Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Regretfully it does. Have you actually seen any papers which show what you were charged with (rather than what you were convicted of)? It is unusual not to be “dual charged” but if you were not charged with both, you are where you are. If you had been charged with both offences and providing you were the driver at the time, you could, after performing your SD, have asked the prosecutor to drop the “Fail to Provide” (FtP) charges in exchange for a guilty plea to the speeding charges (you cannot be convicted of speeding unless you plead guilty as they have no evidence you were driving). You will have difficulty defending the FtP charges. In fact, it’s worse than that – you have no chance of successfully defending them at all because the reason you did not respond to the requests is because you did not receive them and that’s entirely your fault. No it’s not correct. Six months from 18/11/23 was 18/5/24 so, unless they were originally charged, the speeding offences are now “timed out.” There is one avenue left open to you. If you perform your SD you must serve it on the court which convicted you. You will then receive a date for a hearing to have the matters heard again. Your only chance of having the matters revert to speeding (and this is only providing you were the driver at the time of those offences) is to plead Not Guilty, attend court and ask the prosecutor (very nicely, explaining what a pillock you know you were for failing to update your  V5C) if (s)he is prepared to raise “out of time” speeding charges, to which you will offer to plead guilty if the FtP charges are dropped.   This is strictly speaking not lawful. Charges have to be raised within six months. Some prosecutors are willing to do it, others are not. But frankly it’s the only avenue open to you. There is a risk with this. I imagine you have been fined £660 (plus surcharge and costs) for each offence. The offence attracts a fine of 1.5 week’s net income and where the court has no information about the defendant’s means a default figure of £440pw is used.  If the prosecutor is not prepared to play ball you can revise your pleas to guilty. A sympathetic court should give you the full discount (one third) for your guilty pleas in these circumstances but they may reduce the discount somewhat. The prosecution may also ask for increased costs (£90 or thereabouts is the figure for a guilty plea). So it may cost you more if you have a decent income (I’ll let you do the sums). But MS90 is an endorsement code which gives insurers a fit of the vapours. One such endorsement will see your premiums double. Two of them will see many insurers refuse to quote you at all. So you really want to exhaust every possibility of avoiding them if you can. One warning: do not pay solicitors silly money to defend you. Making an SD before a solicitor should attract just a nominal sum (perhaps a tenner). That’s all you should pay for. You have no viable defence against the FtP charges and any solicitor suggesting you have is telling you porkies. The offer to do the deal is easily done by yourself and you can save the solicitor’s fees to put towards a few taxis and increased insurance premiums if you are unsuccessful. In the happy event you find out you were "dual charged", let me know and I'll tell you how to proceed. (Seems a bit odd hoping you were charged with four driving offences rather than two, but it's a funny old world!).    
    • Just the sort of people you despise eh Jugg  You would be much happier among your mates in that room with Rayner begging for votes 
    • I see the trial of the real criminal in the Biden Family has started rather than the sham political persecution of Trump    Biden will of course try to distance himself as far as possible to no avail  Even more votes for The Donald🤣    
    • Savings platform Raisin UK is offering a £50 bonus for new customers who sign up for an account.View the full article
    • With Farage back in the news, here's a reminder of his interview with Claire Byrne on Irish TV a few years ago.  
  • 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 
        • 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

H.O.L Test case appeal. Judgement Declared. ***See Announcements***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5064 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

  • Replies 5.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Alas for the millions still waiting (including myself) it's cold comfort that the HoL decision needs to take so much time and what or why? Notwithstanding the waiver being extended for another 6 months. Hang on was there not something about doctors and the law and who gets these type of jobs? I, for one, rest my case.

Michael

When I was young I thought that money was the most important thing in life; now that I am old I know that it is. (Oscar Wilde)

--I like to be helpful wherever possible however I'm not qualified in this field. I do consider carefully anything important (normally from personal experience) however please understand that any actions taken are at your own risk--

Link to post
Share on other sites

"9. (1) This direction takes effect on 27 July 2009.

(2) This direction ends on the earlier of:

(a)

26 January 2010; or

(b)

resolution of the test case. For this purpose, resolution occurs when judgment has been entered in relation to all issues in dispute in the test case (including, for the avoidance of doubt, any issues which the Court agrees should in future be introduced into the case by way of amendment or otherwise) and the resulting orders either cannot be the subject of appeal or have not been the subject of appeal in circumstances where the time for doing so has expired, or when proceedings are otherwise discontinued.

However, provisions of this direction that are expressed to continue beyond its termination continue in force in accordance with their terms."

 

The FSA Waiver. Even if the HoL decision is made the waiver will not be revoked since the case is not resolved.

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_monthly_0790.pdf

The above is the waiver if you would like to read it and see all the provisions within it.

