Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank goodness it's not your roof and you get to foot the bill! How big are these bits of mortar? How often are they falling into your garden? Hourly, daily? Just go ahead with your plans, of course, they're not going to be worried by your time pressures and the urgency of the situation, so simply carry on as you would have done and I'm sure everything will go fine. Unless there is a danger to life and serious structural issues which mean you cannot venture into your garden, then IMHO there is little more you can do less for what you have done so already and made them aware of the issue.
    • Hi all!   Thank you in advance for any help you can give me!!    I parked up (at 18:08) in a rush, entered my Reg and paid for an hour of parking. At 18:20 I got a ticket for not paying for parking.    I've just looked at my receipt and noticed why ... I put "22" instead of "21"  when i put in my Reg. yes... what a stupid mistake.    I seem to remember there being a court case or a rule change about entering the wrong reg but the company wasn't at a loss because i had paid for the parking just technically for the wrong car. Am i making that up?    Any advice would be gratefully received, even some key points i have to hit when doing the appeal      
    • You haven't returned to the thread to give us your views, but a couple of other things strike me which you should consider: 1. You say that at no time was your father's licence revoked by the DVLA. It didn't have to be revoked. It expired in September and his "entitlement to drive" (of which the licence provides proof) expired along with it. He could only continue driving whilst his application was being processed by virtue of s88, and it seems clear to me (based on what you have said) that he was not able to take advantage of the benefits provided by that section. 2. The letter he received threatening to revoke his licence was probably a template letter sent when any medical issues are brought to the attention of the DVLA. But it is clear that beyond September until it was eventually renewed, your father had no valid licence to be revoked. I believe a "not guilty" plea in court will fail. The basic facts are that your father's licence expired in September, it was not renewed until February because the DVLA were looking into his medical declaration and he could not take advantage of s88. So in December he had no licence and no entitlement to drive under s88. The facts that he believed he was fit to drive and that his licence was eventually renewed may mitigate the offence but they do not provide a defence. I also asked whether he had received a summons (very unusual these days) or whether he had received a "Single Justice Procedure Notice". The way to proceed from here differs slightly depending on what he has received so if you let me know, I'll advise further.  
    • Well, what I've read from various sources suggest if a CCJ is 6 years old that if becomes pretty much ineffective for enforcement purposes in its original form.  And that if it's about to expire then the claimant needs to apply to the court to extend the original CCJ within the final year.  Even if they do apply for an extension within the 6 years they have to have a very strong argument for doing so such as the person being out of the country or could not be traced, basically show they were actively still perusing the debt I guess. Now if a claimant ever does apply within the 6 years to extend the CCJ, would the person named on if be notified by the court that such an application has been made?.  In my case I've heard nothing from the court so assume no such application has been made.  The original CCJ in my own case is now a year beyond the 6 years of issue so must now make things even less likely again. So whilst the CCJ exists that they have not enforced it in that time must surely make it unlikely they can now take it back to court because as said it would be very rare for a judge to agree to such action now. That said, I guess they now can't use the CCJ to continue with any action for an attachment order to our mortgage either?
    • Donald Trump now banned from countries including Canada and UK as convicted felon WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK There are 37 countries that bar felons from entering, even to visit.  
  • 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

Tobacco Seizure


spikejack
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5416 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

lol yep...actually I got a pull at Manc on the way home.

Had 1000 cigs and 6 litres Vodka ....Was given a slap round wrist and allowed to keep them.Officially its only 200.

Cigs are only 3.9 Grivnas which is approx 40p packet-Vodka is only about 19 grivnas which is 2.00 a bottle-and its Nemerof-premium stuff.

 

But I came back via Amsterdam which I think is never a good option-usually they are looking for more than cigs Vodka and Caviar...;)

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

lol yep...actually I got a pull at Manc on the way home.

Had 1000 cigs and 6 litres Vodka ....Was given a slap round wrist and allowed to keep them.Officially its only 200.

Cigs are only 3.9 Grivnas which is approx 40p packet-Vodka is only about 19 grivnas which is 2.00 a bottle-and its Nemerof-premium stuff.

