Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi Just to be clear a Notice to Quit is only the very start of the Housing Association going down the Eviction route there is a long process to go. Also to be clear if you leave at the Notice to Quit date only and go to the Council claiming you are Homeless they will more than likely class you as Intentionally Homeless therefore you have no right to be given temporary housing by the Council. The only way that works is when the Court has Granted a Possession Order then you can approach the Council as Homeless with the Court Order. As for the Housing Association issuing the Notice to Quit because there investigation has proved it's not your main residence but you have witness statement to prove otherwise. From now on with the Housing Association you need to keep a very good paper trail and ensure to get free proof of posting from the post office with anything you send to them. You now need to make a Formal Complaint to the Housing Association and please amend the following to suit your needs:   Dear Sir/Madam FORMAL COMPLAINT Reference: Notice to Quit Letter Dated XX/XX/2024, Hand Delivered on XX/XX/2024 I note in your letter that you stated that the Housing Association has carried out an investigation into myself and came to the conclusion that I am not using this property as my main residence and have evidence of this and have therefore issued a 'Notice to Quit' by XX/XX/2024. I find the above actions absolutely disgraceful action by the Housing Association. 1. Why have I never been informed nor asked about this matter by my Housing Officer. 2. Why have I never been given the opportunity to defend myself before the Housing Association out of the blue Hand Delivered a Notice to Quit Letter. 3. I have evidence and witnesses/statements that prove this is my Main Residence and more than willing provide this to both the Housing Association and the Court. I now require the following: 1. Copy of your Complaints Policy (not the leaflet) 2. Copy of your Customer Care Charter (not the leaflet) 3. Copies of your Investigation into this not being my main residence.    As well as the above you need to send the Housing Association urgently a Subject Access Request (SAR) requesting 'ALL DATA' that simple phrase covers whatever format they hold that in whether it be letters, email, recorded calls etc. The Housing Association then has 30 calendar days to respond but that time limit only starts once they acknowledge your SAR Request. If they fail to respond within that time limit its then off with a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO).     
    • Hi Sorry for the delay in getting back to you The email excuse and I do say excuse to add to your account and if court decide LL can't recoup costs will be removed is a joke. So I would Ask them: Ask them to provide you with the exact terms within your Tenancy Agreement that allows them to add these Court Fees to your Account before it has been decided in Court by a Judge. Until the above is answered you require these Court Fees to be removed from your Account (Note: I will all be down to your Tenancy Agreement so have a good look through it to see what if any fees they can add to your account in these circumstances)
    • Thank you for your responses. As requested, some more detail. Please forgive, I'm writing this on my phone which always makes for less than perfect grammar. My Dad tries but English not his 1st language, i'm born and bred in England, a qualified accountant and i often help him with his admin. On this occasion I helped my dad put in his renewal driving licence application around 6 weeks before expiry and with it the disclosure of his sleep apnoea. Once the licence expired I told him to get in touch with his GP, because the DVLA were offering only radio silence at that time (excuses of backlogs When I called to chase up). The GP charged £30 for an opinion letter on his ability to drive based on his medical history- at the time I didn't take a copy of the letter, but I am hoping this will be key evidence that we can rely on as to why s88 applies because in the GP opinion they saw no reason he couldn't drive i need to see the letter again as im going only on memory- we forwarded the letter in a chase up / complaint to the DVLA.  In December, everything went quiet RE the sleep apnoea (i presume his GP had given assurance) but the DVLA noticed there had been a 2nd medical issue in the past, when my father suffered a one off mini stroke 3 years prior. That condition had long been resolved via an operation (on his brain of all places, it was a scary time, but he came through unscathed) and he's never had an issue since. We were able to respond to that query very promptly (within the 14 days) and the next communication was the licence being granted 2 months later. DVLA have been very slow in responding every step of the way.  I realise by not disclosing the mini stroke at the time, and again on renewal (had I known I'd have encouraged it) he was potentially committing an offence, however that is not relevant to the current charge being levied, which is that he was unable to rely on s88 because of a current medical issue (not one that had been resolved). I could be wrong, I'm not a legal expert! The letter is a summons I believe because its a speeding offence (59 in a temp roadworks 50 limit on the A1, ironically whist driving up to visit me). We pleaded guilty to the speeding but not guilty to the s87.  DVLA always confirmed to me on the phone that the licence had not been revoked and that he "May" be able to continue to drive. They also confirmed in writing, but the letter explains the DVLA offer no opinion on the matter and that its up to the driver to seek legal advice. I'll take the advice to contact DVLA medical group. I'm going to contact the GP to make sure they received the SAR request for data, and make it clear we need to see a copy of the opinion letter. In terms of whether to continue to fight this, or to continue with the defence, do we have any idea of the potential consequences of either option? Thanks all
    • stopping payments until a DN arrives does not equal automatic sale to a DCA...if you resume payments after the DN.  
    • Sleep apnoea: used to require the condition  to be “completely” controlled Sometime before June 2013 DVLA changed it to "adequately" controlled. I have to disagree with MitM regarding the effect of informing DVLA and S.88 A diagnosis of sleep apnoea doesn't mean a licence wont be granted, and, indeed, here it was. If the father sought medical advice (did he?) : this is precisely where S.88 applies https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64edcf3a13ae1500116e2f5d/inf1886-can-i-drive-while-my-application-is-with-dvla.pdf p.4 for “new medical condition” It is shakier ground if the opinion of a healthcare professional wasn’t sought. in that case it is on the driver to state they believed they met the medical standard to drive. However, the fact the licence was then later granted can be used to be persuasive that the driver’s belief they met the standard was correct. What was the other condition? And, just to confirm, at no point did DVLA say the licence was revoked / application refused? I’d be asking DVLA Drivers’ Medical Group why they believe S.88 doesn’t apply. S.88 only applies for the UK, incidentally. If your licence has expired and you meet the conditions for S.88 you can drive in the U.K., but not outside the U.K. 
  • 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

