It's not clear to me from your account whether you were pulled over at the side of the road (ie parked) or stopped at temporary traffic lights.

The difference is that in one case you are not "driving" and in the other you are driving but just stopped at a signal.

Just having the phone in your hand is enough if you are driving. 

That's a simplification, as the definition of "driving" has been tested many times. 

If you really want to test this then have a look at the new(ish) definition of using a phone whilst driving and see if it fits your actions or not. 

I'll just mention, in passing, that the DWP has been known to mislead next of kin into believing they are responsible, in the absence of other assets, for repaying overpayments. 

They tried it with me when my father died. Fortunately I had listened to Moneybox on Radio 4 a few weeks previously. 

Just a quick note to thank you for the reminder. Me and Mrs Mycathasfleas found a use for an exercise mat and lay on our backs watching it. 

I can only speak from personal experience. But a similar thing happened to me. Seriously dented door.  I made the other insurance pay. They regarded it as a write off. Took the money, replaced the door. Never heard anything more about it. 

Except clearly someone sold my details to claims company, because I got loads of calls in bad English for a few month's 

Re the police response - factually wrong on so many levels. I'm not suggesting that is the most effective port of call (it probably isn't) but you would be the owner even if you never saw the item. How else would other goods in transit be invesrigated? This response was once known as "cuffing the job" 

I am sure the resident experts will give you a comprehensive guide to your rights. 

The responsibility lies with the retailer. I have dealt with Cotswold before for similar. And found them refreshingly helpful.

Even when I lost the receipt for one item I had bought in Inverness. The manager in Newcastle called the store. Found the transaction and gave me a full refund. 

The advice from other members is correct.It depends on the outcome you want.

Stolen property also incudes the proceeds of the theft. So a stolen watch remains stolen, and if sold the proceeds are also stolen goods. Until the property is 'reduced' into lawful custody. (eg the police or original owner). 

So, as a courtesy the unwitting buyer should be put on notice (politely) not to dispose of your stolen picture. Ideally they should return it to the owner, but they might be forgiven for not entirely believing the story. 

The name and address of the buyer would be useful. But again, would you give that to a stranger? Perhaps they might wish to return the disputed property to the auction hpuse. Then you only have one person to deal with. 

I do recall that some second hand chains used to refuse to hand over stolen property to police without clear evidence of ownership (not just suspicion). One manager told me that they lost a lot of stock into police property stores and it increased their admin burden. I don't know if what the auction would do. 

As a friend, who is was a medical negligence lawyer, explained to me. Despite all the compo ads for motor vehicle claims, medical related injuries rarely result in much if any compensation unless they are serious. There is also an assumption that during procedures minor injuries may occur and that the patient has explicitly or tacitly accepted that risk. For example, during colonoscopy it is possible (though rare to tear the colon wall. My friend also said she wished people would just accept minor mishaps. 

On a personal note, I think I probably would not bother escalating this because the nurse clearly regretted it and gathered evidence against herself by photographing it. 

Finally. During an examination a nurse tipped my bag over breaking my tablet. Did I care? No. I was glad of the free service from the NHS and a few days later I dropped off some staff room essentials for the team that treated me well. 

Ok.

The short version.

After a collision drivers have to provide certain information to anyone (including police) having a reason to ask for it. This includes the drivers name and address. (And other information) 

If particulars were not exchanged at the tine, as it seems to be here, then police will ensure the law is complied with by furnishing particulars of parties involved. Often by letter. 

I suggest you write to the area HQ asking for this information. Keep it simple.

You were involved in a collision on (date) at (place). Details were not exchanged at the time. Please provide the name and address of the driver and keeper if different. It should be automatic. 

Just a clarification.

GDPR does not apply to police where there is a legal requirement to release the information. (One might also make a case for "policing purposes").

I have not come across any occasion where information has been refused after a collision.

Any more than it would apply to you for sharing it with insurance company or legal representative. 

It would be very tempting to plead not guilty to both and use the opposing photo in each case to throw reasonable doubt on the other.

I have seen a similar defence work in a London magistrates court but that was some time ago.

In any event I would suggest a lawyer to present it correctly. 

For me the annoyance was more that I didn't know about the consultation. I used to be liason to the BPA for a public body. I certainly would have had an opinion. 

