Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • OP stated they had been arrested, but not charged (let alone convicted). They DON'T have a criminal record, but do have an entry on the PNC. That information stays on the PNC (Police National Computer) for life, but doesn't get released in a standard DBS. It only MIGHT get released for an Enhanced DBS (eDBS) check  ... but it would be incredibly unlikely. (The rational behind this is that eDBS's allow for 'information at Chief Officer of Police's discretion' ..... this covers the 2 'barring lists' and is also intended for the scenario where someone has multiple arrests or investigations, where safeguarding is a concern .... it was brought in after the Soham murders / Ian Huntley case, where the information known about the now-convicted child murderer may have prevented his employment in a school, had it been made available). So, for the sake of accuracy and completeness, arrests stay on the PNC for life, wont appear in a standard DBS, MIGHT appear in an eDBS, but in reality, would be the exception rather than the norm, and I can't see them being released  to a defense barrister. What then if the defence found out a different way, and brought it up in court?. Again, unlikely, but the important feature is that the judge would make sure they trod very carefully!. They MIGHT consider using it if there were other factors that allowed them to try to cast doubts as to the truthfulness of your evidence, but on its own : No way. Anyone MIGHT be arrested (if a seemingly plausible complaint been made against them)! The approach to take if it did come up is to be truthful. "Yes, I was arrested. It arose from a vexatious complaint. I wasn't charged, let alone convicted. That could happen to any one of us, if a vexatious complaint gets made" Far better that than lying, saying you'd never been arrested, and getting caught in a lie : that would ruin your credibility. I'm incredibly doubtful it will even come up, though.
    • we dont get N157 because its new OCMC but no court dont have evidence either.   Just seems a bit of a pointless wait but oh well
    • Post #9 suggested some options to avoid or put off having a smart meter. Post #12 a simple solution to your complaint about the ay they handle fixed monthly DD. It's not really clear why you posted if you're going get irate when members "jump in" with suggestions. You can see what I'm referring to on "gasracker.uk" to allay your suspicion that I was lying in Post #16 which was made to correct ther misinformation shown in your Post #15
    • Back to octopus from the smart meter/tariff salesperson. Octopus have now said just ignore the letter - I dont have to have one despite there letter implying (at least) it was required, but that i will HAVE to have a smart meter if current meters stop working as 'their suppliers dont supply non smart meters any more'. They also say they do not/will not disable any smart functionality when they fit a smart meter I am of course going to challenge that. Thats their choice of meter fitter/supplier problem not mine
  • 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

Unfair rebate/insurers


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5649 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

Hi folks

 

Just thought I would give a bit of an update.

 

I had first tried to pursue Endeavour for mis selling ppi, but then realised I had to go through this with the brokers who were Click finance, anyway they dissolved in 2006.

 

I was not all that happy with my rebate from Endeavour so went back to them again as I had taken it that it was Endeavour that would have calculated this as they were the lender.

 

Anyways, I did send this in with the FOS about 5-6 weeks ago.

Today I received a letter from the FOS who returned my documents and on their letter it states they checked out my agreement and it is the Insurers I should be trying to pursue this from, the insurers were Hamilton Insurance.

The FOS confirmed they wrote to the insurers on my behalf and now just to wait for a final response (normal procedures) etc.

 

To be honest I had a feeling this would be returned to me, and did not think I would stand a chance as the company Endeavour were not under jurisdiction when having this loan and ppi when taken out the loan and ppi, so was surprised that the FOS have done this by writing to the insurers about an "unfair rebate settlement".

And of course the insurers was covered prior to 2005.

 

I wanted to add this here so others can be aware that this is another route to take if they believe they received a low rebate on settlment, and unable to take the mis selling of ppi route.

 

But it will be the insurers to pursue this too and I am also aware that most insurers were under jurisdiction prior to 2005.

The name of the insurers should be with the agreement.;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you going to pursue them through the courts then? :)

 

 

Hi there Paintball.;)

 

Oops sorry I should have made it more clear, the FOS have said if Hamilton does not resolve the case within 8 weeks, we can go back to them as the insurers were under jurisdiction and they will deal with this actual complaint.;)

 

I may consider court as the last option, will see what happens from here.

I will let you know.:)

 

Di

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oooo, Cameron Diaz just appeared as your new avatar ... did you give her permission to do that?

 

 

:p

 

 

Lol, I blame my son, all the pics saved on this puter are of her and another girlie he adores but this one is more decent pmsl......:D:p.

I have not got a clue lol.:D

 

Off to my bed now, sooooooo tired, those fireworks have worn me out lol.

Nighty night catch ya tomorrow......:);)xx

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...