Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks for that, Bazza. It sheds some more light on things but I’m still by no means sure of the OP’s father’s likelihood of successfully defending the charge. This in particular from the guidance stands out me: He does not meet all the s88 criteria. S88 is clear and unambiguous: It makes no provision for either the driver or a medical professional to make a judgement on his fitness to drive under s88. S92(4) and the June 2013 guidance you mention defines in what circumstances the SoS must issue a licence. It does no modify s88 in any way. However, delving further I have noticed that the DVLA provides a service where the driver can enter a relevant medical condition to obtain the correct documentation to apply for a licence: https://www.gov.uk/health-conditions-and-driving/find-condition-online I haven’t followed this through because I don’ have the answers that the OP’s father would give to the questions they will ask and in any case it requires the input of personal information and I don’t want to cause complications with my driving licence. It is possible, however, that the end result (apart from providing the necessary forms) is a “Yes/No” answer to whether the driver can continue to drive (courtesy of s88). With that in mind, I should think at  the very least the OP’s father should have completed that process but there is no mention that he has. The Sleep Apnoea Trust gives some useful guidance on driving and SA: https://sleep-apnoea-trust.org/driving-and-sleep-apnoea/detailed-guidance-to-uk-drivers-with-sleep-apnoea/ I know nothing about SA at all and found It interesting to learn that there are various “grades” of the condition. But the significant thing which struck me is that it is only the least trivial version that does not require a driver to report his condition to the DVLA. But more significant than that is that the SA Trust makes no mention of continuing to drive once the condition has been reported. The danger here is that the court will simply deconstruct s88 and reach the same conclusion that I have. I accept, having looked at the DVLA guidance, that there may be (as far as they are concerned) scope for s88 to apply contrary to the conditions stated in the legislation. Firstly, we don’ know whether there is and secondly we don’t know whether the OP’s father would qualify to take advantage of it. Of course he could argue that he need no have reported his condition. The SA trust certainly emphasises that the condition should not be reported until a formal detailed diagnosis is obtained. But the fact is he did report it. As soon as he does that, as far as I can see,  s88 is no longer available to him. Certainly as it stands I maintain my opinion that he was not allowed to continue driving under s88. The only way I would change this is to see the end result of the DVLA exercise I mentioned above. If that said he could continue driving he would have a defence to the charge. Without it I am not confident.  
    • Right, my friend has just called me. He has indeed had to cancel bookings in the past from his end. There is a specific number for Booking.com that he calls.   After that Booking.com jump into action and contact you re refund and/or alternative accommodation. I suppose it's all logical - the party cancelling the booking has to inform Booking.com. So the gite owner needs to contact Booking.com on the cancellation number.
    • they are not FINES. you totally ignore all the silly fake civil restorative letters. they are totally powerless just the same as any DCA on any old debt. might be an idea to go have a chat with your GP in confidence as you recognise whats going on. dx  
    • pinging @Man in the middle looks to me you are on the correct track, you shouldn't need a sols. Programmable Search Engine (google.com) clickme^^ thread title updated dx  
  • 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

Problem with Expenses Claim (petrol)


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5774 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 work as a surveyor and everyone in my office and I claim back our fuel expenses every month. We do this by submitting our fuel receipts and stating our business mileage and personal mileage every month. My colleague is having a few problems with his claim at the moment and I believe that the accounts department are behaving incorrectly. He has submitted his expenses form and divided the cost of the fuel by the mileage done as we all do as we have been told to do it this way. His cost per mile works out at 24p, however our head office has now said in writing that they agree that his fuel is costing him 24p per mile however they are not prepared to pay anymore than 17p per mile! Can they do this? His contract states that he will be reimbursed for any business expenses incurred.

Any help would be great, thanks x

POPPY07

Link to post
Share on other sites

First thing to ask is, what is the precedent for this? If you all do the same thing then he should not be singled out for a "lower" rate. What allowance is the general conscensus for private mileage. Did your colleage state that his claim included private mileage

 

If he feels that he is being treated differently to other colleauges then he would have to raise a greivance with the relevant supervisor.

 

Beau

Please note: I am not a lawyer and as such any advice I give is purely from a laymans point of view;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, is this a company car (where the employee pays for the fuel themselves and then reclaims it) or a mileage allowance for using your own vehicle? It seems highly irregular to reimburse mileage at differing rates - most companies have a set rate at which they pay - in our case 35p per mile for using own car on business or 12p per mile for company cars.

 

As BeauBrummie says - the best thing to do is to lodge a grievance in writing - if the agreement to reimburse all business expenses is a contractual term then complain on that basis, but also that your colleague feels that he is being disadvantaged without adequate explanation.

 

If this is reimbursement for using a private vehicle then make sure that the balance for any mileage expenses is claimed from HMRC. For genuine business mileage in your own car, the Revenue allow a rate of 40p per mile (for up to 10,000 miles pa) - the balance between what the employer pays and this rate being offset against income tax.

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you both very much. It is his own car for which he receives a car allowance, and on top on that he is able to claim back petrol costs used for business miles. The general cost in the office is 18p per mile, however he has a bigger engine car which obviously uses more fuel, the same as me and when I put in my claim for 25p per mile it was accepted! Though he doesn't want to go down the route of naming others who receive more money as this may result in them having their costs decreased too.

He has not claimed for his private mileage only business mileage, I think your both right and a complaint needs to be logged in writing.

Thanks sidewinder, the HMRC form is to be completed in april isn't it?

xx

POPPY07

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...