Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for this and the attached documents. It all looks fine. The worry about their confidentiality statement. This is normal practice and they probably don't even understand what it really means. They can't impose a legal duty of confidence upon you in this way and there is no reason in equity why you should be bound by a moral duty of confidence – for instance, you didn't eavesdrop this information only didn't find an obviously confidential document belonging to someone else on the street. I'm a little bit concerned about their claim that they have a contractual term with Packlink she expressly excludes third-party rights. I understand from the Cagger above that this has occurred elsewhere but I haven't seen it and certainly I'm not aware that has been relied upon in court yet. We shall certainly start advising people who come here to sue in negligence as well as contract by way of alternative
    • Ok many thanks and we need to meet the 16th May deadline ? I send this to the claimant and which court (as we haven't heard from the court yet) ? I will look at this tonight as I am really restricted at work. Could I post up a draft for you to look at ? Really appreciate any help as feeling very anxious.    
    • I would just say, ask your most challenging friend to review the emails. Are they really inferring or is your perception clouded because of your mental state? For example; asking a question is not an inference. I say this so you don't waste the court's time with minor hurts or imagined slights;  they want the significant elements. Otherwise their perception of you may be negative from the offset. 
    • Thank you. Was the value which was declared to the courier the same value as that which you are claiming? The letter of claim is a bit wordy but it does the job. However I would delete any references to mediation or any invitation to them to make proposals for some kind of settled solution. We would normally be advising people to refuse mediation that I believe that there is a new system which is just coming in where mediation becomes compulsory. With the old system, you could choose whether or not have mediation and you would have to agree to keep matters confidential and also agree that you are prepared to compromise. If these are the requirements of the new mediation system then I would suggest that you say that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to sign up to a confidentiality agreement. In terms of compromising – the money is yours and there is no reason why should give up a penny. On this action you will be attempting to enforce your third party rights as you do not have a direct contract with EVRi. You should also sue them in negligence as an alternative on the basis that they are due a duty of care and that they failed in their duty and that the loss of the parcel was a reasonably foreseeable consequence which has caused you financial loss. As I think I said earlier, they won't respond to this or at least they won't agree to pay you are any reimbursement. This means that you will deftly have to issue the claim on day 15 which is in another five days. Have you registered with the MoneyClaim online County Court website? You need to do that the start drafting your claim. I suggest that you post your particulars of claim here before you click them off so that we can see and let you know if we think there should be any changes. Finally, you say that you are taking advice from a government website. You should realise that we are volunteers here. We don't get paid but the people who run the government website to get paid. We are very happy to help you. We help everybody completely free of charge but if you are taking advice from some other source then you should stick with them rather than ride two horses at the same time. It will only cause difficulties and conflicting advice and confusion.  
  • 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

Driving whilst talking on mobile phone.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5433 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

If a glance can kill how are people supposed to check speeds, petrol gauges, mirror etc....???

 

When driving the eyes are focussed 50 - 100 yards ahead. In order to focus within the car the eyes have to accommodate and this takes at least half a second and then reaccommodate when resuming driving. So for at least one second full attention is not given to the road.

 

Looking in mirors is OK because you look the same distance behind.

 

Speedometers petrol guages etc should are looked at when the way ahead is clear. Speed cameras force drivers to look at speedometers in accident black spots and is perhaps the reason that they have not actually cut accident rates.

 

Tailgating is very dangerous as the driver is forced to focus on the car in front only and has no visual warnings of trouble ahead.

 

Turn your mobile phone off entirely when driving then you will not be tempted to focus on it -certainly never have it in your hand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

NO, I think they SHOULD have helped look for his van (is that not why I pay my taxes?) They SHOULD NOT have lost the initial report!!! They SHOULD have come to see him when he waited in for two whole days waiting for their advised appointments!!! to name but a few thing they SHOULD have done but DIDN'T!!

 

Apart from the fact that the thieves had our front door key as well!!

 

 

I agree that people should not talk on mobiles!!! But is it against the law to glance at one???? NO!! Should e be banned for glancing at his phone? NO Read the post properly!!! There was NO PHONE CALL!!! He glanced at it because it lit up - no more no less! He NEVER speak or texts while driving as he knows it is dangerous!!

 

If a glance can kill how are people supposed to check speeds, petrol gauges, mirror etc....???

