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. When you get there you can 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 meaning you will have to approach "specialist" (aka extortionate) brokers. So you really want to exhaust every possibility of avoiding MS90s 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

Fiddlesticks, I didn't know that.....did you?.loan


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5394 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 I appreciate what you're getting at. The POC didn't say "arrears" but the Judge said it didn't matter because if the claimant issued another claim, judgment would be awarded anyway.

 

 

Incidentally though, they did seem a bit "chummy" (school/firm)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 165
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

just out of interest did they disclose the default notice in their disclosure list, if they did then surely they are contradicting themselves by one minute saying that its eveidence then the next saying we dont need it now, also what lessons can people learn from this, there must be a way of defending this if the claimant does adopt this method in court

Link to post
Share on other sites

but the Judge said it didn't matter because if the claimant issued another claim, judgment would be awarded anyway.

 

 

Incidentally though, they did seem a bit "chummy" (school/firm)?

 

In your 1st post bill

Slowly but surely getting plastered.xx.

 

Good luck bill maybe chat with you another time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I understand the statute you refer too, please understand that the statute does not apply to "arrears" it only applies to sums payable in the future.

There is no protection in section 87 CCA because it refers to "earlier payment". Therefore, the claimant does not need to send a default notice in the case of "arrears".

If your loan has ended, the claimant cannot send a TN either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, if you successfully argue that the DN is ineffective, the Termination notice is/was ruled ineffective as well. That didn't make any difference because the creditor does not need to issue a DN for the recovery of arrears if your loan has ended.

By coincidence, my loans' "end date" was a few weeks ago, therefore, the total amount of "arrears" totalled the same as the "amount outstanding"

The claimant knew that I had successfully argued that the DN they were relying upon was ineffective (and a fake). Nevertheless, the claimant changed their claim (in court) to recover the arrears, and not the amount in dispute, claimed on the claim form.

This is all pretty new to me too (this pm).

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are receiving "statements" every six months. your creditor could claim against you, and any DN or TN you have already received will not be admissable in court because your creditor is claiming "arrears" and not attempting to claim "earlier payments" from the future.

 

You must fail to remedy the breach to get a DN.

A DN is required before your creditor can send you a TN.

If these docs are effective your creditor can then take the next step (enforcement). To recover earlier payments due in the future.

However, to recover sums due from the past (and your creditor has an enforceable agreement) your creditor needs to send you the statement twice a year, and that is all.

By my experience today, the court had been expecting it.

 

This is a new one on me too.

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Popeye1, yes they unlawfully terminated the loan (IMHO).

There is 2 DNs.

1st one (relied upon) and an ineffective reconstruction.

2nd one is the true original, that I got in the post. They differ substatially.

The Judge didn't acknowledge my DN, said it is now irrevelant because the claimant is claiming for the arrears.

 

Quote

They terminated before the end of the life of the loan,I think you said so the account never run its full term.

 

The Judge said the account was not terminated, because the DN (relied upon) was ineffective. He didn't look at my DN, perhaps he didn't want to admit the claimant had been economical with the truth!

Link to post
Share on other sites

HHe said DN was irrevelant ? But it was enough not to change the status of the account [ termination of the account ]

 

The claimants DN was ineffective. Therefore, the account was in effect, not terminated.

The account has how run its full term, and all sums due under the agreement are now "arrears".

A claimant does not need a DN or TN to claim for arrears.

A claimant needs a DN and TN to claim for sums payable in the future.

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe you're wrong bill

 

A claimant DOES need a DN in order to claim the arrears, it's the arrears that generate a DN

 

Hi VG, yes thats what I thought. However, once your loan agreement has run its course and all sums due are arrears, the claimant can claim for the arrears "bypassing" the need for a DN.

A (valid) DN is normally a warning shot, asking you to make up (remedy) the arrears due, whilst the account is running.

When the account is no longer running, the claimant does not need to comply with section 87, because there is no remedy.

At least that is my conclusion from todays events.

 

Regards Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

I put that wrong.

The DN was irrevelant but it changed the account which originaly was terminated to not being terminated

 

He said that both DNs and the TN are now irrelevant because the loan term has ended, and all sums due are arrears and not due in the future.

 

Regards Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there were arrears on what authority were they collecting them if the agreement had ended

 

Also the change in the CCA is NOT retospective

 

& last but not least the Judge under CPR1 should not have permitted them to ambush you. I suggest this alone is strong grounds to appeal the Judgment, that you didn't have an opportunity to consider YOUR alternatives

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...