Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I didn’t say it wouldn’t. That is not the issue here. To continue driving after the licence has expired (under s88), the driver must have submitted a “qualifying application”.  An application disclosing a relevant medical condition (of which sleep apnoea is one) is not a “qualifying application”, This means the driver cannot take advantage of s88 and must wait for the DVLA to make its decision before resuming driving. The driver’s belief is irrelevant. The fact that a licence was eventually granted may mitigate the offence, but  does it does not provide a defence. But this driver didn’t meet the conditions. I explained why in my earlier post. He only meets the conditions if his application does not declare a relevant medical condition. His did. As I explained, after his birthday he did not hold a licence that could be revoked. In my view it doesn’t matter what it says. The offence is committed because his application declared a medical condition. Meanwhile his licence expired and s88 is not available to him. The GP letter would form part of the material the DVLA would use to complete their investigations. But until those enquiries are completed he could not drive. The offence does not carry points or a disqualification (because a licence could have been held by your father). It only carries a fine and the guideline is half a week’s net income. If he pleads guilty that fine will be reduced by a third. He will also pay a surcharge of 40% of that fine. But the big difference is prosecution costs: a guilty plea will see costs of about £90 ordered whilst being convicted following a trial will see costs in the region of £600.
    • I'd recommend getting a new thread started about this. Let us help!
    • to whom..here? read upload one mass pdf only in date order please too. dx
  • 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

Stop Charging Orders - Petition to Government


Murphy69
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5443 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

Please support this petition. This could affect you!

 

Did you know that you can actually loose your home over unsecured debt of as little as £1000 by the loan company obtaining a charging order against your home. That would be an extreme case but once a charging order is in place, the creditor has the legal power to commence proceeding against you which could result in you loosing your home.

 

This does not have to be you, it could be a son or daughter or friend. Anyone in fact can find themselves in this position. Please pass on this to all your friends and acquaintances. The recent expenses scandals prove it is You and I that get screwed when the chips are down- no more – its time to fight back – that time is now.

 

Charging Orders

 

A Charging Order is a way of enforcing a previously unsecured debt by securing it against a debtor’s property. The charge will be the amount that is owed by the debtor.

Since 2000 there has been a colossal 722% rise in the number of Charging Order applications by unsecured creditors (CAB 25/6/2009).

Read this Link - What Vince cable of the Lib Dems has to say on the subject.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/credit-and-loans/dealing-with-debt/article.html?in_article_id=456909&in_page_id=62

 

Stop this Now – This is grossly unfair and creditors are now running to the courts to seek charging orders to protect themselves. You need to protect you -

 

 

Please sign this petition - time is running out -

 

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Charging-Orders/

 

 

 

The law need to be changed to stop this practice. Unsecured Debt when taken out is exactly that and the risk is reflected in the interest rate charged. Creditors cannot be allowed to have it both ways –

Protect your home Stop this unfair practice and sign this petition today - we can do this together.

:idea:

Homes can be seized for credit card debt

www.thisismoney.co.uk/credit-and-loans/dealing-with-debt/article.html?in_article_i d=456909&in_page_id=62Alan O'Sullivan, This is Money

11 November 2008

Edited by Murphy69
additional info
Link to post
Share on other sites

Charging orders: How your home can be used to settle debt | This is Money

 

Check this out:-

 

Homes can be seized for credit card debt

Alan O'Sullivan, This is Money

11 November 2008http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/credit-and-loans/dealing-with-debt/article.html?in_article_id=456909&in_page_id=62

Edited by Murphy69
additional info
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear friends - this is serious, imagine someone has gone guarantor for a son or daughter and they defaulted on the loan, potentially this could end up in court with the guarantor, that might be you, loosing their home - please sign this and get your friends and family to do likewise. Debt problems can hit anyone at any time, the future is not predictable and why live with the risk?

The law can be changed. This does not mean that one should ignore their debt obligations, the opposite is true but you must look out for your self, if you dont who will?

sigs so far 24 and rising, lets hit 50 by the end of 1st of July - go - go :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

OFT Update. I am sure that this has peen posted somewhere.

 

*June 2009 Update*

*The OFT's Review of the use of Charging Orders by its Licensees*

 

As noted above, due to the reported rise in numbers of charging orders being granted the OFT has conducted a wide-ranging review of the use of charging orders as a method of enforcing judgment debts, where the debts originally arose under regulated consumer credit agreements.

 

The interim results of this review indicate that there may be potential problems with the way in which some creditors use charging orders as part of their debt enforcement activities.

 

The OFT will be working with licensees to ensure that consumers are not the subject of what we would consider unfair business practices in relation to the use of charging orders and orders for sale.

 

The OFT expects its licensees to accord with all relevant legislation and guidance when conducting debt enforcement proceedings. The OFT will take appropriate action where it finds business practices that fall below the standard expected of licensees.

***************

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...