Hit and run driver


small paul
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5655 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 all. Could do with a bit of help here. My car was hit from behind whilst stationary at a roundabout. The other driver apologised and suggested we pull the cars to a safer place to exchange details. Seemed reasonable, so I agreed. Unfortunately once I had pulled off the roundabout at the first exit he disappeared in a different direction. I did manage to get his reg no. Reported all details to police and my insurers (I'm TPF&T), who gave me the other driver's insurance company and policy number from his reg. However they are refusing to discuss the claim as their insured has not notified them and my insurer's are uninterested as they are not liable due to my TPF&T cover. What do i do?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all. Could do with a bit of help here. My car was hit from behind whilst stationary at a roundabout. The other driver apologised and suggested we pull the cars to a safer place to exchange details. Seemed reasonable, so I agreed. Unfortunately once I had pulled off the roundabout at the first exit he disappeared in a different direction. I did manage to get his reg no. Reported all details to police and my insurers (I'm TPF&T), who gave me the other driver's insurance company and policy number from his reg. However they are refusing to discuss the claim as their insured has not notified them and my insurer's are uninterested as they are not liable due to my TPF&T cover. What do i do?

 

Firstly you should ensure that the Police prosecute him from leaving the scene of an accident and possibly other crimes (dangerous driving), he may also have been over the dink drive limit.

 

If a criminal prosecution is brought then you have a better chance of remedy with respect to damages.

 

Where there any witnesses? They would be very useful if available.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the quick reply.The police are simply saying that someone will be assigned to the case but that doesn't help me in the short term. Biggest concern I have at the moment is that the boot lid on my hatchback car now won't close, making it insecure. I've done my best to tie it down but it's still obviously open and I don't live in the sort of area where this will go unnoticed for long. My insurance have enquired about damage to my car and are aware that it is insecure, meaning that should it now get stolen they will refuse to pay for that. I am loathed to get the car repaired at my expense as the cost would probably be greater than the car's value so even if the other driver's insurance accept the claim I probably would be out of pocket. How long does it take police to assign officers to a case such as this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the other insurer would have to deal? they have to get a response from their PH to the allegations but if he fails to respond,they have to deal as RTA insurers i think but not %100

 

im sure theres some claims guys on the forum who will confirm

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the other insurer would have to deal? they have to get a response from their PH to the allegations but if he fails to respond,they have to deal as RTA insurers i think but not %100

 

im sure theres some claims guys on the forum who will confirm

 

The OP has no contract with the other driver's insurer and thus no right to claim directly from them.

