What with this, Durkin and the OFT v Banks, the Supreme Court are not very pro consumer are they?

Lee just phoned me, initially reduced to the cap of £50 and then when I said I did not use it all, he wiped it completely. Did not get to the bottom of the matter in terms of why this occured, but the important thing for me is I do not have to pay it. I wonder how many people just pay an incorrect roaming charge. Clearly something is wrong. Thank you here too Lee.

I checked it is not a back up.

Okay, I have emailed you confirmation from Apple that the downloads in question never took place on the device.

No such folder, however there is one that tells you the application and download size, but not when downloaded. I have been on the phone to Apple and they have written to me confirming that no downloads of that size occurred on the day in question. Vodafone will not provide the details of what was downloaded. They just say pay it is right. As you can imagine they are impossible to deal with and use the normal big company strategy to deal with you.

Wrt135 [#11496137]

I have a bill for circa £1.5K which is comprised of roaming charges whilst I was away in Italy. It is really odd, the bill includes for 9Gb between approximately of data downloaded between 12 and 2 in the morning. I am not even sure such speeds are feasible on a mobile data network. There is no way I downloaded this, I realise that it could have been an automatic update, but then I looked at the Mobile Data Usage on the Ipad the Current Period Roaming is 7.6Gb and that is everything from the 10 November 2013. The device is an Ipad. They have not taken the money yet, I know I can cancel the DD, but I do not want my credit rating shot to pieces by them and they hold all my business numbers so I do not want to be cut off. I have have used the Social Escalation Hub.

I forgot about this thread. Various events unfolded, that led to my Business Manager becoming sacked and a whole load of revelations regarding his misconduct then followed, that I then took advantage that improved my negotiating position no end. I just think the bank did not want their dirty laundry washed in public so they settled for £20K (of £150K in the end) a few months ago. A good result by all accounts.

That is then end of this phoned them (knowing the 6 months passed) and they have decided not to prosecute. I do not an advocate of speeding, but 65 MPH on the M1 does not really deserve a fine and points.

So having tempted fate above, I heard from them shortly after wherein they provided a further description of the location. This provision of a further description to my mind amount to an admission that the first description was inadequate and the NIP invalid given that the information needs to be provided within 14 days of the offence. It has been around 5 months since the offence, I have seen a very similar case where they have dropped it, let us see what the next month brings.

Televised handing down of the judgement in the SC: http://ukscblog.com/new-judgment-durkin-v-dsg-retail-limited-anor-2014-uksc-21/

Very pleased for Mr Durkin, shame that the findings of facts of the First Division cannot be disturbed, I think all he gets it £8K, not much given the stress this must have caused over the past 15 or so years. A win for consumers though.

Sorry, I did not mean to put pound signs before the '7K and 9K on the clock' in the post above, the car is worth far less than when I bought it. I tried to sell it back to the dealer but they made a low offer and said it was because of the faults! I do not know enough technically, but those with far superior minds at Seat accept there is a fault and who I am to argue with that. I cannot do your test as the car is with Seat. It is a Bocanegra.

No one is even mooting that we have done anything wrong to invalidate the warranty, the car was serviced at the Seat dealer. The repeating issue is as above relating to loss and power. They just do not seem to be able to fix it. I bought the car 1 year old £7k on clock, now 2 years old with £9K on the clock.

Purchased a Seat from a private seller and it has been nothing but problems, these problems were not hidden by the seller but we thought they were resolved, well I did. I do not think I have any redress against the private seller. The original seller had it for a year and I have had it for about the same period. As soon as it is driven with any gusto, there is a loss of power occurred and the EPC (electronic power control) warning light comes on. I have had it back to Seat 9 times. The car is still under the 2 year warranty, and Seat have been trying to resolve the problem. The car is so much trouble I would rather just get rid, but I do not want to lose several thousand pounds and if I do. Do I have any redress against Seat, bearing in mind I did not purchase the car from them direct or rather from a Seat dealer?

Without wishing to tempt fate, looks like the vague locus argument worked as I have not heard anything else. I see that they have now changed the description on NIPs to others to something more accurate, e.g. stating the actual junction number.

It is not really for the judiciary to take on the big banks and credit agencies, but our (elected) parliament. Having said that, parliament is not particularly effective at representing those that really need it, i.e. not the rich and powerful. Outcomes of cases can be unfair, but still answer the legal point correctly. We live in a unfair country, where without the sufficient funds it is very difficult to fight your corner fairly in court, in particular when you are against large corporations. Notwithstanding all that, I hope Mr Durkin gets the answer he has fought so hard for.

