Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They have defended the claim by saying that the job was of unsatisfactory standard and they had to call another carpenter to remedy. My husband has text messages about them losing the keys a second time and also an email. What do they hope to achieve??? Most importantly,  as far as I have seen online, now I need to wait for paperwork from the court, correct?
    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the xx/xx/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the xx/xx/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, xx/xx/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
  • 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

Went through a red light...


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4967 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 am still shocked about it.

 

I was at a one-way system, going straight out at the next junction across from me. As I was approaching the junction, the light turned green and I went on, my husband yelled:"watch the red light!", I slammed on the brakes just in time to avoid the next lot of cars coming out on the left hand side. :-(

 

It would appear that the lights before the crossing are NOT synchronised with the ones beyond the crossing! :jaw:

 

I'm still reeling from it, tbh. I am and always have been a careful and vigilant driver, which just shows how easy it is to make a mistake, and I really hope I haven't been zapped crossing at the red light, because then I am going to have my work cut out to fight it. :-(

 

TO say that I am p*ssed off would be an understatement. :mad2:

Link to post
Share on other sites

You might have a job fighting that one. Have you got any points on your licence? If not and you have been zapped, you may get away with doing a 'Driver education course'. I did one last year for a speeding offence - cost the same as the fine but kept the points of my licence. .

 

Regards.

 

Fred

Before you criticise another man you should first walk a mile in his shoes. Then, when you criticise him, you'll be a mile away and he won't have any shoes on.

 

Don't get me confused with somebody knowledgeable by all those green blobs. I got most of them by making people laugh.

 

I am not European, I am English.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no points... yet. There is a pending fight for an alleged speeding offence when I went to Devon (36 in what I maintain is a 40 mph, they say is a 30 :mad:), and they offered me the course on that one, which I am refusing as I would have to travel somewhere in Hampshire or even the Isle of Wight and the cost is £74, so when you add the fuel and time (and back pain for me :-(), it's simply not worth it.

 

Nearly 30 years of impeccable driving, and 2 "offences" in the space of 3 months. Roll on 2011. *sigh*

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have done similar. It can be confusing where there are two sets of lights which are not in sequence with each other.

 

Are you sure that there was a camera at the junction? Maybe looking on google will show it? I think the street view images are quite recent(ish)... :|

No, I don't know for sure, but in London and suburbs, the feckers are everywhere! :mad2:
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Jason King
I have no points... yet. There is a pending fight for an alleged speeding offence when I went to Devon (36 in what I maintain is a 40 mph, they say is a 30 :mad:), and they offered me the course on that one,

 

I don't wish to appear rude but I would encourage you to take advantage of the driver awareness course as it will brush up your driving skills which have obviously become rusty as evidenced by two recent offences in a very short space of time.

 

Unfortunately, the older we get the more our responses whilst driving become slower.

 

There can be no excuse for jumping a red light. It is simply poor driving.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You ARE being rude.

 

If you had read my post properly, you would see that I am contesting the validity of the speeding ticket. I am not doing that just for the hell of it. :rolleyes: I'm not going to discuss the case here, but the evidence so far seems to suggest that I was in fact doing 36 in a 40 mph, which last time I checked was not an offence. Ever heard of honeytraps? Let's just say that it may appear the constabulory may have been less than fortright in this occasion. ;-)

 

As for your comment about the light, you weren't there, you don't know what the circumstances were. I quite agree there are no excuses for going through a red light willingly, but by your holier-than-thou standards, there are no excuses for accidents happening, ever, and yet, evidence shows that they do, and since it can't all be down to poor driving skills, one has to reach the conclusion that some of them come under the heading of: "sometimes, sh*t happens".

 

Having said all that, I suspect that your post was just a spiteful dig to get your own back on the comments I made on your post(s). I may be wrong. Either way, your opinion matters little to me. correction, it matters not one bit. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

good for you Bookie, my youngest daughter is a brilliant driver but she had a very silly accident which involved only herself and a barrier. Thankfully only her pride and her car were hurt. It only takes a second for a mistake to be made, nobody is perfect not even you JK.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Jason King
You ARE being rude.

 

If you had read my post properly, you would see that I am contesting the validity of the speeding ticket. I am not doing that just for the hell of it. :rolleyes: I'm not going to discuss the case here, but the evidence so far seems to suggest that I was in fact doing 36 in a 40 mph, which last time I checked was not an offence. Ever heard of honeytraps? Let's just say that it may appear the constabulory may have been less than fortright in this occasion. ;-)

 

As for your comment about the light, you weren't there, you don't know what the circumstances were. I quite agree there are no excuses for going through a red light willingly, but by your holier-than-thou standards, there are no excuses for accidents happening, ever, and yet, evidence shows that they do, and since it can't all be down to poor driving skills, one has to reach the conclusion that some of them come under the heading of: "sometimes, sh*t happens".

 

Having said all that, I suspect that your post was just a spiteful dig to get your own back on the comments I made on your post(s). I may be wrong. Either way, your opinion matters little to me. correction, it matters not one bit. :-)

 

Yes, you are wrong, it is not a spiteful dig at you. To be honest, I didn't even recognise you had actually posted this thread, I simply read it and responded. In any case, I would not be so mean minded.