 

He must claim against the other driver - it is then for that driver to rely on his insurer if he so wishes.

 

As the OP had TPF&T cover, then his own insurer will not pay for the damage to the OP's vehicle and counter-claim from the other driver/insurer.

 

I suspect that the OP will have to have the vehicle repaired and then sue the other driver for damages in respect of his total costs (including paying for the repair).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly you should ensure that the Police prosecute him from leaving the scene of an accident and possibly other crimes (dangerous driving), he may also have been over the dink drive limit.

 

If a criminal prosecution is brought then you have a better chance of remedy with respect to damages.

 

Where there any witnesses? They would be very useful if available.

 

Firstly, IT IS NOT an offence to leave the scene of an accident providing the driver reports the accident to the police within 24 hours

 

Secondly, do not suggest that the OP can ensure that a prosecution is brought, the OP has NO SAY WHATSOEVER in whether or not a prosecution is brought or not.

 

Finally, a criminal prosecution would only have some bearing on the case if it was directly related to or contributed to the accident, ie drink driving etc.

 

If you are going to offer advice at least get your facts straight first

 

Mossy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, IT IS NOT an offence to leave the scene of an accident providing the driver reports the accident to the police within 24 hours

 

 

Not quite.

 

As soon as practicable within 24 hours.

 

 

People have been convicted for failing to comply with the first part of that phrase.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the time of my first post 3 days had elapsed without the other driver reporting the crash so he's obviously well outside the 24 hours. I understand the theory of getting my car repaired and suing the other party but I am sure that the repair costs would be greater than the vehicle's value thus making it a write-off. I don't want to spend the £700 I have been quoted to repair the car only to find that the other party is only liable for the value of my vehicle, approx. £400. The other issue is that both myself and my partner have since been to our G.P.'s with neck pain caused by the crash. Also how do I get the other driver's name and address in order to sue him?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also how do I get the other driver's name and address in order to sue him?

 

Either ask the police for the other driver's details - as they were not exchanged at the scene or complete a V888 and send it to DVLA to find out who the registered keeper is of the car.

 

You will need to explain why you want the information and it definitely comes under "reasonable cause".

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My advice would be get a solicitor involved at an early stage.

Many solicitors will work on a no win no fee basis and if you present them with this case I have no doubt that they will be happy to take this on.

If you go to a claims company (despite the claims tout crack not all claims companys are sharks - a few actually do care about their clients) check the ministry of justice website to ensure that they are registered and regulated by them.

If you have personal injury then obviously that will need to be included in any potential claim - do not be tempted to use your own insurers lawyers to process this claim, from experience (and I have plenty) they tend not to be as effective as an independant solicitor with no affiliation to the insurance industry.

Make sure you record details of the accident - time date where what time road conditions etc and take pics of the area if you can - these will all help your case.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Have you had any reply from the police chase it up ask what is happening if the dont come up with a good reply tell them you will right to the chief constable with a view to claiming against the force for failing in there duty

also you maybe able to claim from the motor insurance bureau my wife did when she was hit. But beware they only deal with there own solicitors and get one to act for you

They offered the wife 4000 minus there cost of 1000 they only did 4 letters to her but i was told they all part of same company so its out of one hand and into the other

Regards DK

Please Tip My Scales if Info was Use full

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you had any reply from the police chase it up ask what is happening if the dont come up with a good reply tell them you will right to the chief constable with a view to claiming against the force for failing in there duty

 

I think you will have a very hard job claiming anything against the police - they do not actually have a duty of care (Alexandrou v Oxford) so there can be no negligence.