This is an interesting paper on decision making in the Supreme Court. http://www.bailii.org/bailii/lecture/02.html

I am going to defend using the vague locus argument and have drafted that below, does anyone have any helpful comments? I am in receipt of the above Notice of Intended Prosecution (‘NIP’) and for ease of reference enclose a copy herewith. As you should be aware, where the driver was not stopped at the time, Section 1(1) c) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 requires that in order for a NIP to be valid, the alleged offence locus must be given therein, viz: c) within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a notice of the intended prosecution specifying the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed, was— (i) in the case of an offence under section 28 or 29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (cycling offences), served on him, (ii) in the case of any other offence, served on him or on the person, if any, registered as the keeper of the vehicle at the time of the commission of the offence. The said NIP states ’50 MPH Variable Speed Limit, M1 Motorway, Northbound, Bedfordshire, UNITED KINGDOM’. I am unable to determine where exactly the location the NIP is referring to. As far as I can determine the said motorway section is about 15 miles long. I rely on the Divisional Court judgement of Young v Day (1959) 123 J.P. 317. In this case, it was held that‘the Hothfield to Bethersden Road’, which was a minor road 4 miles long, was insufficiently specific, it therefore follows that 15 miles will be similarly insufficient. Further, I would refer you to the following comments by Lord Parker (making the lead judgement) in the said case: ‘it is obvious that they could have been more specific because, even if they could not specify the place by reference to an intersection, a building, or a church, they could indicate that the alleged offence took place a quarter of a mile from Hothfield or half a mile from Bethersden, or wherever the place was.’. The M1 motorway section mentioned in the NIP is not featureless; there are both junctions and overbridges to which the NIP could have referred. Bearing that in mind and Lord Parker's comments referring to the accuracy required, on an apparently featureless minor road, it is clear that the locus of the offence in the NIP is excessively vague to constitute a valid notice. Accordingly the NIP is a nullity. Notwithstanding and without prejudice and to avoid malicious prosecution under s.172 Road Traffic Act 1988, I provide below the details required by the NIP as follows: Driver name: Licence number: Date of birth: Issuing country: England Licence issued by: Address and contact details: The above is provided under duress to avoid a criminal sanction solely to satisfy any potential duty under s.172 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

Ended up with a Notice of Intended Prosecution for doing 65 MPH on the M1. The NIP says the variable speed limit was 50 MPH. Seems a bit unfair given the normal speed limited of 70 MPH on the motorway, but life is unfair. I am 1 MPH over so I am not eligible for the speed awareness course. NIP Details and Circumstances What is the name of the Constabulary? - Date of the offence: - December 2013 Date of the NIP: - 11 days after the offence Date you received the NIP: - 12 days after the offence Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - M1 Motorway, Northbound, Bedfordshire Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - Not known If your are not the Registered Keeper, what is your relationship to the vehicle? - How many current points do you have? - 0 Provide a description of events (if you know what happened) telling us as much about the incident as possible - some things that may seem trivial to you may be important, so don't leave anything out. Please do not post personal details for obvious reasons - NIP states I was going 65MPH and the variable speed limit was 50MPH. NIP Wizard Responses These were the responses used by the Wizard to arrive at its recommendation: Have you received a NIP? - Yes Are you the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned (is your name and address on the V5/V5C)? - Yes Did the first NIP arrive within 14 days? - Yes Although you are the Registered Keeper, were you also the keeper of the vehicle concerned (the person normally responsible for it) at the time of the alleged offence? - Yes Were you driving? - Yes Which country did the alleged offence take place in? - England

I wish you well with this too. Is the hearing still listed for the 28 January 2014?

I think the last on it. It seems he won at last do not think the banks fancied a Supreme Court showdown. Who knows the position if he really won given costs of £2.5M. http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Costs/2013/B28.html&query=harrison&method=boolean

No jury, generally that is for criminal matters. There will be one judge. The court has probably been changed to suit availability of judge etc.

I would not get mad about it, the first offer is unlikely to be their best, make your own part 36 offer and that might prompt them into making a higher offer and will also afford you some protection from cost if you use the correct wording.

Thanks TT, getting a bit lost in it all. Do not fancy paying £1K of fee to make him bankrupt, questioning is a good alternative given the potential consequences of not attending. I think if I manage to sucessfully serve the stat demand on him, that could be the next step after the 21 days expires.