Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I hope Lord Frost is OK. Islamists and the woke Left are uniting to topple the West ARCHIVE.PH archived 18 Apr 2024 19:12:37 UTC  
    • Ok you are in the clear. The PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 for two reasons. The first is that in Section 9 [2][e]  says the PCN must "state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper— (i)to pay the unpaid parking charges ". It does not say that even though it continues correctly with blurb about the driver. The other fault is that there is no parking period mentioned. Their ANPR cameras do show your arrival and departure times but as that at the very least includes driving from the entrance to the parking space then later leaving the parking space and driving to the exit. It also doesn't allow for finding a parking spot: manoeuvering into it avoiding parking on the lines: possibly having to stop to allow pedestrians/other cars to pass in front of you; returning the trolley after finishing shopping; loading children disabled people in and out of the car, etc etc.  All of that could easily add five, ten or even 15 minutes to your time which the ANPR cameras cannot take into account. So even if it was only two hours free time you could  still have been within the  time since there is a MINIMUM of 15 minutes Grace period when you leave the car park. However as they cannot even manage to get their PCN to comply with the Act you as keeper cannot be pursued. Only the driver is now liable and they do not know who was driving as you have not appealed and perhaps unwittingly given away who was driving. So you do not owe them a penny. No need to appeal. Let them waste their money pursuing you . 
    • If Labour are elected I hope they go after everyone who made huge amounts of money out of this, by loading the company with debt. The sad thing is that some pension schemes, including the universities one, USS, will lose money along with customers.
    • What's the reason for not wanting a smart meter? Personally I'm saving a pile on a tariff only available with one. Today electricity is 17.17p/kWh. If the meter is truly past its certification date the supplier is obliged to replace it. If you refuse to allow this then eventually they'll get warrant and do so by force. Certified life varies between models and generations, some only 10 or 15 years, some older types as long as 40 years or maybe even more. Your meter should have its certified start date marked somewhere so if you doubt the supplier you can look up the certified life and cross check.
    • No I'm not. Even if I was then comments on this forum wouldn't constitute legal advice in the formal sense. Now you've engaged a lawyer directly can I just make couple of final suggestions? Firstly make sure he is fully aware of the facts. And don't mix and match by taking his advice on one aspect while ploughing your own furrow on others.  Let us know how you get on now you have a solicitor acting for you.
  • 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

Enhanced CRB - fare evasion?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5356 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 believe that any crime you have been charged with/ cautioned for will show up on any crb check.

 

Does it make a difference whether it show as dishonesty or fare evasion???

 

Tbh it should show as whatever you was charged with.

My opinions are my own and not those of anyone else :D

 

<<<<<<<<<<<<<< If you find me helpful please click on my scales

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/credit-reference-agencies/211007-equifax-your-time-has.html

 

SIGN THE PETITION TO STOP CREDIT REFERENCE AGENCIES RECORDING DATA WHEN NO CREDIT AGREEMENT EXISTS - SEE FORUM POST

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...ml#post2370021

Link to post
Share on other sites

It Will Show Up 0n An Enhanced Crb Check

 

I Believe A Normal Crb Check Would Be Negative As It Falls Under The Rehabilitations Of Offenders Act.

 

Thats Is Spent If 10 Years Have Gone By And The Crime Was Not For Drugs Or Violence

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys - I think that it does matter if it shows up as a crime of dishonesty rather than the actually name of the charge (i.e. entering a train for the purposes of travelling without a valid ticket).

 

A crime of dishonesty could indicate fraud or lying on an application for a job which requires disclosure of previous convictions.. which are much more serious given that I work in a field with vulnerable people..

Link to post
Share on other sites

My Advice Would Be

 

Come Clean With The Personel Or Hr Dept

 

Ask For A Private Meeting

 

Tell Them This And You Will Prob Be Ok

 

This Will Show Up On An Enhanced Check As Vunrable People Are Involved

 

At The End Of The Day All They Are Interested In Is To You Pose A Risk Say To Children Or Vunrable Adults

 

I Dont Think So

 

Come Clean And It Will All Be Over

Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree with post.

I had a similar situation with my job. We have to undergo several enhanced crb checks in a short space of time and i have a caution for theft from an employer.

I told my new employers who were fine about but did say if i hadn't have disclosed it to them I would've been joining a very long dole queue

lol

My opinions are my own and not those of anyone else :D

 

<<<<<<<<<<<<<< If you find me helpful please click on my scales

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/credit-reference-agencies/211007-equifax-your-time-has.html

 

SIGN THE PETITION TO STOP CREDIT REFERENCE AGENCIES RECORDING DATA WHEN NO CREDIT AGREEMENT EXISTS - SEE FORUM POST

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...ml#post2370021

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know if it showed up as the specific charge or as the general type of conviction?

 

I think it will look a lot better if it says conviction for 'entering a train for the purposes of travel without a valid ticket' than just 'crime of dishonesty'!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Does it make a difference whether it show as dishonesty or fare evasion???

To be honest I'd rather it showed up as Fare Evasion if it was me....Although in the eyes of the law it is an offence of dishoenesty, in the eyes of prospective employers, fare evasion sounds much more mundane...:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a conviction for fare evasion some years ago and it showed offences under the Theft Act on the CRB. Having said that, I have worked in two schools, none of my employers have ever commented and I've recently been promoted. I think a problem only arises if you choose to lie about it on an application form.... or if there are a string of offences related to the type of job you're applying for.

 

I stated "travelling on a train without previously buying a ticket" on both applications, so that HR could refer back to them for clarification if necessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that the check will reveal the actual charge that you were convicted of as summonsed and recorded on the Court register.

 

Therefore, if you were convicted for failing to show a vail rail ticket on demand contrary to Railways Byelaw 18.1, that's what it should reveal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...