 

As I said before - take advice from a good solicitor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you will find i am right it is not a duty of care it is a

DUTY TO INVESTAGE EVERY CRIME THATS REPORTED

he reported a Fail to stop the have a duty to investage that if they failed they they have failed to carry out there duty

i have a friend whos daughter was attacked he was arrested she had a letter of the CPS that they will not be prosecting

WHAT CAN I DO?

told her write to the CPS and ask how come they dropping the case with a lack of evidence when his DNA was on her jumper

THERE REPLY WHAT JUMPER

now the poo has hit the fan because the pc never sent it off never told the CPS and he has failed in his duty to fully investgate a crime

his jobs on the line

now my wifes friend has just settled out of court for the police failing in there duty

the police forces will only leave a case go to court if they are sued if it was a minor thing if it was something like failing to investagate a crime they have then failed in there job to the public (do they really want that in the press) dont think so they will offer to settle on the night before without prejudice

Trust me i took my employer to court for fail in there duty of care

9.15pm night before court they where at my home with a letter and pen for me to sign after 12 months of waiting for it to go to court and what they offered i had to take because me and my family are right for life they also medically pensioned me off i could have only stayed there for 40yrs that would have given me full pension and service they give me 18yrs and now in my 40s i have my pension for life

how many others working elsewhere would get it

i have already signed up with a national newspaper to tell my story but because of tyhe official secrets act i cannot say anything for 10yrs only 4 to go, And no im not in it for money because what im getting for my story 1000s is off to the speacial care baby unit at my local

Regards DK

TRUST ME SPENT 24 YRS WITH A POLICE FORCE

Please Tip My Scales if Info was Use full

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your employer HAS a duty of care to their employees - so that has absolutely no relevance to the discussion even if your employer was a police force - they still owe you a duty of care as an employee. there is a world of difference.

 

The police have no duty of care - see the case sited before - also Osman v Fergusson and most recently Smith v Chief constable of Sussex police where the house of Lords ruled there was no duty of care owed to the public during the course of investigating a crime.

 

Also you would have to admit - the difference in not following up on a minor RTA, and not fully investigating a serious or even sexual assault is fairly profound.

 

That is not to say that you cannot make a complaint if you are unsatisfied with the polices actions, but as for threatening to sue them for damages - I dont see that as a runner.

 

Typing in BLOCK CAPITOLS is not likely to intimidate anyone into changing what is a considered and educated opinion.

 

However - an opinion is all that it is - albeit with the advantage of some legal training and experience.

 

Should anyone know better I would be very interested in reading the case references that refute my argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you state the Smith v Chief constable of Sussex police case he sued stating that they police (Mr Smith would not be able to establish that action on the part of the police would have prevented the attack)

what this RTA is about he reported the crime to the police if they have done nothing about it investagation wise then they have failed to do there job there duty to investgate a crime that makes them liable

If they investgate and find that no crime has been commited then thats it but if they failed in there duty theres a case

i base my opions on experience what smith sued for a told the cops that they guy may attack him and he did but then again he might not have

this CASE is about has the police done anything about the RTA he reported Ie have the been to see the guy who crashed into him if the answer is NO then they can be held liable

Regards DK

this is advise on what i know

Please Tip My Scales if Info was Use full

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, IT IS NOT an offence to leave the scene of an accident providing the driver reports the accident to the police within 24 hours

 

Secondly, do not suggest that the OP can ensure that a prosecution is brought, the OP has NO SAY WHATSOEVER in whether or not a prosecution is brought or not.

 

Finally, a criminal prosecution would only have some bearing on the case if it was directly related to or contributed to the accident, ie drink driving etc.

 

If you are going to offer advice at least get your facts straight first

 

Mossy

 

The OP stated that the other driver actually drove off after the accident and did not exchange insurance details, in this case the Police would normally look at why this happened and would consider action. I would certainly insist that they invetigated the matter more fully.

 

I gave my option on the basis that a similar situation happened to me two years ago and the Police did prosecute on this basis (driving away from the scene of an accident). I also served in the police ten years ago.

 

My advice to you (Mossy) would be to read the OP's statement more thoroughly and try to be a little more polite when other voice an opinion that may not be the same as your own.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You just do not seem to grasp the point which I am trying to make.

