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.  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5543 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 wouldn't send a cheque, I would pay them directly online using either a debit or credit card.

 

That way the council will not refuse the payment, and no fees will be taken out of your payment.

 

If you send a cheque, there is the possibility that the council will return it to you and insist that you pay the bailiffs instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok just got a reply from equita .

 

They are adamant that we agreed to pay the debt. and that the bailiff would not have suspended recovery unless told not to do so .

 

They believe that it was dealt with in a profesional matter and that they believe they did not break the law. they will be putting the funds back in my wifes account but now refuse any form of payment plan.

 

At the botom of the letter it says

Coulcil tax debt - 793.59

Recovery costs - 244.50

 

 

Surely those costs are a bit high can anyone advise please !!!

 

 

 

 

You need to WRITE to Equita immediately by e-mail to: [email protected] and say to them that you are very disturbed at the response from their company and that you are considering making a formal complainy to the Local Government Ombudsman and that accordingly you require a copy of the SCREEN SHOT of your account.

 

In addition you need to state that you are aware that the charges that a bailiff may make is £24.50 for "attending to levy where no levy was made" and that a further charge of £18.00 may be applied if a second such visit has been made and that accordingly you require a detailed breakdown of the fees and charges applied to your account and confirmation also of the amount of the Liability Order passed to them by the local authority.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just recieved a letter from equita sayin they ghave repaid me. Im worried as it mentions the costs as below

 

Stat visit fees 42.50

Levy Fees 40.00

enforcement fee 160

 

then it says that the levy and enforcement fee were incurred at time off ******* attending the property. reference has been made to vehicle (my car)

 

 

does this mean they can now just take it?

should i have been told about he levy at the time of it being done?

all we had on the alledged day was a had posted pre prinyed letter with an amount hand written on it no mention of levy.

 

Please advise very woried.

 

car is not on hp

Link to post
Share on other sites

Proper stressed out now thought this was done but needclarification.

 

by my reckoning we had in equita's word 687.09 to pay

Wife paid 200 by card leaving 487.09. equita banged on 244.50 so I only owe 242.59 on my council tax.

 

Im not sure were I stand on what charges should apply. Note at no time have we had a knock on the door. I know this as I stay home with our 7 month old boy. At no point on the letters that equita send do they tell you how much you owe abd when my wife did call the baliff he "never had our file with him"

 

Can some one help please!

Link to post
Share on other sites

see tomtubby's link number 27

 

 

I understand this but according to the letter says the levy and enforcement fee were incurred at time of Mr ****** attending property on 17th feb. reference has been made to vehicle **** ***

 

I cant afford to loose my car and not sure were I stand. Can they just make a levy against my car like that. ?

 

They say I have until friday 3rd April to arrange clearance !

Edited by ooberj
Forgot info
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not unless they actually came to your house and levied/seized your car.

You would have known about it because they would have put paperwork through your letterbox.

The fact that you don't appear to have had that paperwork suggests that they didn't actually levy on it at the time at all.

Does that help?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just read one of your earlier posts, which says that on the date of the alleged levy all he received through the door was a handwritten note with an amount written on it. If it had a date on it as well, that would really help.

 

You need to respond in writing, with a photocopy of the paperwork that you received, because it's starting to sound as if they are trying to play dirty.

They may be getting desperate.

 

This is a public site, so the quick and dirty solution to your problem cannot be posted here. Nudge nudge wink wink... :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thnaksfor your reply again. I cant find the letter that was hand posted but sure it was 17th feb. Were im confused is that they are charging me £40 levy fees and £160 enforcement from that visit on the 17th feb.

 

Taken from letter dated 19th March

 

The levy and enforcement fee were incurred at the time of Mr ******** attending the property on 17th February. Reference has been made to a vehicle being identified dispayong reg **** ***

This is the first I had heard of any charges etc. so Is there a levy on my car ? again I have had no face to face or signed anything

Link to post
Share on other sites

*** UPDATE ****

 

New letter from Equita stating that It is not there intention to get into a protracted correspondence in the matter and that baliff action is immenent after the refund of monies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...