Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'guilty'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • The Consumer Forums: The Mall
    • Welcome to the Consumer Forums
    • FAQs
    • Forum Rules - Please read before posting
    • Consumer Forums website - Post Your Questions & Suggestions about this site
    • Campaign
    • Helpful Organisations
  • CAG Community centre
    • CAG Community Centre Subforums:-
  • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - you need to register to access the CAG library
    • CAG library Subforums
  • Banks, Loans & Credit
    • Bank and Finance Subforums:
    • Other Institutions
  • Retail and Non-retail Goods and Services
  • Work, Social and Community
  • Debt problems - including homes/ mortgages, PayDay Loans
  • Motoring
  • Legal Forums
  • Latest Consumer News

Blogs

  • A Say in the Life of .....
  • Debt Diaries
  • Shopping & Money Saving Tips
  • chilleddrivingtuition

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


About Me


Quit Date

Between and

Cigarettes Per Day


Cost Per Day


Location

Found 13 results

  1. Hello all. New to this forum, just going to copy and paste the template with my answers. Name of the Claimant: Comprehensive Management Services LTD claimants Solicitors: Gladstones Solicitors Limited Date of issue: 25/09/2017 Date of Acknowledgement - 13/10/2017 Date to file defence - 27/10/2017 Particulars of Claim: 1.The driver of the vehicle registration ... (the 'Vehicle') incurred the parking charge(s) on 04/06/2017 for breaching the terms of parking on the land at QUEEN STREET APARTMENTS 2.The Defendant was driving the Vehicle and/or is the Keeper of the Vehicle. 3.AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £160 for Parking Charges / Damages and indemnity costs if applicable, together with interest of £2.91 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing to Judgment at £0.04 per day. What is the value of the claim? £162.91 + £25 Court fee + £50 Legal representative's costs = £237.91 Has the claim been issued by the Private parking Company or was the PCN assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim ? Comprehensive Management Services LTD. Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Not sure what "Notice of Assignment" is, I did receive a PCN & a "Letter Before Claim". Full Story - I pay £50 PCM (in addition to rent) to Queen Street Apartments for parking in the car park in question. This is for my can. - As my car had suffered crash damage, and was stationary in the car park, I picked up a rental car (listed in POC) on Saturday 3rd June at 14:46. I have proof of this. It's worth noting that as this was a rental, I was the temporary keeper of the vehicle, but not the owner. - Once arriving at the car park in question with the rental car, I went immediately to the administration office of my building where parking permits are issued. They have previously provided me temporary permits for rental cars in the past, free of charge. - Unfortunately, the office was closed at this time, and as far as I am aware, there is no other way to attain a permit. - As soon as the Queen Street Apartments staff were back in the office on Monday, I immediately obtained the parking permit (it was too late, I already had the parking ticket). I still have the parking permit as proof. - My defence is that I did everything I possibly could have done in order to comply with the regulation, but was unable to do so. As a resident of Queen Street Apartments who pays for a spot in this car park, I was well within my rights for my car to be there - even though a parking permit was not present. I appealed the parking fine with the Independent Appeals Service (using my PCN number), and it was rejected on the basis that they are "only able to look at the lawfulness of the charge and not at any mitigating circumstances". Gladstones Solicitors then sent me a "Letter Before Claim". I responded that I am unwilling to pay on the basis of [what I wrote above]. Now, they sent me the claim form. I would appreciate any advice on how to proceed. While I am happy to fight this (pending your advice), it is a concern that if this goes to court, and I lose, I may have to pay out several thousand pounds in legal fees - at least I read that this is a possibility. I have yet to respond to, or acknowledge, the claim form, although I have until 13/10/2017 to do so. I am not sure if it is worth me defending this, or if I should just pay the money they are requesting?