 

1 in order for you to be able to prosecute for negligence you have to show that there was a duty of care in the first place.

2 in both the smith case and the Osman case it was stated that as a matter of policy there could be no duty of care in law.

3 No duty of care - therefore no negligence - therefore no action under the tort of negligence.

 

The polices failure to investigate a crime may make them liable to disciplinary procedures or censure from the police complaints authority - it does not make them liable under the tort of negligence. It cannot.

Think it through - imagine everyone whose car was stolen, house was burgled, got mugged, attacked, defrauded.....etc

 

if the police could be sued for negligence each time they didnt investigate any offence fully then the police force would disappear overnight.

 

Not only that but it would make the police fearful to attend incidents incase they ended up getting sued.

 

Hence the policy determination that Police do not owe a duty of care...

 

Read Hill v CC west Yorkshire. This is where the principle was first described. Mr Hill was the father of one of the Y Rippers victims, who tried to sue the police saying that if they had investigated properly his daughter would not have been killed.

This established the precedent regarding duty of care.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well i suppose you have sued a police force so you must be right??

do you know how many people have sued police forces and had it settled out of court??

do you know why the where sued

let me tell you a case i worked on a guy came home from work

and couldnt park his car in his drive has it was blocked by another car police where called and didnt do anything (other car causing obstruction)

he stated that when his car was not used it was to be parked on the drive, The car was stole insurance refused to pay out has car was not parked on the drive when at home like stated he sued the force for failing to do there job and have a car removed from causing a obstruction

OUTCOME

the force settled out of court all cost

so flying doc maybe you should write to a welsh police force and tell them that you know better than the legal teams they use as they should have had to pay out ME THINK THAT IF THEY WHERE RIGHT AND COULDNT LOSE I THINK THEY WOULD HAVE LEFT IT GO TO COURT DONT YOU??

 

anyway folks ignore my advice as flying doc knows better

and just on a personal note flying i sued the force i worked for, For PTSD after a incident it 3 yrs to go to court they where arguing was a a first or secondary victim and they where relying on 2 other cases

it was due to go to court and the evening before the day they legal team contacted me settled out of court you know why because it would have set a presidence for other cases thats why they settle out of court

and that reason only if they 100% sure they would win they will go for it

between 2001 and 2005 a force settled 278 claims out of court why because they didnt have flyingdoc on there team

Regards DK

Please Tip My Scales if Info was Use full

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also all the cases you have listed because the failed to prevent a crime

This thread is about failing to investgate a crime total different

take a look at these

Rigby v. Chief Constable of Northamptonshire [1985] 1 W.L.R. 1242. Further, a police officer may be guilty of a criminal offence if he wilfully fails to perform a duty which he is bound to perform by common law or by statute: see Reg. v. Dytham [1979] Q.B. 722, where a constable was convicted of wilful neglect of duty because, being present at the scene of a violent assault resulting in the death of the victim, he had taken no steps to intervene

Edited by DCA-KING

Please Tip My Scales if Info was Use full

Link to post
Share on other sites

In November 2000, two days before the trial was to start, Brougham lay in wait for Mr Van Colle as he left work and shot him three times at close range.

 

Most murders happen out of the blue and there is always a danger of accusation by hindsight. But that was not the case here. A witness in a court case was specifically threatened on a number of occasions by the man against whom he was giving evidence. It should have been relatively straightforward for the police to have offered him protection or to have revoked Brougham's bail.

 

Since Brougham lived in Stevenage, that job fell to Hertfordshire constabulary and specifically Det Con David Ridley. At a disciplinary tribunal in 2003, he was found guilty of failing to perform his duties diligently, failing to investigate thoroughly the intimidation of witnesses, and failing to arrest Brougham. He was fined five days' pay.

 

Mr Van Colle's parents considered it was important to establish where the duties of the police lay and invoked the European Convention on Human Rights, claiming a violation of Article 2 - which enshrines the "right to life" - and Article 8, which guarantees everyone's right to respect for their home and family life.

