Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Please see below for an extract from the letter more about my case.    You have been convicted of two matters of failing to give driver details linked to two speeding offences and been disqualified in your absence. You confirmed that you did not receive the court documentation and the first you knew about the cases was on 3/6/24. As you can make a statutory declaration it is possible that we will be able to persuade the police to accept pleas to either or both of the speeding offences as they were committed within a very short space of time and withdraw the two fail to give driver details offences as normally if you plead to one or other of the speeding or fail to give driver details the prosecution will withdraw the other related offence. If successful you would not face a totting ban. In respect of the speeding offences, it could be argued they were committed on one occasion due to the proximity of the time and location and we may be able to persuade the prosecution to drop one of the speeding offences. You are technically guilty of all the offences because you accept it was you driving when the speeding offences were committed and that you did not update your change of address with the leasing company when it was your responsibility. If the prosecution will not withdraw the two failures to give driver details offences, you will face a totting ban but will be able to put forward an exceptional hardship argument. This may or may not go ahead at the court hearing date, so we need to prepare for all eventualities. As a safeguard we have lodged the appeal and applied to suspend your ban pending appeal due to the time limit for being able to automatically appeal without getting leave of the Judge. The court have dealt with the matter very quickly and have actually listed your matter for an application to suspend the disqualification pending appeal on the above-mentioned date. We could actually use this date to make the statutory declaration in court having explained the situation to the magistrates and then see if the prosecution will agree to accept pleas to one or both of the speeding offences as a way of resolving the matter without the need for you to put forward an exceptional hardship argument. It is possible the case would need to be adjourned so that we can make those representations, or the court may want to go ahead and hear the exceptional hardship argument. The outcome of your case is always at the discretion of the Court.  
    • Hi,    I will look over your case shortly.   I am sorry for the delay.
    • Judges are now loaded and they are both deputies 😕
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

'National Awareness' Message


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5860 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I was minding my own business, when the phone rang, - a 'No Number Avilable' call, seemingly coming from outside the UK. If the link below works, you can hear it - a UK voice explains I'm to recieve a 'National Awareness' message.

 

Was the world going to end imminently, and Gordie was calling me to climb into the wardrobe :)

 

[Link removed: It would appear that the advertising supported audio-store isn't too fussy about the adverts it hosts]

 

 

My complaint, is that without pressing '5' you cannot identify the source (and probably not even then). Does anyone recognise this as a [problem]?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is still going on (March 2008). I have just received the same phone call, but after the first few words, realised it was a recorded message and so I cut off. I thought it was an American/Canadian voice. It must be working or they would have given up by now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It really is the pits - the illusion that it is somehow a 'government' inspired message that pushes all the right buttons (except No 5). If I get another, I'm tempted to find out who is behind this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Thats useful to know. It would appear your company switchboard has an ISDN30 or better connection to the public network, this means you get the actual number of the outgoing line being used, rather than what they 'flag' as the number being unavailable. I'll try to take this up to OFCOM as an abuse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

your company switchboard has an ISDN30
Yes, that's correct. Though our switchboard doesn't usually show withheld and unavailable numbers. So possibly not a withheld number, but a call from overseas using an ID that some telcos don't pass on. Also interesting is that lennyman gets exactly the same number, but without the 00 prefix implying Liverpool rather than USA. But I think it has a digit too many to be Liverpool, so perhaps USA is more likely.
Link to post
Share on other sites

On second thoughts, it could well be a call from a UK number, using a "bodged" presentation ID intended to make it look like a USA number so that OfCom looks at it and says "nothing we can do about that, its from overseas" when maybe it isn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Three more calls last night from 0015179312162 -- one to my home phone (which is an ordinary BT line with caller ID enabled) and another two to further numbers on our work switchboard. The work numbers are all 020-8443 and the home number is 020-8805.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 00 initial digits are inserted by BT and don;t form part of the number that is transited... assuming as you say, these are coming in from the USA. All of which of course means that being on the TPS list means zip UNLESS we actually answer one and find out who is behind the call/advert.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hrm. They did that to our phone, and we put the phone down;)

 

Bunch of [problematic], IMHO. (n.b. this message doesn't say it's from the national debtline, but, to be frank it should be unlawful to operate in this way).

i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I get these every week at work, have done for months. I've never listened for more than 2 seconds :rolleyes:

I hate Alliance + Leicester

BT: No longer a customer :)

HSBC: £1222 refunded 28/5/06; Second claim of £737-24 refunded 9/11/06; PPI + interest on personal loan refunded 27/7/08

MBNA: £100 refunded on first claim of £112; £208 refunded on second claim for £108 24/9/07; PPI £256-28 refunded 8/4/08

NatWest: £1581-71 refunded 16/12/06; personal loan CCA agreement not provided

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

This miscreant is now making yet more Unsolicited Nuisance Calls using the caller ID 0012697682013

 

Has anybody heard of any progress on identifying any UK culpability in any of the previous calls? Somebody really needs to single out whoever's behind this and launch a high profile prosecution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The format of this number is clearly North America - Michigan, in fact. If you check this link, you'll see complaints from folk who have reported unsolicited calls from this area code;

Reported Phone Numbers in 1-269 Area Code

 

The bottom line remains, there is NO UK culpability whatsoever, the laws only protect those from UK callers, and to a more limited extent, the EU. With no possibility of enforcing any viable sanctions against an overseas caller (no crime is being committed), they can carry on with impunity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they are in the US, it is unlawful under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 , and you can sue the FCUKers in the american courts. Te right of action is worth $500 for each contravention.

i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an IVA, mate. And they are really, really not advised for much more than 1% of people... most people should go bankrupt before chosing an IVA. IVA's are the next misselling scandle waiting to happen.

i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"there is NO UK culpability whatsoever"
"

 

Not even if it can be proved that details of respondents are passed TO a UK person ?

 

If so, then there's an obvious error in the law that needs rectifying very urgently, otherwise every UK company will be routing their Unsolicited Nuisance Calls via USA to escape prosecution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"you can sue the FCUKers in the american courts."

 

Is OfCom willing to handle such a prosecution? And if not, why not? As it would clearly be in the public interest to do so as a high profile prosecution and discourage others.

 

There is clearly enough evidence here alone -- and if the miscreant has been making these Unsolicited Nuisance Calls to a susbtantial part of the UK, as seems to be the case, any necessary additional evidence would surely not be hard to find. Indeed, it seems unlikely that OfCom itself has had many of these calls and can provide the evidence by itself.

 

Failing that ... if its as simple as the above, there must be good scope for a No Win No Fee lawyer already in the States to take on the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they are in the US, it is unlawful under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 , and you can sue the FCUKers in the American courts. Te right of action is worth $500 for each contravention.

 

Not when the call is delivered outside their (US) jurisdiction. This would be a Federal crime in the US, but without local representation, no UK resident would be advised to try and force the issue, and you can bet UK's OFCOM won't want to know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is OfCom willing to handle such a prosecution? And if not, why not? .

 

How about, because it is not against any law?

 

And lets assume they work on a cooperative deal with the FCC to stop it - these centres will move to other jurisdictions that don't - india, for example.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...