 

However, I have to disagree with you regarding your driving offences.

 

You stated you continued driving forward at a set of lights not realising they were not synchronised with ones beyond the crossing you approached.

 

Confusing or not, the fact of the matter is you clearly misunderstood them, that is poor driving I'm afraid.

 

I'm not holier than thou, I am just able to understand traffic lights and when to cross them which is why I have a 25 year unblemished driving record.

 

I doubt very much you were driving at 36 in a 40 zone simply because mistakes like this by the police are very few and far.

 

I'm sorry but it appears you have lapses of concentration whilst driving.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Jason King
good for you Bookie, my youngest daughter is a brilliant driver but she had a very silly accident which involved only herself and a barrier. Thankfully only her pride and her car were hurt. It only takes a second for a mistake to be made, nobody is perfect not even you JK.

 

 

Oh c'mon hilary!

 

There are always two viewpoints and mine is there is no excuse for crossing a red light in the same circumstances as Bookweeds.

 

It was a lack of understanding of traffic control, fact. Simple as.

 

By the way, did you know one can be booked for crossing a red light even if an ambulance is approaching behind you?

 

It is an offence that is rightly viewed as a serious traffic transgression.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry Bookie. My Dad always said "they were only a rough guide anyway!" (traffic Lights)

 

Why I am thinking that JK is very obviously reminding me of someone else that has posted on here before under a different name ?

 

To tell someone who has had a clean licence for longer than 20 years and then has a couple of mishaps, that most us have had at some point in our driving career, and then to go on a course to re-train beggers belief ! How wonderful it must be to be so perfect................

 

JB

Link to post
Share on other sites

You stated you continued driving forward at a set of lights not realising they were not synchronised with ones beyond the crossing you approached.

Wrong. I did what good drivers get taught to do, which is look ahead of them, not what's happening right in front of their car hood and be prepared for what's coming ahead of the immediate. Ahead of me at the junction, was a set of lights which turned green as I was approaching the junction. My husband spotted the non-synchronised ones because as a non-driver, he had the leisure of not paying attention to the road ahead. Ironic, I know.

 

Confusing or not, the fact of the matter is you clearly misunderstood them, that is poor driving I'm afraid
:violin:

 

I'm not holier than thou, I am just able to understand traffic lights and when to cross them which is why I have a 25 year unblemished driving record.
Yep, that's what qualifies as a holier-than-thou. I ALSO have a -so far- unblemished driving record, and that's with spending 7 years as a cab driver in the London area, which considerably increases the chances of accidents as even you won't deny I hope? and the reason I avoided so many accidents is because I was taught to, wait for it, look ahead, in particular at junctions. Oh-hum.

 

I doubt very much you were driving at 36 in a 40 zone simply because mistakes like this by the police are very few and far.
Well, having read your posts on the pope thread, I can see that you have a tendency to believe the word of anyone in authority, so I can see why you would say that, and who am I to disillusion you? So doubt away all you like, since you have no evidence, that's all it is, doubt, and unless you happen to be the judge at my hearing (should the police take it that far, can't predict anything there obviously), then your doubt is worth precisely 0 on my Richter scale. :razz:

 

I'm sorry but it appears you have lapses of concentration whilst driving
I'm sorry too, but it appears you enjoy pontificating (ironically enough) on matters of which you have no knowledge. Careful you don't do it too often to too many people, because there is a point where that kind of behaviour (criticising without any helpful input) can be treated as "trolling", should enough people complain about it. :wink:
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Jason King
Wrong. I did what good drivers get taught to do, which is look ahead of them, not what's happening right in front of their car hood and be prepared for what's coming ahead of the immediate. Ahead of me at the junction, was a set of lights which turned green as I was approaching the junction. My husband spotted the non-synchronised ones because as a non-driver, he had the leisure of not paying attention to the road ahead. Ironic, I know.

 

Rubbish!

You should have been taught to be aware of all around you all the time, from the left, right, behind you, in front of you, everywhere and particularly at the sides at a crossing in case somebody is, erm, crossing!

Who taught you? Mr Bean?

 

:violin:

 

Yep, that's what qualifies as a holier-than-thou. I ALSO have a -so far- unblemished driving record, and that's with spending 7 years as a cab driver in the London area, which considerably increases the chances of accidents as even you won't deny I hope? and the reason I avoided so many accidents is because I was taught to, wait for it, look ahead, in particular at junctions. Oh-hum.

 

Well, having read your posts on the pope thread, I can see that you have a tendency to believe the word of anyone in authority, so I can see why you would say that, and who am I to disillusion you? So doubt away all you like, since you have no evidence, that's all it is, doubt, and unless you happen to be the judge at my hearing (should the police take it that far, can't predict anything there obviously), then your doubt is worth precisely 0 on my Richter scale. :razz:

 

I'm sorry too, but it appears you enjoy pontificating (ironically enough) on matters of which you have no knowledge.

