Two questions: A) Has there been a precedent for instances of inconsistent, incorrect or the inappropriate application of variable speed limit policy on a Motorway providing a legal basis to challenge a speeding ticket? For example: 1) Motorway road works have road side speed limit signs stating 60 mph but overhead gantry displaying lower variable speed limit i.e. 30 mph without risk factor justification. The remotely controlled gantry signs do not correspond to conditions on the ground. 2) Motorway road works end and maybe end of road works signs are displayed each side of the road but subsequent overhead gantries incorrectly displaying variable speed limit of 60 mph without risk factor justification. The remotely controlled gantry signs do not correspond to conditions on the ground. 3) Motorway overhead gantries correctly displaying variable speed limit during time period of high traffic volume but erroneously left on during subsequent time period of low traffic volume without risk factor justification. The remotely controlled gantry signs do not correspond to conditions on the ground. 4) Motorway single overhead gantry displaying variable speed limit of 50 mph immediately followed by overhead gantry displaying national speed limit without risk factor justification prior during or after. The remotely controlled gantry signs do not correspond to conditions on the ground. 5) Motorway road works reducing four lanes to two lanes having no variable speed limit applied followed by road works with the same lack of risk factor justification but with overhead gantries displaying variable speed limit. The remotely controlled gantry signs are not consistently applied to the same ground conditions. B) How incorrect or contradictory does a variable speed limit need to be before drivers should rely on their better judgement of the surrounding context to determine their progress without fear of the current judicial process automatically presuming guilt with no requirement for errors by Highways England to be accepted in defence or mitigation?

Hi, I have received a letter today from Npower. "Your Payment scheme hasnt been set up correctly. We've tried to call you to explain an issue with your account setup. Unfortunately, due to a system issue, we were unable to set up your payment scheme correctly, so you've only been paying for usage on one fuel." I phoned the customer number, on hold for 30mins. She has said I have not payed for gas from 01/01/2014 - 25/01/16. I'm afraid I wasn't brilliant on the phone and wasn't sure what to ask. I am on a Price Protector December 2017 dual fuel setup which is paid via DD. They are currently going to increase my DD by £54 over the next 16 months? My bill has effectively trebled as now ill be paying the correct dual bill and the increase. Is there anything I can do? I'm assuming I have to pay for all the used gas? Many Thanks

Good morning everyone, In the small town where I live with have a branch of a quite famous german supermarket (with Parking eye cameras) and two other supermarkets both with their own PPC's. I have recently helped a couple of people defend Parking Eye, speculative Invoices with 100% success, However, I would like to setup all three companies and detail the process of getting the charges dropped in the local media, My idea is this: 1. Overstay the Parking Eye park and get an Invoice, also double dip this park with witnesses present to record me times of arrival and departure, so that their First in, Last out ANPR flaw is exposed. 2 Overstay the other two car parks and show how to get these invoices dropped in the media also...... While I appreciate that parking cannot be a "free for all", I resent the fact that these quasi-legal rackets are scaring people with little money out of their cash! Opinions please? Cheers Matt

I have a debt with QuickQuid for £1824.00, this was the same old story, rolling over and over until a point where i decided i had to default to get out of it. well i am currently receiving the 90 day emails informing me if i dont repay them they will take me to court, or send me to a third party debt collectors. I contacted them initially accepting that it is my debt and i have every intention of paying but that i cannot pay them what they require in one payment, i informed them i can do this over a number of payments and gave them a suggested payment of £60, they refused informing me i had to pay them £304.00 a month or i could do a one off £912.00, which obviously i also cant afford. so today again i have written them this email and am awaiting yet another reply of no, QuickQuid, As i have communicated in previous emails, I am not refusing to pay as you are making out, you are currently being obstructive by not allowing me to pay what i can afford to clear this debt. I acknowledge this debt and have every intention to pay. i cannot make the suggested payments that you insist i pay, and as i am currently sorting out other creditors who i hold debts with, the potential amount i can pay you is decreasing as i arrange higher repayments with others who are willing. At present until i re-evaluate the total amount i can make payments to you on this account i will offer you today the amount of £45.00 a month, with the intentions to raise this amount after i have carried out an update Income/expenditure chart. To make this payment of £45.00 to begin clearing this debt i require your banking details, Account number, sort code and a reference number to link my account to payments. I have read much bad press through forums and newspapers and will not give you the right to a direct debit or debit card payments as you have been reported in the past to clear accounts of which i can not afford for you to do. So i require from you by return of email, agreement of payment plan, Account Number and Sort Code and a reference number to link my payment to the account in debt. Regards, Does anybody have any more suggestions or do i just keep sending this same email until finally they give up and give in to demands, i have managed to get payday express to give me there details and accept £85 a month recently.