Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • love the extra £1000 charge for confidentialy there BF   Also OP even if they don't offer OOC it doesn't mean your claim isn't good. I had 3 against EVRi that were heard over the last 3 weeks. They sent me emails asking me to discontinue as I wouldn't win. Went infront of a judge and won all 3.    Just remember the law is on your side. The judges will be aware of this.   Where you can its important to try to point out at the hearing the specific part of the contract they breached. I found this was very helpful and the Judge made reference to it when they gave their judgements and it seemed this was pretty important as once you have identified a specific breach the matter turns straight to liability. From there its a case of pointing out the unlawfullness of their insurance and then that should be it.
    • I know dx and thanks again for yours and others help. I was 99.999% certain last payment was over six years ago if not longer.  👍
    • Paragraph 23 – "standard industry practice" – put this in bold type. They are stupid to rely on this and we might as well carry on emphasising how stupid they are. I wonder why they could even have begun to think some kind of compelling argument – "the other boys do it so I do it as well…" Same with paragraph 26   Paragraph 45 – The Defendants have so far been unable to produce any judgements at any level which disagree with the three judgements…  …court, but I would respectfully request…   Just the few amendments above – and I think it's fine. I think you should stick to the format that you are using. This has been used lots of times and has even been applauded by judges for being meticulous and clear. You aren't a professional. Nobody is expecting professional standards and although it's important that you understand exactly what you are doing – you don't really want to come over to the judge that you have done this kind of thing before. As a litigant in person you get a certain licence/leeway from judges and that is helpful to you – especially if you are facing a professional advocate. The way this is laid out is far clearer than the mess that you will get from EVRi. Quite frankly they undermine their own credibility by trying to say that they should win simply because it is "standard industry practice". It wouldn't at all surprise me if EVRi make you a last moment offer of the entire value of your claim partly to avoid judgement and also partly to avoid the embarrassment of having this kind of rubbish exposed in court. If they do happen to do that, then you should make sure that they pay everything. If they suddenly make you an out-of-court offer and this means that they are worried that they are going to lose and so you must make sure that you get every penny – interest, costs – everything you claimed. Finally, if they do make you an out-of-court offer they will try to sign you up to a confidentiality agreement. The answer to that is absolutely – No. It's not part of the claim and if they want to settle then they settle the claim as it stands and don't try add anything on. If they want confidentiality then that will cost an extra £1000. If they don't like it then they can go do the other thing. Once you have made the amendments suggested above – it should be the final version. court,. I don't think we are going to make any more changes. Your next job good to make sure that you are completely familiar with it all. That you understand the arguments. Have you made a court familiarisation visit?
    • just type no need to keep hitting quote... as has already been said, they use their own criteria. if a person is not stated as linked to you on your file then no cant hurt you. not all creditors use every CRA provider, there are only 3 main credit file providers mind, the rest are just 3rd party data sharers. if you already have revolving credit on your file there is no need to apply for anything just 'because' you need to show you can handle money. if you have bank account(s) and a mortgage which you are servicing (paying) then nothing more can improve your score, despite what these 'scam' sites claiml  its all a CON!!  
  • 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
      • 160 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

Drink driving, does 2 glasses of wine = 30mg?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5216 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 you mean alcohol content in blood :

 

Other factors such as your weight, amount of body fat, metabolism, liver function, Kidney function amount of alcohol dehydrogenase come into the equation. not that simple I'm afraid:)

 

If you mean total amount of alcohol ingested:

 

Depends on strength of wine and volume of glass.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Additionally - the quantity of wine within each glass. Since a glass isn't a standartised measure, you could easily reach that limit with the correct balance of fluid and metabolism. To save the hassle, if I'm driving, I just don't drink.

Edited by buzby
Link to post
Share on other sites

Drink driving, does 2 glasses of wine = 30mg?

 

Time betwen drink and test is about one hour.

 

OK, I may be able to help you on this one!

 

A small glass (125ml) of wine with 8% strength is equal to 1 unit of alcohol.

 

A standard pub measure is normally 175ml which (at the same strength) is equal to 1.4 units. Based on the average body weight for a woman, the limit for drink driving can be reached after consuming 3 units. So just 1 250ml glass of 12% strength would be enough.

 

It takes the body around 1 hour to 'dispose' of 1 unit of alcohol.

 

I can give you a more acurate response if I knew the strength and measures you are talking about.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im just looking for ballpark figures,

 

Is there an official definition of 'glass of wine' and if so what is it?

 

I think it is in the saame reference manual for calculating the length of a piece of string.

 

It is widely accepted that the 125ml amount used in statistics is pointless, as pubs don't use this as a measure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most pubs sell either 175ml glass of wine or 250ml glasses (i.e. 1/3 of bottle).

 

Most wines are now between 11 and 14% abv.

 

So working out units consumed can be difficult. Some bottles do have the unit measure on them.

 

I would suggest a good rule of thumb is if you are drinking, don't drive and watch out for the morning after. (A couple of engineers in my department were caught on their to work the morning after a session. )

 

As had been pointed out there are so many factors that can influence how quickly you will be "safe" enough to drive. I'd suggest erring on the side of caution. If you get things wrong the minimum is a 12 month ban and a fine, a criminal record, having your DNA profile taken and increased insurance costs.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This does not constitute legal advice and is not represented as a substitute for legal advice from an appropriately qualified person or firm.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

By the reponses so far have not conclusively said two glasses of wine is 30mg.

 

The burden of proof police have to make is beyond all reasonable doubt. All they have to go on is an admission in an interview under caution that the suspect had two glasses of wine before driving a car. The volume of the glass is not defined in the interview and neither is the length of time elapsed having those drinks and driving the car.