  2. Thank you for taking the time to read my problem. For the last two and a half years ive been selling virtual items on ebay whilst claiming DWP. A week ago I was asked to attend an interview at my local Job Centre, of which I did and was told by the interviewer that I had been informed on for making money and not declaring it. I told the interviewer I had indeed been doing that and he asked me to bring 3 months bank statements in next week. I went home that same day and printed off 3 months bank statements and as I did so the realisation hit me that I was in a lot of trouble. The over payment is around £8.200.00 My intensions are to be honest and cooperative from the start, so I will go back to the Job Centre in a few days and hand them the statements. I wont lie to you I am very scared and wish I had never done this, but what I need to know is what should I expect once ive given him those statements?. what will the process be?. Is there anything I need to know or do to make this go better in my favour?. The DWP im claiming is carers allowance for my partner. I have never done anything like this before and its realy playing on my mind.
  3. Over the last few weeks, months I keep reading articles here and there about this. Glances really not looked at things in depth. Fish dying,mutated things like that. Radioactivity has spread to the coast of America things like that. Some say this is or should be massive news.Maybe it is but I have missed it. Anyone want to say anything, have articles a view, looked at this problem much more than I have. An article. Fukushima: Japanese Government Guilty Of Destroying Pacific Ocean. When you read things but do not know that much about something like this, it plays on your mind.You worry, wonder what the hell is happening. And if such a massive problem is out there how are they going to solve it. A few sentences out of the article. Link. http://countercurrentnews.com/2017/05/fukushima-japanese-government-guilty-of-destroying-pacific-ocean/
  4. Yet again another debtor has been found guilty under section 68.1 of the Tribunal Courts & Enforcement Act 2007 for interfering with controlled goods and also for criminal damage. Of serious concern is that this person was also represented by a McKenzie masquerading as a 'Lawyer' who has been responsible for a number of failed legal cases over the past couple of months that have resulted in debtors losing many thousands of pounds. In this particular case, the brief background is that Croydon Council issued a penalty charge notice and the debt remained unpaid and was passed to their bailiff contractor; Confero Ltd to enforce. The enforcement officer attended the property and located the vehicle. A wheel clamp was applied and the relevant statutory notice posted through the door. The owner of the vehicle forcibly removed the wheelclamp and drove away in the car. Later that same day he was arrested by the police and charged with the following: Criminal damage (to the wheel clamp) Theft of the motor vehicle. Intentionally inferring with Controlled Goods without lawful excuse. The vehicle was removed to the enforcement companies car pound. He was bailed and had a first hearing at court earlier this year (May). The individual claimed that he had not received statutory notices from Croydon Council and accordingly filed an Out of Time witness statement. It is assumed that this had been rejected. At Bromley Magistrates Court yesterday (5th October) he was cleared of the charge of theft of the motor vehicle but was found guilty of the other two charges (criminal damage to the wheelclamp) and interfering with controlled goods without lawful excuse. He was fined a total of £1,598
  5. Under section 68.1 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunal Courts & Enforcement Act 2007 it is a very serious offence to obstruct a bailiff. Last week yet another debtor was found guilty of this offence but even more seriously, he was also found guilty of assaulting the bailiff (the bailiff required stitches to his nose). The debt was in relation to an unpaid penalty charge notice. Bailiffs attended the debtors property to request £422. It would seem that previous visits had also been made and on one of the visits, he had sworn at the bailiff before driving off. It was on the 4th visit that the incident occurred. During the one day trial the debtors solicitor claimed that his client had suffered a stroke before the incident and this had led to him being unable to raise his left arm. Unfortunately for the debtor, the medical papers handed to the magistrates did not bear out the stroke claims stating only that Mr Gara had complained of 'weakness' in his arm. After deliberating for 45 minutes, magistrates convicted Mr Gara of assault by beating on March 3rd and also of obstructing a lawful enforcement agent on the same occasion. The presiding magistrate has requested pre sentence reports to be prepared before sentencing at the next hearing on 17th September. http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/news/15681/Bailiff-attacked-by-Thatcham-taxi-driver.html