 

But I came back via Amsterdam which I think is never a good option-usually they are looking for more than cigs Vodka and Caviar...;)

 

LOL! Do tell me more! [email protected]

 

I think you got lucky with your slap, I would never have dared bringing back more than my entitlement through TWO EU airports!

 

Sorry about the off topic posts OP, It's all Martins fault! ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its only UK who seems to be worried about it.

In Moscow they wouldnt bat an eyelid.

Just the customs ask how much caviar you have-a couple of hundred roubles usually shuts them up (roughly a fiver)

Off topic digressions over.Ta very kindly.

 

 

oops-forgot....whens the Blackpool meet ?

Edited by MARTIN3030

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know if there is a EU directive or any law which states that the onus is on customs to prove that the seized goods are for commercial reasons. I've looked but a lot of the material I don't really understand, is there anyone out there with a more delving mind than mine. I can't see how I have to prove they were not for commercial reasons

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the basis of English law: innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof lies with the accuser, in this instance C&E. In theory, you sole defence could be: "prove it". In reality, you'll have to fight your corner more than that, but it is still up to them to prove that you were having these for commercial use, not for you to prove that you were not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I would play the "honourable man/fought for my country/how dare they accuse me" line all the way. Seriously. They will play the "we are a reputable govt agency/we know what we're doing" card, so you need to have something as equally convincing on your side. A rigorous breakdown of your and your wife's tobacco usage and your impeccable character record is likely to keep you in better stead than a convoluted defence on something which is so one-sided otherwise. ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok cheers for that bookworm. I will have to get my forces records out. re the customs knowing what they are doing, he couldnt even add the ammount up correctly. just a small matter,one of the forms I received hasnt even got an official stamp on it were it should be, maybe I could mention that as well. just a small technicality

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

I have read this with interest, as a disabled man I know visited France twice over seven weeks, each time bringing back exactly the supposed allowance of 3 KG of rolling tobacco.

 

He is both physically disabled and dyslexic, and on the second occasion, they seized the tobacco, on the grounds that it could not be for his own use, so he must be selling.

 

Exactly as in your case, great attention was paid to being DLA - the implication being that he could not afford the tobacco, so must be selling.

 

He has appealed, they 'forgot' to let him know about the magistrates, and having appealed to the Crown Court, nothing seems to be happening in reply to emails sent asking for information, and the case is March 17, I think.

 

I am a Mackenzies Friend with some experience of courts, and this man is determined to fight.

 

So what happened in your case, as I see the thread ceased in October 2008.

 

Zen

Link to post
Share on other sites

I went to a preliminary hearing in February just to sort out a date convenient to both parties. The court hearing is on the 6th May, nearly twelve months after the event which was the 2nd July or if you want to believe a Minister from the Government after I complained about my treatment the 26th April or the Customs themselves the 2nd June. Both these dates have cropped up in correspondence with them but the official court record gives the correct date

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite ridiculous.

 

The great French full back Serge Blanco smoked 100 Camel cigarettes a day during his playing days but has now cut down to 80.

 

I have known chain smokers who get through this amount and maybe even more, my old aunty was never without a fag in her mouth, ever.

 

Customs have to prove that you would not smoke the amount you brought back, clearly not an impossible amount to smoke in whatever time.

 

Besides, the tobacco would not go off even if you declared it was for the next 3 years use.

 

Nazi Germany at work here. Like Council Tax law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thai is correct.

 

In fact this country has been repeatedly rebuked for stopping what amounts to free trade within the EU. They have been warned by the Commission that if they persist in their illegal seizures they risk being heavily fined.

 

I'm sure the computer buffs amongst you can trawl the web & find the evidence

Link to post
Share on other sites

The UK government was being taken to court & when they promised to stop this nonsense (they lied) the Commission dropped the case

 

ACCESS - Action for Casualties of Customs European Shopper's Seizures. Cross Border Shoppers protest campaign.

 

HM Revenue and Customs - tips from day-tripper.net, the web-zine for channel shoppers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...