 

There is no positive test at the scene, but the police are building a case that two glasses of wine of unspecfied volume and an estimated one hour before admitting to driving a car is over the limit of 30mg.

 

Any comments?

Link to post
Share on other sites

By the reponses so far have not conclusively said two glasses of wine is 30mg.

 

The burden of proof police have to make is beyond all reasonable doubt. All they have to go on is an admission in an interview under caution that the suspect had two glasses of wine before driving a car. The volume of the glass is not defined in the interview and neither is the length of time elapsed having those drinks and driving the car.

 

There is no positive test at the scene, but the police are building a case that two glasses of wine of unspecfied volume and an estimated one hour before admitting to driving a car is over the limit of 30mg.

 

Any comments?

 

Can I ask what you mean by '30mg'? If the road side test was negative, then why would the police be 'building a case'? Sorry but this is not making sence.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be 35mg, Im just going by the expression prescribed limit.

 

Alphageek, she was arrested because she was tested when the police turned up at her home.

 

I am not sure this test is admissable because it was not while she was seen driving a car.

 

She may have had a drink after arriving home and before arrival of police.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be 35mg, Im just going by the expression prescribed limit.

 

Alphageek, she was arrested because she was tested when the police turned up at her home.

 

I am not sure this test is admissable because it was not while she was seen driving a car.

 

She may have had a drink after arriving home and before arrival of police.

 

With respect, would'nt this be quicker if you told the whole story in the first place?

 

Why was she arrested at home? Has 'she' been involed in an accident or something? Don't forget that the police can use a blood sample to determine how much alcohol is present and for how long. It takes between 20 to 30 minutes for alcohol to be absorbed into the blood stream.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be 35mg, Im just going by the expression prescribed limit.

 

Alphageek, she was arrested because she was tested when the police turned up at her home.

 

I am not sure this test is admissable because it was not while she was seen driving a car.

 

She may have had a drink after arriving home and before arrival of police.

You are attempting to use what is known as "the hip flask defence" If you google it, you should get some idea. But the police may attempt to calculate the amount of alcohol in her blood whilst she was driving.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the police are back-tracking from the time of the test to the time of the accident, then the amount drunk prior to the accident is irrelevant, surely. It could have been 2 glasses 1 hour prior or 3 glasses 2 hours prior. I suspect that the amount could be used as supporting evidence. ie. "Our calculation shows she was over the limit, M'lud. Additionally, the calculation is in line with what she says she drank (plus she's probably telling fibs and drank more than she said)".

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the law is that to prove innocence, the drinker has to prove this:

 

 

(b) that had he not [drunk alcohol after the event] the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine would not have exceeded the prescribed limit and, if the proceedings are for an offence under section 4 of that Act, would not have been such as to impair his ability to drive properly.

 

 

Section 15(3):

 

 

Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53)

 

 

This article suggests you need an independent toxicologist report:

 

The "Hip Flask" Defence -Post Incident Drinking

 

This is maybe why the police on the reality telly always look smug when they catch a drink driver at home with a bottle in hand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If your looking for a defensive response, then I would go on the assumption that two glasses of wine would be 175ml each at a total of 350ml of wine. I would also go on the basis of being 12% ABV. That's more a best case scenario and my assumption after being a wine waiter.

 

This would take the units of alcohol to 4.2 units which can then work out the BAC. Your looking at it needing to be below 35 mu g per 100ml or 0.08%

 

I used a website: BAC Calculator | Blood Alcohol Content Calculator | BAC Calculator

 

Average data comes out to about 0.069% on a best case scenario (Below 0.08% is legal). If your looking at 14% wine or large glasses of wine then you will defiantly be over the legal limit after 1h

Ex-Retail Manager who is happy to offer helpful advise in many consumer problems based on my retail experience. Any advise I do offer is my opinion and how I understand the law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

(Sorry for change of name, pw for my original stopped working).

 

With respect, would'nt this be quicker if you told the whole story in the first place?

 

The suspect was apprehended by another motorist and two other men all white mid 30’s, in a side road and accused her hitting his car. The other motorist or one of his accomplices snatched her car keys from her car and she went home fearing she was about to me attacked. It was dark about 7pm. She lives 431 paced yards from the incident and left the car behind.

 

The police later arrived at her home with her car kays and arrested her with drink driving. Police said they looked at the car but no evidence of accident damage. She was taken to a Police station (9.3 miles away 26 minutes non-stop with no traffic) and tested at 95mgs at 10.40pm and charged under S5 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 98mg. She was bailed to appear before Magistrates. She admits on her tape interview having two glasses of wine but the volume of the glass is unspecified on the tape, and neither is the length of time between drinking the wine and driving the car to the site where the car keys were snatched. No police offers have seen her driving a car.

 

The person who snatched the keys has not been charged under Section 15 of the heft Act 1968 and no explanation has been offered.

 

She thinks she will goto prison, very nervous, sleepless nights, 70 years old, just had double hip replacement, zimmer frame etc.

 

Why was she arrested at home? Has 'she' been involed in an accident or something? Don't forget that the police can use a blood sample to determine how much alcohol is present and for how long. It takes between 20 to 30 minutes for alcohol to be absorbed into the blood stream.

 

There are no blood tests, just a breathaliser machine which gave a till receipt showing a test result and an actual result.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the law is that to prove innocence, the drinker has to prove this:

 

I just had a read of the link, a bit over my head.

 

Does it mean the burden of proof Beyond all Reasonable Doubt in criminal proceedings has been reppealed?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...