 

sorry, should be banned, turn your phone off in the car.

 

p'haps, if all the police were not dealing with people like yourselves that believe it is ok to 'just' .... then they might be available for 'more important things' in your minds eye.

 

a complete ban of the use of mobiles should be implemented.

don't comply........you get banned.

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

While 50-100 yards is better than the observation used by some drives - the bumper of the car in front ! - I have to say that IMO your eyes should be 'ranging' up and down the road ahead. 50-100 yards is way too short on an awful lot of roads. and they should be moving around a lot as well, all mirrors,, side roads etc, reading the road ahead fully and being aware of what is going on all around you. sometimes you have to control the traffic that is behind you ! Your eyes should not be 'still' for very long at all.

Edited by lamma
Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry, should be banned, turn your phone off in the car.

 

p'haps, if all the police were not dealing with people like yourselves that believe it is ok to 'just' .... then they might be available for 'more important things' in your minds eye.

 

a complete ban of the use of mobiles should be implemented.

don't comply........you get banned.

 

 

dx

 

 

By people like yourselves you mean honest laws abiding citizens who have never even ad a speeding/parking ticket.

You are a narrow minded person who as not got a clue about people like me!!

 

I have spoken police today who agreed that the officer in question may have been a little over zealous and you are telling me my husband should be banned???

 

You would obviously be more comfortable living in a dictatorship and are not worth any more of my time!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

While 50-100 yards is better than the observation used by some drives - the bumper of the car in front ! - I have to say that IMO your eyes should be 'ranging' up and down the road ahead. 50-100 yards is way too short on an awful lot of roads. and they should be moving around a lot as well, all mirrors,, side roads etc, reading the road ahead fully and being aware of what is going on all around you. sometimes you have to control the traffic that is behind you ! Your eyes should not be 'still' for very long at all.

 

 

I completely agree, If you cannot glance around, how do you keep an eye out for pedestrians, other motorists etc...?

 

My hubby drives all day and as been driving for almost 30 years he has never had an accident, ticket, or made a insurance claim in all those years and completely agrees with all of you who say you should not use a mobile while driving!! He looked at the phone because it lit up (while he was stationery I might add)!

Edited by vinegarvera
Link to post
Share on other sites

By people like yourselves you mean honest laws abiding citizens who have never even ad a speeding/parking ticket.

You are a narrow minded person who as not got a clue about people like me!!

 

I have spoken police today who agreed that the officer in question may have been a little over zealous and you are telling me my husband should be banned???

 

You would obviously be more comfortable living in a dictatorship and are not worth any more of my time!!

 

your situation here is being a victim of the rules as they stand.

as you have said, hubby does it for a living and if the rules were 'turn off you phone' it would not have been on i'm sure .

 

thats why i say ban them and ban any driver using one whilst at the wheel.. simple.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

How long have you been driving, btw vinegarvera? In an earlier post you say that 'whilst driving' your husband received a text message. On this page you say he was stationary. Glancing down at a mobile phone is a completely different thing to checking mirrors, speedometer, gauges - we are taught as learners how and when to do those things. Mobiles should be switched off then they won't distract a driver's attention. Some people seem to forget that a car is potentially a lethal weapon and a licence to drive is a privilege, not a right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How long have you been driving, btw vinegarvera? In an earlier post you say that 'whilst driving' your husband received a text message. On this page you say he was stationary.

I did not say "whilst driving" I said he was driving last night and a text came trough = he glanced at the phone when stationary.

Glancing down at a mobile phone is a completely different thing to checking mirrors, speedometer, gauges - we are taught as learners how and when to do those things.

I agree with all points you make, drivers also glance at pedestrians and passengers, do we also ban sat navs??

 

Mobiles should be switched off then they won't distract a driver's attention. Some people seem to forget that a car is potentially a lethal weapon and a licence to drive is a privilege, not a right.

 

I was simply making the point that the police had ticketed him for glancing at is phone, this is not against the law. You are completely going off the point I am trying to make!!

 

"Just ban him" tell my kids that when we cannot afford to eat because daddy cannot work - why? because he glanced at his phone!

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many a case that’s made the papers about people just holding a phone, one where the guy just looked at the time and could prove that no calls or texts had been received or made. Other reports of people getting fines for eating a mars bar etc.