 

Yes I do, I have driven since the age of 17 and I am an excellent driver.

 

 

Careful you don't do it too often to too many people, because there is a point where that kind of behaviour (criticising without any helpful input) can be treated as "trolling", should enough people complain about it. :wink:

 

What? Just because I feel jumping a red light is wrong, which believe it or not so does the law, I am now 'trolling', whatever that is, and you encourage posters to complain about me!

Sometimes, you should hear what is the truth, not what you want to hear, and in that way you may take good advice and brush up your driving skills so you are not in this position again!

Good grief.

 

 

 

 

...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Jason King

 

Why I am thinking that JK is very obviously reminding me of someone else that has posted on here before under a different name ?

 

 

I'm probably the same as the other member you mention who just so happens to be able to drive in a competent manner, that is why we appear the same.

 

Tell me, would you still have the same attitude if Bookworms had 'accidently' knocked over your daughter or would you tell her to go to Specsavers!?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rubbish!

 

You should have been taught to be aware of all around you all the time, from the left, right, behind you, in front of you, everywhere and particularly at the sides at a crossing in case somebody is, erm, crossing!

 

Who taught you? Mr Bean?

Yawn. Doing yourself no favours with that kind of daft comments.

 

Yes I do, I have driven since the age of 17 and I am an excellent driver.
You can't be. If you think you're "excellent", it means you are complacent about your experience and knowledge. A bit more humility and acknowledgment that there is no such thing as a "perfect" driver would go a long way towards improving yourself. and I don't just mean your driving.

 

What? Just because I feel jumping a red light is wrong, which believe it or not so does the law,
But you don't "just" feel that, you then go on to criticise my driving skills and impugning my judgment.

 

and you encourage posters to complain about me!
Easy on the paranoia. I don't encourage anyone to fight my battles for me, I am actually pretty good at doing that myself. :rolleyes: I was merely pointing out forum etiquette, of which you seem to be painfully unaware, and telling you of how your uncouth behaviour may appear to other readers.

 

Sometimes, you should hear what is the truth, not what you want to hear, and in that way you may take good advice and brush up your driving skills so you are not in this position again!
Actually, I wasn't asking for advice. This is the Bear Garden, where we have discussions, chinwags, have a moan or a laugh, discuss all the things which don't really need "proper" input. I posted because I was still shocked as to how, no matter how experienced and skilful a driver one may be, it takes so little to make a mistake, and as a reminder to everyone that, literally, no-one should have the arrogance to say they are an "excellent" driver, because you never know what's going to happen next.

 

Let's examine your statement: would a speed awareness course help me avoiding the alleged incident? NO. I WAS respecting the speed limit as indicated, since I was doing 36 in an area marked 40. I WAS aware of what the signs said, etc... and I KNOW that one shouldn't speed, etc... all things which I already know, and what's more, respect. Since I wasn't speeding, a speed awareness course is not appropriate. QED.

 

Would a whatever course about red lights help me to avoid the alleged incident? No. I know you're not supposed to go through a red light. I would never knowingly go through one. If I had known the light was red, I would have stopped. I didn't chance it on an amber, I didn't accelerate to avoid having to stop, I saw a green light and followed on it. No course would make a blind bit of difference to that. the only thing that will make a difference is that I now know these lights are not synchronised correctly (no coincidence that they recently had roadworks there, one feels).

 

Anyway, you keep on sitting on your little judgemental cloud all you like, I was there, you weren't, I know exactly what I did or didn't do and you don't, all you're doing is passing judgment based on guesswork and opinion, which as previously stated, counts for precisely nothing. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm probably the same as the other member you mention who just so happens to be able to drive in a competent manner, that is why we appear the same.
that's definitely trollish behaviour.

 

Tell me, would you still have the same attitude if Bookworms had 'accidently' knocked over your daughter or would you tell her to go to Specsavers!?
If I had knocked down anyone, daughter or not, I would imagine that their relatives would say a lot more than "go to Specsavers". :rolleyes: Furthermore, at that point, the police would have been involved, I would have been able to ask them to check the lights sequence to corroborate my version of the events, and IF I were to get prosecuted, then the defective lights could be used as effective mitigation. Handily enough, the copshop is just on the corner of that one way system.

 

PS: there is no crossing on that one way, at its widest point, there are 8 lanes feeding into one another, so a pedestrian crossing there would have to have a serious death wish, but that's by the by. ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Jason King
the only thing that will make a difference is that I now know these lights are not synchronised correctly (no coincidence that they recently had roadworks there, one feels).

 

QUOTE]

 

Now what is it? Your first post 'appears' to you the lights are not synchronised correctly and, further, you also said how 'easy it is to make a mistake.'

 

Now you say the lights are not synchronised correctly which would indicate it is not a mistake of your making!

 

You have not revealed in subsequent posts that you have found this to be the case, rather, you are changing your story to suit your needs to discredit me.

 

FACT- You were not paying attention whilst driving and you went through a red light, this is clear from your posts.

 

All I have said is pay attention in future and you won't be in this position again. However, you wish to ignore sound advice and you appear instead to want replies that you only wish to hear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...