  6. Last week yet another debtor appeared in court for cutting off a wheel clamp. In this case, a bailiff from JBW Group applied a wheel clamp to the debtors car in relation to a debt for council tax. The debtor 'claimed' that he thought that the clamp had been left on his car by a friend as a joke and accordingly, he used an angle grinder to remove the clamp. Clearly the court did not believe his story and after admitting causing criminal damage the court ordered him to pay £435 which was made up of a fine of £250, costs of £85, compensation of £75 and victims surcharge of £25. http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Man-used-angle-grinder-cut-wheel-clamp-car/story-26547903-detail/story.html
  7. In July 2009 I was interviewed under caution for benefit fraud 2006-2008. I was divorced finally in July 2006. September 2009, the local Magistrate pinged the case to the regional magistrate. October 2009, the regional magistrate dismissed the case. April 2010, the County Court Judge said: "Not Guilty of any benefit fraud" November 2011, the DWP Debt Collection wrote to me to claim the amount of the benefit fraud. November 2011, my solicitor wrote to the DWP, you have waited nineteen months before raising the matter again and the fraims guidelines are for eighteen months. The reply then was, civil and criminal are different. I am now waiting May 2015, for my Tier 2 letter stating "Final Written Response" having gone through Tier 1 in the last couple of months as according to the DWP no complaint had ever been lodged. ( I think my solicitor's letter in 2011 rather implies otherwise ) The Independent Case Examiner wants this DWP letter as well. As I understand it the DWP are arguing a "Not Guilty" at a Criminal Hearing does not also cover the civil side of things. Well maybe, and hence my post, but the thing is, according to my bank statements Jan 2006 to April 2006 there are no payments of Income Support as alleged. The assertion from the DWP is I had over £16,000 in savings and not entitled to any benefits. The money in the account was put there by my now late uncle and my now late father for the purposes of a property conversion by them to provide a bedroom for my wheel chair bound father. So yes the bank account in my name for a few months had a lot of money in it before paying the builder but not once the money had been paid out. The DWP have seen the conversion from outside of the property (2009). I have no problem defending the matter in a civil court ( not that the DWP have suggested that ), they have to date kept asking for the amount of their criminal case with no regard to the fact that they did not pay all they have asserted. I could tell back in 2010 the County Court Judge was far from impressed especially since he could not find all the alleged payments on my bank statements. So here is my question: Can a *Criminal* *County Court* Judge say "Not Guilty of *any* benefit fraud" and that is the decision or are the choice of his words misleading. A more advanced question is what if any evidence can the DWP bring back from a failed criminal case where all benefit payments ceased over seven years ago.
  8. I couldnt believe I was seeing this when I was watching the news !! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2432593/Gang-deliberately-crashed-bus-500-000-cash-crash-[problem]-guilty-fraud.html
  9. Hello all just wanna say some things here. So i received my ESA questionnaire last month, i was worried and my mental health issues got a lot worse due to the worry and horror stories i read, just a little over a month later (yesterday morning) i received a decision and was put into the support group WITHOUT a medical we provided nothing to them only my story and contact details of my doctors. Now don't get me wrong i am grateful for the support but i can't help but feel terrible about it, i fill in a form and get it without an eye blink BUT someone who is terminally ill or seriously ill or even someone without arms and legs are made to go to a medical and be judged, then they receive a letter saying they are fit for work, how is this right? how can they do this to people?, i suffer from severe depression and severe anxiety of course its an illness but there are some people out their that are physically ill who can hardly move being forced to work!. Rant over, things need to change, i actually wanted a medical because it was only fair!, i feel awful about it, i know i shouldn't but oh well. Thanks for listening. (sorry for the grammar)