 

There was even a case not long ago, where a woman was in court for holding her phone and sentenced to 3 months. The reason........ she hit and killed a push cyclist at a set of traffic lights. Now i was like many was thinking not long enough etc, until that is, one reporter pointed out that the cyclist had jumped the red light and the police report noted that even if she had not been holding her phone, she could not of avoided the cyclist.Holding the phone had nothing to do with the accident, yet she was still convicted.

So let’s not judge, there is not many of us who hasn`t used a phone, eaten an apple, mars bar etc, Not many that hasn`t turned round to the kids and told them too shut up. Very few of us are whiter than white.

 

The nanny state is starting to go too far these days, there no longer any common sense used by the authorities. I just wonder where its all going to end, soon it will be illegal to sneeze in the streets :confused:.

 

 

 

Completely agree!

Link to post
Share on other sites

My husband reported a stolen van on bank holiday monday he has lost all his tools which are his livelyhood and not one member of the police have even been to see him to take a statement. He was driving last night when someone text him- the pone lit up so he glanced at it and got stopped and issued a ticket. IMO the police are not here to help the public but to hit targets!!!!

 

think malmonroe is refering to your quote.

he was DRIVING last night.

and got stopped and issued a ticket.

 

how was he stopped if he was stationary?

SAM:pLOWELL DETESTER

Link to post
Share on other sites

think malmonroe is refering to your quote.

he was DRIVING last night.

and got stopped and issued a ticket.

 

how was he stopped if he was stationary?

SAM:pLOWELL DETESTER

 

He was driving last night! He got a text! He looked at is phone while at the lights! he got "stopped" in other words "pulled over" by the police.

 

Blimey, I didn't come on here to have my morals pulled apart. I agree that the phone should have been off!! I was questioning the legalities of the situation! Even another member of the constabulary agrees with me. I feel like I have been hung drawn and quartered on this thread and am sorry I spoke - goodnight!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi - Vinegarvera - in an earlier post (which I have copied and pasted) you said - "He was driving last night when someone text him- the pone lit up so he glanced at it and got stopped and issued a ticket". You actually say that he was stopped, so he couldn't have been stationary. Drivers are also taught when learning how to cope with pedestrians, etc. - you are just being obtuse now and I have no idea what (GOOD) point you are actually trying to make!

(Anyway, what's wrong with you driving and working, if your husband DOES receive a ban (which I never said) anyway?? As a single mother, I've been doing it for years and supporting my family on my own, without any 'daddy' working.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi - Vinegarvera - in an earlier post (which I have copied and pasted) you said - "He was driving last night when someone text him- the pone lit up so he glanced at it and got stopped and issued a ticket". You actually say that he was stopped, so he couldn't have been stationary. Drivers are also taught when learning how to cope with pedestrians, etc. - you are just being obtuse now and I have no idea what (GOOD) point you are actually trying to make!

(Anyway, what's wrong with you driving and working, if your husband DOES receive a ban (which I never said) anyway?? As a single mother, I've been doing it for years and supporting my family on my own, without any 'daddy' working.)

 

I DO work but cannot drive due to a medical condition!!! How moralistic can you get????

Link to post
Share on other sites

While 50-100 yards is better than the observation used by some drives - the bumper of the car in front ! - I have to say that IMO your eyes should be 'ranging' up and down the road ahead. 50-100 yards is way too short on an awful lot of roads. and they should be moving around a lot as well, all mirrors,, side roads etc, reading the road ahead fully and being aware of what is going on all around you. sometimes you have to control the traffic that is behind you ! Your eyes should not be 'still' for very long at all.

 

Gosh lamma! That sounds like something I would have said. I hope you haven't started teaching coz there's enough competition out there already! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

calm down everyone please, aren't we here to help each other ?. Hubby won't be banned, its just 3 points and he has a clean license. the problem is the offense is 'using' and many cases have 'held' that just holding the communication device is enough. it stinks and some have been done for scratching their ear and have 3 points for it ! Only ways around this risk that spring to mind are,no phone at all in the vehicle, leave phone switched off 9and in the boot ! even then the policeman may swear swear he saw you on the phone..) (the network records will show the phone being switched off), or a hands free kit but have it (the phone handset) mounted in the boot of the car (needs a voice activated phone). having said that some of these dodgy phone pulls have been fought and won. Its not about protecting the public its about hitting targets - and soft targets are easier than hard ones. A mobile phone pull is real easy. I must admit a see a scary number of drivers driving along while making a call holding the handset next to their ear, through roundabouts and junctions in manual cars ! have almost been swiped by a few of them but have been lucky that I was not staring 50-100 yards ahead of the car at the times they were trying to 'cross me'. (now I have written that what are the odds that in the next short period a mobile phone driver 'has at me' ? :( :( )