  • Haha 1

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that the Tories have said they will scrap the FSA should (when) they come to power, do you think the waiver will outlast the FSA?

 

Depends if you believe the words of a politician looking for votes in an election year?

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that the Tories have said they will scrap the FSA should (when) they come to power, do you think the waiver will outlast the FSA?

 

Don't believe what you're told - ultimately, a change in name is likely, but the result would probably be the same.

 

A Rose by any other name will still smell as sweet, apparently.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Friend of a friend works in branch for Bank of Scotland and she is aware of my views and my membership to CAG. In the beginning we had discussions where the level of 'mis-training' she received really showed, she would argue the usual stuff the banks have spouted.

 

She has seen the light and let me know about a memo that sent to the branch from head office last week.

 

Memo states that regarding the OFT case - NO charges would be refunded until AT LEAST 2012 under their plans for dealing with this case, and they would now be bringing in a policy that they will only refund ONE charge every 3 years.

This the message passed onto me but am trying to get hold of a copy of this to (hopefully with mods permission) post up. At the very least see the details for myself and be sure I am posting accurately.

Dipply75

 

I am in no way a legal advisor and only speak from my own experiences and the helpful advice of those in the same boat! :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dipply if you DO get hold of it & there's no risk to your informant you MUST post it ALL over the web AND send a copy to both the HoL and the OFT with a note avering to it's authenticity

 

Some of the press will love a memo like that also ;-)

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is it with that bank and its predeliction for publishing damning memos!!

 

Wrong Bank tinkerbell, I stopped leaking RBS ones when I got sacked ;)

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say I'm surprised any bank would send such a memo. The normal attitude is simply 'business a susual and we will wait and see'. To prempt serious stuff like that is certainly unprofessional. In fact banks tend to not start 'informing' their staff till the customers know. LOL

Michael

When I was young I thought that money was the most important thing in life; now that I am old I know that it is. (Oscar Wilde)

--I like to be helpful wherever possible however I'm not qualified in this field. I do consider carefully anything important (normally from personal experience) however please understand that any actions taken are at your own risk--

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at it this way.

 

Will change come? Yes.

 

Will change come quickly? No.

 

Given that the Tories wont be voted in for at least another year...you just cant go scrapping worthless organisations like the FSA overnight, no matter how much you want to.

 

The reality is that we are at least several years away from the FSA being closed down and the Bank of England taking back all the powers it lost under Gordon Brown (and doing the job they should have been doing for the last 10 years, which should have protected the country from todays depression).

 

Mailman

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say I find that memo deeply suspect. (I don't doubt your friend's honesty.)

 

I think it may refer to the current status quo. If this was in relation to post-House Of Lords ruling if it goes our way, (and let's face it, it can go no other way in reality) then the bank leaves their Directors open to FRAUD and as such would merit the FSA and SFO to investigate and prosecute.

 

Basically all we can do is wait till October I'm afraid guys but and official communique's from the Bank's internal systems would be gratefuklly received. :D

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say I find that memo deeply suspect. (I don't doubt your friend's honesty.)

 

I think it may refer to the current status quo. If this was in relation to post-House Of Lords ruling if it goes our way, (and let's face it, it can go no other way in reality) then the bank leaves their Directors open to FRAUD and as such would merit the FSA and SFO to investigate and prosecute.

 

Basically all we can do is wait till October I'm afraid guys but and official communique's from the Bank's internal systems would be gratefuklly received. :D

 

I am trying to find out as much as possible so I know I am posting accurately but could this just be an indication of the bank being aware they will be paying out but showing their intent to drag this out even further and confident of another 2/3 year delay (despite their assurances they are not :rolleyes:)

Dipply75

 

I am in no way a legal advisor and only speak from my own experiences and the helpful advice of those in the same boat! :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we have to look at the context of this.

 

Clearly they have staff that are seeing news reports, and getting customers reminding them of how badly the case is going for them, such that they are floundering about what to say.

 

This memo will be purely to make sure that the staff at the front line keep to the party line, ie. we are going to win, and even if we don't the matter is likely to drag on for a considerable time yet, so don't expect a refund any time soon.

 

I am guessing that the author of the memo is not even that close to the legal team, and is also just towing the party line and attempting to maintain morale at the front line.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies as I know the relevancy is very loose here, but banks in Australia and New Zealand are also being impacted by overdraft charges, so much so that National Australia Bank and Bank of New Zealand have now opted to stop imposing charges altogether. Apparently this is because of the number of complaints received from customers charged $25 for being a $1 overdrawn.

If only UK banks could see the light....

 

Link

 

PS I read the board often, I just don't contribute as everyone is so much more knowledgeable than me... and apologies again

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...