Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I don’t agree with Bazza’s assessment. The guidance to impose points rather than a ban applies when there is a choice of sentencing options. If he had driven on the cusp of a ban (say 105-110mph) either six points or a ban would be a consideration and points should be imposed so as to trigger the New Drivers’ rules. There are also occasions where drivers who clearly would not otherwise be banned ask for a short ban in order to circumvent those rules. That is what the guidance seeks to address.   That is not the case here. I believe he can forget any idea that points will be imposed for this offence. He will be banned. I would expect the court to begin their deliberations at around six months and work upwards from there when they hear about his inexperience. Anything less than six months will be a result but I would not be surprised to see a ban of up to a year imposed. So the “New Drivers” legislation should not be a worry for him. All he will have to do is worry about where he will get insured and how much it will cost him. Insurers will see, together with his SP50 endorsement, that he also received a lengthy ban and will put two and two together (to come up with £££££s). He was indeed lucky not to have been caught camera and not by a patrol. If it had been a stop he may well be facing a careless (or more probably dangerous) driving charge. As it is, it is unusual to see such charges follow a camera catchment.   If he fails to return the S172 request for driver’s details he will receive six points (which will see his licence revoked). That endorsement (MS90) for a young driver is probably a bigger killer insurance wise than speeding endorsements. The thinking behind that is that insurers wonder what the offender may have done that caused him to fail to name the driver. In this case their general suspicions would be well founded.   The maximum fine for the offence is £2,500. However the guidance suggests a fine of a week’s net income. That incorporates his one third discount for a guilty plea. I would not be surprised if the court increases that in view of the seriousness of the offence. He will also pay a “Victim Surcharge” of 10% of the fine (minimum £34) and £85 costs.
    • Johnson doesn't care how much 'other peoples' debt piles up - its another consistent part of his history   Sunak will though ... even if its not focused on the reasons you or I would be worried
    • Hello everyone.    I am looking for some advice regarding a situation that has came up recently.    Around 3 months ago I gave my brother a loan of a mobile phone I had due to his being faulty and him unable to afford a new one at the time. This mobile was the phone I used in my small business, but due to covid work has been lacking and I wasn’t using it so I decided to let my brother use it for a short time and I would use my personal phone for work. The phone is on contract with Vodafone.    Sadly 3 weeks ago I found my brother passed away at his home. Due to my brother being so young and his death being sudden there has been a police involvement. I’ve been dealing with my brothers affairs over the past week and quickly noticed the mobile phone I had loaned to him wasn’t around. After making some enquiries with people I quickly found out my brother had actually sold the mobile phone to a CEX store for £393 around a month before his passing. Straight away I contacted Vodafone and had the phone blocked.   I immediately went to the CEX store who confirmed they had purchased the phone. I gave them my proof of ownership etc to confirm I am the owner of the phone. After a short discussion and me telling the manager that I am the owner of the phone and would like it returned to me the manager told me I would have to contact the police for it to be resolved. They said the only way they would hand over the mobile would be if the police came in and requested it. I thought that was fine and I contacted the police. I spoke with the officer who was looking into my brothers death who informed me that the case is a civil matter and because my brother had passed away the police would be unable to pursue any criminal proceedings.    At this point I began communicating with CEX via there customer service at head office. They initially seemed helpful and when I told them the police will not begin any proceedings they were happy with this and were keen to resolve with me. They said I would be called by a member of management to resolve. One of the companies operations managers contacted me the next day. To cut a long story short they said they would return the phone to me if I purchased it at the amount they gave my brother for the phone (£393). I politely refused stating I was the legal owner of the phone, my brother had no right to sell the device, the phone was under contract in my name and I would like it returned immediately. He said he would speak further with his upper management and would get back to me.    A few days had passed without anyone contacting me. I have now received an email from CEX stating again that the only way they will return the phone is if the police investigate. They said they have made there own enquiries and that my brother being dead is irrelevant (their words) and the police will still investigate.    I am now at a loss in what to do. The phone is a high end device and I still have around 14 months left on the contract at nearly £70 per month. Can anyone tell me if I would have any chance of success going to court about this? The phone is blocked and currently just an expensive paperweight to CEX. I have no idea why my brother sold the phone and sadly I will never find out. Things are very difficult at the moment as it is as I’m grieving my brother but my head is all over the place about what to think and do.    Thanks in advance     
    • Government will be faced with very difficult choices.   I am hearing that some businesses are really struggling due to supply issues.  If they cannot sell the goods or provide the service, they may not have the cashflow to continue to pay wages.    Any further lockdowns could force businesses to fail and Government may have to step in again with financial support to pay wages, as well as help with business expenses.    
  • Our picks

Welshman v Barclays **WON**

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5194 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

I have a copy which I used for my successful claim against these bloodsuckers. I can email it to you if you pm me with your email address


I'll also have a look around on the site to see if I can find it



[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Statement request 4th May

Prelim Letter sent 24th May

LBA 7th June

Thanks but no thanks letter sent 22 June

MCOL 22nd June

Claim acknowledged 26 June

AQ sent 2nd August

17 Nov Court Date Set for 29 Jan 2007

Settled in full 12/12/06

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 301
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Please help us to help you. Download the CAG tool bar for free

HERE and use the search option for all your searches. CAG earns a few pennies every time !!!


Please don't rush, take time to read these:-






This is always worth referring to






Advice & opinions given by me are personal, are not endorsed by the Consumer Action Group or the Bank Action Group. Should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...