR rules were quite specific about transfer of cases to the defendant's local area. I thought this was only where business entities sued private individuals.

It was to do with a hoover I purchased. I just remember telling them I wanted it done under my stat rights as my contract was with them and not the manufactuer; and that if they wanted to make a guarantee claim with the manufactuer that was their business. :o) I can't remember the specifics other than getting annoyed at the poor member of staff (I don't like doing that as I know its not their fault) Sorry, I'm a bit slow this morning. There was no other enquiry!! ;o)

Thanks you Bookworm. May I make one further enquiry? I'm sure I have heard previously that is is better to insist on invoking your rights under the Sales of Goods Act as apposed to approaching the manufacturer for a guarantee. The reason being, the statutory rights are more comprehensive and if you get a repair done from the manufacturer, this may detract from invoking your Sales of Good Act rights against the reatailer, should the product develop a further problem. If this is true, a lot of stores try to fob off consumers saying you have to contact the manufacturer (Comet springs to mind from previous experience). I've told them I wanted something doing under stat rights, but they just say there is no point, as they will just return it under manufacturer's guarantee.

Can I just ask. The two year 'European' guarantee, is this not from the manufacturer, therefore there is no point going back to Maplins citing this - is this correct? I thought he guarntee was provided by the manufactuer, and your rights under the Sales of Goods Act (as ammended) is with the retailer? Also, how hard is it to get a manufacturer to honour the two year guarantee (I see a lot of products where the manufacturer says it is just one year)? Thinking back to contract law, how can you argue breach of contract when there has been no consideration made to the manufacturer from yourself? Cheers FP

As a current student with the Open University I would highly recommend their courses. I can't comment on their law courses as I study IT at present. Also, if you shop at Tesco you can swap clubcard vouchers for 4 X the face value at the OU which will save you some money. They are well respected academicly by employers (something you should consider if you intend to become a solicitor - as I've been advised a lot of firms do tend to take this into consideration). Hope this helps.

In this type of situation, would a secret recording of said head teacher not assist? I appreciate this would probably be frowned on in tribunals in normal circumstances.

In criminal law, that is techincally incorrect. Appropriation can be as soon as you pick an item up. If you have the intention in your mind at the time that you are going to permantly deprive the store of said item the offence is complete. No need to leave the store for the offence to be complete. Of course, it is a lot easier to prove the complete offence once someone has left the store without paying. For example, if I walk into my local supermarket and head to the alcohol isle. If I pick up a bottle of brandy with the intention of not paying for it and never giving it back, I have commited theft at that point precisely. However, how do you prove the mens rea? You need to know what I was thinking. I'd be pretty stupid to admit that in interview if I was arrested at this point. Well, if we take the scenario one step further and I conceal the bottle of brandy in my coat. I would have a pretty hard job of explaining why I had just done that. I don't need to leave the store or pass the last till before I can be arrested. Back to the original post. The poster should not have been treated as they were. No-one but the Police have a right to conduct a PACE search on you. I'd argue that the search they conducted was assault. Is it worth taking further action on this. I don't know. You may end up getting arrested in respect of the original alleged theft.

Can they 'disclaim' your right to seek redress through the courts just because of what Paypal write in their terms and conditions? A lot of the dilemas I have read appear very unfair to sellers in some cases. (for example in one case, a seller is sent an empty packet by recorded delivery. Paypal washed their hands of this saying the buyer had complied with their requirements for a payment reversal). I can imagine in such situations, I'd prefer a judge to make their own mind up 'on the balance of probabilities' rather than a Paypal member of staff.

Hi My thinking is that because the guarntee the banks offer with direct debit, even if I found myself in what I considered an 'unjust' situation where Paypal found in a buyers favour and took the money from my bank by direct debit - I could easily get the payment reversed through my bank. This would place the onus on Paypal to take legal action against me which I could then defend in my local county court. I as under the impression that debit / credit cards given as a contionous authority were a lot harder to cancel / retract. I'm not looking to cause trouble, I just want to make sure my interests are best looked after.

Well, I've removed my debit card details from my Paypal account, so only my direct debit exists now. Reading several posts, it does appear the paypal terms and conditions are stacked up in weight of the buyer.

Hi I don't have a particular issue, I've had good experiences to date touch wood. So this is hypothetical. Hope this post is allowed.

Why not take this matter out with Land of Leather whom I assume your contract was with? How much did you pay for it originally?

I've heard quite a few worrying stories concerning sellers on eBay and associated problems with PayPal. I see the Paypal company has its registered office in Luxemburg so I assume this would mean if it came to trying to issue a claim in the County Court this may complicate matters. Say I sell something and they buyer pays through Paypal, I then withdraw the money into my current account. I now have the money. I understand Paypal can request money back from me some weeks after the initial transaction if the buyer makes a dispute; i.e goods not as described. I imagine Paypal would debit the money from my current account using the direct debit I have set up. If the item I sold was 'as described' in my opinion, could I not tell the bank to reverse any direct debit under the direct debit guarantee? The onus would then be on Paypal to initiate legal proceedings against me in the UK, which I could submit a defence for. Is this a valid action plan for a honest grievence?

Just to confirm. Did you admit the offence of Theft to the Police?

Hi Is there a stated case that says once the packet is delivered (ie through the letter box and on the floor) it is no longer in transmission? Couldn't the fact that the letter is inside an envelope be considered to be part of the transmission?

Bear in mind the changes to legislation, namely SOCPA and powers of arrest. Previously, PACE referred to 'arrestable offences'. This has changed, SOCPA concerns 'indictable offences'. (an offence which may be trialed at a Crown court - so includes either way offences such as theft) According to s.24A of PACE (as ammended by SOCPA), any person (call him `P') can arrest another person (call him `D', for `defendant') in the following circumstances. (i) P knows that an arrestable offence has (definitely) been committed, and has reasonable grounds to suspect that D committed it, or (ii) P has reasonable grounds for suspecting that - at this moment - D is committing an arrestable offence However, even if these conditions are met, a further restriction is that (iii) it is not reasonable practicable for P to summon a constable to perform the arrest, and (iv) the arrest is necessary to prevent injury to any person, loss or damage to property, or D's running off before a constable can be summoned.

Hi s75 of the forementioned acts makes the follow reference:- ") If the debtor under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within section 12(b) or © has, in relation to a transaction financed by the agreement, any claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract, he shall have a like claim against the creditor, who, with the supplier, shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable to the debtor" My situation I purchased a pump costing £199.99 from Aqua Magic Tropical & Marine Ltd, Trading As “The LIving Seas” on 8th July 2008 paying my Tesco Credit card. The company has since gone into liquidation (confirmed on Companies House website) The payment went through 'World Pay', who are a payment processor - like Pay pal, google checkout etc) The pump has failed. I don't believe a reasonable person would expect a pump costing £200 to last only 8 months. Now, a few sites on the Internet say there must be a 'direct relationship' between the credit card company and retailer. Based on this it appears I can't make a s75. However, I did have a thought. Worldpay boast on their website that they are owned by The Royal Bank of Scotland. If memory serves me correct, Tesco credit card was half owned by RBS until summertime last year. If this was the case, can I argue that indeed there was a direct reltionship between RBS and the retailer? Cheers FP