 

In the High Court, Mrs Justice Cox awarded them £50,000 in damages against Hertfordshire Police. She said that, had Mr Van Colle been placed in a safe house or given other protection after Brougham threatened his life, there would have been "a real prospect of avoiding this tragedy".

 

 

Many be this judge was wrong too flyingdoc

Regards DK

Please Tip My Scales if Info was Use full

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really dont see where you are going with what appears to be turning into a personal attack As i said this is my opinion - and am happy to see opposing argument. There is no need to get petulant just because I dont happen to agree with you.

 

Just out of curiosity - you say you worked for the police - in what capacity exactly?

 

 

 

Back to the Van Colle case, which is not a case in tort - it is a case under European Law, specifically articles 2 and 8 as you correctly cited.

Can you tell me excatly how - failing to investigate a minor traffic offence violates either of those articles as I cannot quite see it myself.

 

With regard to YOUR action against the police - the police were YOUR EMPLOYER - which gives them a duty of care towards YOU over and above any duty of care that they may or may not have towards anyone else.

 

As you quite rightly said - there have been some cases where the police have been found negligent, but these have been under circumstances that create a closer proximity between the plaintiff and the police.

Rigby for instance - the police fired CS gas into the plaintiffs premesis. - this wasnt an omission - it was an act - and taking into consideration the real and substantial fire risk of doing such a thing they were found to be liable for damages after the premesis burned down.

 

With regard to R v Dytham - the police officer concerned there was not sued for negligence - but was prosecuted for wilful neglect of his duty under the police act of 1964 and this case also involved the loss of a persons life.

 

I would be interested in any other opinions on this matter - I dont think that DK and I are going to agree on this point.

 

He argues with a passion from what he consideres to be years of experience which I respect. I argue without passion the opposing view based on my university legal training.

 

Above all, one thing that I have learned in law is that there are never absolute answers to any questions. and the only opinion that matters in any given case is that of the judge (or judges) hearing it.

 

We appear to have kind of hijacked this thread for this and for that I must apologise to the OP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What do i care

My capacity was one of a claims handler employed by the police force

investagate any complaint / court action

take advice from the CPS baristers, and a retired high court judge if we could win or defend the case it would go to court if not it was payout time thats why every force you research you will only find cases that went in police forces favour most forces will payout on any case that has less than a 99% win wonder why that was

Glad im finished

Like i say dont take my advice flying doc knows better

And i int having a go at anyone flying doc stated you cant sue and i was wrong but i beg to differ

nevermind only wasted 20 odd years doing a job

Regards DK

Please Tip My Scales if Info was Use full

Link to post
Share on other sites

In November 2000, two days before the trial was to start, Brougham lay in wait for Mr Van Colle as he left work and shot him three times at close range.

 

Most murders happen out of the blue and there is always a danger of accusation by hindsight. But that was not the case here. A witness in a court case was specifically threatened on a number of occasions by the man against whom he was giving evidence. It should have been relatively straightforward for the police to have offered him protection or to have revoked Brougham's bail.

 

Since Brougham lived in Stevenage, that job fell to Hertfordshire constabulary and specifically Det Con David Ridley. At a disciplinary tribunal in 2003, he was found guilty of failing to perform his duties diligently, failing to investigate thoroughly the intimidation of witnesses, and failing to arrest Brougham. He was fined five days' pay.

 

Mr Van Colle's parents considered it was important to establish where the duties of the police lay and invoked the European Convention on Human Rights, claiming a violation of Article 2 - which enshrines the "right to life" - and Article 8, which guarantees everyone's right to respect for their home and family life.

 

In the High Court, Mrs Justice Cox awarded them £50,000 in damages against Hertfordshire Police. She said that, had Mr Van Colle been placed in a safe house or given other protection after Brougham threatened his life, there would have been "a real prospect of avoiding this tragedy".

 

 

Many be this judge was wrong too flyingdoc

Regards DK

 

Hertfordshire Police appealed to the House of Lords after the original judgement and their appeal was allowed.

 

http://www.lawreports.co.uk/WLRD/2008/HLPC/jul0.8.htm

 

House of Lords hands down van Colle judgment | News | Garden Court North - Garden Court North Barrister Chambers

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...