Apologies if anyone has posted this begore. I didn't find it in a search. 

Last month the HoL had a ninety minute debate about the government Codes of Practice for Private Parking. 

The debate is here https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/private-parking-code-of-practice-latest-developments/

In short. After a six month consultation in 2023 it been kicked forward a bit 

The usual thing is to put a notice in the Gazette (London Gazette) asking parties with claims against the estate to come forward. We gave 21 days today do do. The object being to protect the executor from subsequent claims after they distribute the estate 

My experience regarding witness treatment comes from criminal courts in England and Wales and from staff association work and (unfortunately) appearing as a witness at employment tribunals. I would not give advice outside my experience. The Professional Qualifications Act 2022 enables appropriate regulations to be made by relevant bodies (eg Nursing and Midwifery Council). If you know the regulatory body there should be a pathway for complaints. Beyond that it feels like lawyer territory. Sorry I cannot be more help. 

Having dealt with witnesses in many criminal cases and other public tribunals. I am sorry to hear of your experience. Members of the public support the criminal justice system by giving evidence. Witnesses should not be abused during hearings, although some barristers seem to forget that. 

You have asked about a breach of your human rights and it seems you might be thinking of Article 7 - right to private life, by revealing your identity and intrusive questioning.

You say this was a public body holding a disciplinary hearing. So HR legislation would likely apply to that body. But try getting an explanation first. 

My first port of call would be the officer or official who led the investigation. Speak to them and follow up with a letter explaining your concerns. Ask them to put you in contact with the organisation (or part of it) that ran the hearing. There will usually be a secretariat who will direct your complaint to the right person. 

If a witness feels badly treated during a hearing, then it will be taken seriously. Without witnesses there could be no hearings or justice. Should an explanation be unsatisfactory then ask how to escalate the matter.

Grounds for withholding witnesses identities. This is usually dealt with at the preparation stage if harm might arise or justice thwarted. There is no general breach of Article 7 for identifying witnesses but it is not unusual to keep it out of the public record. 

In respect of intrusive questioning by defencr. The panel should have intervened if it became inappropriate. However the accused also has a right to a fair trial (Article 5) and a proper denfence. A balance must be found. 

I'm sorry if this seems unspecific. In my experience miscommunication is often at the bottom of witness issues. Perhaps there is a learning need you can highlight. 

Many thanks for clarification. 

No disrespect intended, and apologies if I remember incorrectly. This appears similar to a post three weeks ago. If it is being resurrected could you please link to the original.

Have a look at all the similar Trustpilot review comments to put this in context. Tends to agree with our expert posters 

Intrum is rated "Bad" with 1.2 / 5 on Trustpilot

UK.TRUSTPILOT.COM

---

Do you agree with Intrum's TrustScore? Voice your opinion today and hear what 489...

Just a note on the CCTV issue. It would be more likely that the card use database would be where TFL start. From that decide whether it is worthwhile sitting at a terminal in Palestra House scanning foot traffic at barriers 

From experience based on my previous incarnation, if I had been presented with this bylaws offence to supervise, I would have discontinued it because - It involves a juvenile who probably has some needs that require input from an appropriate adult. Also because the offence is "de-minimus" Too trivial to proceed with.

Whilst there are still railways offences of spitting on platforms (originating in times when TB was prevalent) that's not mentioned here. 

The letter should have details of how to proceed with a challenge. But as one poster said, local news and embarrassing the issuer may be more effective. 

Bank Fodder is right on this. A person selling a car must not have misrepresented its condition or history. 

One other thing you can do is go to the government website to find MOT status and any advisories. They may be relevant to your problem with the vehicle. That would demonstrate prior knowledge. 

What to do do afterwards - if an informal approach does not work you have to decide if you want to take legal redress. House insurance often provides dispute cover but it may not be worth the trouble. 

Good luck 

Ex staff association rep and debt adviser here. The very capable expert members will give advice which I won't repeat. 

From dealing with this in the past, I found that offloading some of the work helps clients a lot. First port of call, Union Rep if you have one. If not then look at your house insurance and see if it also provides employment dispute assistance. Many do. 

A trusted and able friend may help. The objective is that someone else does the communicating. They are not wrapped up in the issue and will keep to the point when dealing with the employer. 

That relieves some stress for you and removes personalities from a resolution. 

Good luck