  10. Please can somebody advise me? Friend is going to an employment tribunal mostly to recover unpaid wages - employer obviously wants to make him look as bad as possible so he can avoid paying up and has a rather nasty solicitor working for him. Former employer is alleging that friend is guilty of theft - not from former employer but from a third party ( a customer of the employer). As far as we know the customer has NOT said anything has been stolen. So friend in a letter to the tribunal requested that the employer should be required to have confirmation from the customer that these thefts actually happened if they were to be included in the tribunal. It was a long letter and this was only a small part of it. Solicitor wrote back a very nasty e mail (not copied to the tribunal obviously) and said "An employer does not have to prove by evidence that a theft has taken place, but that he reasonably believed that it had and that the employee had participated." I understand that the employer does not need to have the same level of proof as a criminal court but does he not even need to prove that anything was actually stolen? It seems to me that he might as well say that because my friend went to the train station that he stole a train - no he didn't, it wouldn't fit in his pocket! I realise that if the theft had been from the employer that things might be different as he would know for certain that something had gone missing but as the employer does not have any control over the customer or his activities this seems grossly unfair. Any help or comments would be gratefully received. Lizzy
  11. Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld. Ad A page on the website http://the-healthy-insider.com, which promoted weight loss supplements, was presented in the style of a news article and was headed "'Flat Belly' Raspberry Ketone Diet Exposed: Really A New Miracle Diet?" Further text stated "Stacie Reid, our Health and Diet columnist put the celebrity diet to the test. After four weeks of testing the effects of Great Britain's Newest Diet combined with a Colon Cleanse, she has reached the conclusion to what this diet is all about, and the results were surprising ... She lost 25 pounds in 4 weeks". Three sets of before and after photographs were displayed and text underneath one set of images stated "One blogger claims to have lost over 35 lbs in 40 days using the PureBerry Max & BodyCleanse combo". At the end of the article a quote attributed to Stacie stated "I lost 42lbs in 4 weeks, No Special Diet, No Intense Exercise. My friends hardly recognized me". There were links to websites offering a 'free trial' of the two products displayed throughout the ad. Issue The complainant challenged whether the ad was misleading, because: 1. she did not believe the efficacy claims could be substantiated. 2. she did not believe it was clear that the ad was a marketing communication because it was presented in the style of a news article. CAP Code (Edition 12) 13.12.12.43.13.7 Response Slimtoneplus.com said they took the complaints seriously and that they would pass on our comments to their advertising agency to make sure that they complied with the Code in future because the current promotion would come to an end shortly. They did not provide any specific response to the points raised in the complaint. Assessment 1. Upheld The ASA noted that slimtoneplus.com had not provided any evidence to substantiate the efficacy claims in the ad, and we therefore concluded that the ad was misleading. On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 13.1 (Weight control and slimming). 2. Upheld We considered that the presentation and content of the website implied that it was an editorial piece which had been written by an independent party. Because that was not the case, and the piece was not clearly marked as an advertorial, we considered it was not clear that the ad was a marketing communication and we concluded that it was misleading. On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 2.1 and 2.4 (Recognition of marketing communications) and 3.1 (Misleading advertising). Action The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told slimtoneplus.com to ensure that they held adequate substantiation for their claims, and to mark any advertorials clearly in future.
  12. Hi all, I don't know if anyone can give me any advice. A close relative of mine was falsely accused of assualt. The case got as far as the crown court but was thrown out by the judge on the first day due to it being a farce. My relative spent a lot of money on his defence. He was not entitled to legal aid because he owns his own house. Does anyone know what happens when a person is found not guilty? Can he apply for a refund and if so is there a system that calculates entitlement? His solicitor said she will look into it but we are curious as heck right now. Thanks
  13. I have posted details before of bailiffs being found guilty of THEFT !!! Here is yet ANOTHER ONE....... If you cannot trust a bailiff.......who can you trust.... What is the world coming to !!! http://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/ipswich_bailiff_stole_4_500_to_fund_gambling_addiction_1_1356897
×
×
  • Create New...