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, not being moralistic at all, Vinegarvera. You were the one saying that your kids wouldn't be able to eat if your husband was banned from driving. I just wondered why that would be the case - if I couldn't drive because of a medical condition then I'd have to find some other way to get to work so I could support my family because I don't have anyone else to help me. You are lucky in that you do. With or without a driving ban - which isn't the worst thing in the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree, lamma. We are going wildly off the point. Personally, I enjoy driving along, without any phones. There are far too many phones in the world now and too many people just don't understand when I won't and don't answer every call I get. Mobiles in cars are just dangerous, full stop.

I refuse to engage in any more discussions about the matter!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look I merely came on here to find out the legalities of looking at a phone while in a car. People then (without knowing my full situation) started to get on their high horse and preaching that my husband should be banned! And that I should be supporting my family!

I work full time and travel by public transport for an hour each way every day. I have done this for many years (and I also was a single parent).

My husband also works very hard and I was pointing out that in this day and age it is hard enough when both parent work without one of them losing their job!

We ave been advised to fight this ticket and I was simply looking for other peoples experiences.

 

 

Thank you lamma for your positive input!

Edited by vinegarvera
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

As an aside, I saw a woman on a bike chatting away intently on her mobile phone when I was driving a few weeks ago. Amazingly dangerous - far worse than vinegarvera's hubby's actions. Oh, but it was a cyclist - so it doesn;t matter...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Come on, you people seriously have nothing better to do. Everyone Knows you should do anything but drive when driving, I got caught myself using my phone today (something I never usually do, but I was late for work and was calling them to say I was on my way etc, you heard it all before) The point is we shouldn't do it, and no one wants the fine/points and we we would all get out of paying these if we could. Just because you make a mistake does not make you a bad person and if you come on these forums asking (both rationally and nicely) for advice you shouldnt have all these weirdo people giving you moral personal attack lectures. If you don't want to give the person advice, then don't bother posting a comment, its like a playground, I mean WTF, GROW UP GUYS!!!!

 

Vinegarvera, don't even give them the satisfaction of arguing back with them!!! I hope you get the van problem sorted, but I don't think there is anything we can do about the points/fine....the law's the law I guess, just a shame they arent so strict on more important things!

Link to post
Share on other sites

As an aside, I saw a woman on a bike chatting away intently on her mobile phone when I was driving a few weeks ago. Amazingly dangerous - far worse than vinegarvera's hubby's actions. Oh, but it was a cyclist - so it doesn;t matter...
Seeing as the thread has been resurrected. I'm yet to hear of any cyclists killing someone because they were on the phone at the time.

 

It's a small issue of 50 - 100kg of metal and flesh at 10 - 20 mph, versus 1,500 - 3,000kg, travelling at 30 - 50 mph.

 

That being said, only an idiot would endanger themselves by cycling and talking on the phone at the same time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

something I never usually do
Although you did this time, didn't you. And you only give a hoot because you were caught. Not only are you a hypocrite, but you are also, apparently, a vapid hypocrite.

 

all these weirdo people
I'm loving the irony. Brava, good madame.
Link to post
Share on other sites

@VOR...but you should not even consider doing it in the first place.

sorry, shows an attitude of total disregard and contempt for others.

no excuse in my books.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

hahahahahaha (edit)

 

Yes I did something I shouldn't and I am paying a fine and taking the points, i HAVE HELD MY HANDS UP AND ACCEPTED IT.

 

I didnt ask for any of your "help" just wondered why you are all so unfriendly and attack everyone who posts something on here. very odd!

 

In case none of you realised, the forum is titled "A forum to discuss the legalities or unlawfulness of parking/speeding tickets or congestions charges etc" not a forum to lecture and insult people.

 

(edit)

 

I will not respond you any more of your posts, so whether you post more abuse or not is down to you.

 

Goodbye!

Edited by freakyleaky
insults and abuse removed
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...