Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • With Farage back in the news, here's a reminder of his interview with Claire Byrne on Irish TV a few years ago.  
    • So, why do DVLA (via that leaflet) say 1) that S.88 MAY allow a driver to be treated as if they have a valid licence (after an application that discloses a medical condition) AND   2) before DVLA have reached their licensing decision ? (Since S.88 ceases to apply once they have reached a decision to grant or refuse a licence)
    • Thanks for that, Bazza. It sheds some more light on things but I’m still by no means sure of the OP’s father’s likelihood of successfully defending the charge. This in particular from the guidance stands out me: He does not meet all the s88 criteria. S88 is clear and unambiguous: It makes no provision for either the driver or a medical professional to make a judgement on his fitness to drive under s88. S92(4) and the June 2013 guidance you mention defines in what circumstances the SoS must issue a licence. It does no modify s88 in any way. However, delving further I have noticed that the DVLA provides a service where the driver can enter a relevant medical condition to obtain the correct documentation to apply for a licence: https://www.gov.uk/health-conditions-and-driving/find-condition-online I haven’t followed this through because I don’ have the answers that the OP’s father would give to the questions they will ask and in any case it requires the input of personal information and I don’t want to cause complications with my driving licence. It is possible, however, that the end result (apart from providing the necessary forms) is a “Yes/No” answer to whether the driver can continue to drive (courtesy of s88). With that in mind, I should think at  the very least the OP’s father should have completed that process but there is no mention that he has. The Sleep Apnoea Trust gives some useful guidance on driving and SA: https://sleep-apnoea-trust.org/driving-and-sleep-apnoea/detailed-guidance-to-uk-drivers-with-sleep-apnoea/ I know nothing about SA at all and found It interesting to learn that there are various “grades” of the condition. But the significant thing which struck me is that it is only the least trivial version that does not require a driver to report his condition to the DVLA. But more significant than that is that the SA Trust makes no mention of continuing to drive once the condition has been reported. The danger here is that the court will simply deconstruct s88 and reach the same conclusion that I have. I accept, having looked at the DVLA guidance, that there may be (as far as they are concerned) scope for s88 to apply contrary to the conditions stated in the legislation. Firstly, we don’ know whether there is and secondly we don’t know whether the OP’s father would qualify to take advantage of it. Of course he could argue that he need no have reported his condition. The SA trust certainly emphasises that the condition should not be reported until a formal detailed diagnosis is obtained. But the fact is he did report it. As soon as he does that, as far as I can see,  s88 is no longer available to him. Certainly as it stands I maintain my opinion that he was not allowed to continue driving under s88. The only way I would change this is to see the end result of the DVLA exercise I mentioned above. If that said he could continue driving he would have a defence to the charge. Without it I am not confident.  
    • Americans are already keen on UK-made coins, and the Mint said it has seen a 118 per cent increase in sales to the US since 2022.View the full article
  • 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

Advice on Moorcroft Debt Recovery (part v)


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4970 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 have a debt with the Halifax which Moorcrof have latched onto. I have sent them the CCA letter. and they have replied saying that

"Certain accounts are excluded from compliance with part V of the consumer credit act or not in fact credit or hire agreements and we believe that our clients account falls into one of these catagories. We therefore require imediate payment of the sum outstanding or alternatavely your clients realistic proposals for repayment of the same".

Can anyone help me with this one

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Got your PM

I have moved your post to it's own thread so that you don't get lost on someone elses.

 

Am I right in thinking this is an overdraft?

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Cartaphilus

Just a question, really, the answer may be obvious to everyone else but ... What do they mean this:

or alternatavely your clients realistic proposals for repayment of the same".

Are you acting on behalf of someone else, then? Or is it that the administration is so crap at Moorcroft they not only don't know what time of the day it is most of the time or that their letter writing is so bad now they have to refer/reply to everything in the third party? Or just they don't employ people with much brain matter?
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a debt with the Halifax which Moorcrof have latched onto. I have sent them the CCA letter. and they have replied saying that

"Certain accounts are excluded from compliance with part V of the consumer credit act or not in fact credit or hire agreements and we believe that our clients account falls into one of these catagories. We therefore require imediate payment of the sum outstanding or alternatavely your clients realistic proposals for repayment of the same".

Can anyone help me with this one

 

hi the halifax robbed me with thier overdraght charges, and moorcrp sent a letter to me asking for money, i sent them a letter back saying i will not pay you, but will indeed offer to pay the halifax £1 every week. if they refues then they can take me to court.

 

so i can tell the mr judge i was only £50 over drawen now they want £900? i am really fed up of these charges

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Cartaphilus
but will indeed offer to pay the halifax £1 every week. if they refues then they can take me to court.

 

Moorcroft, court? Excuse me whilst I throw up. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Cartaphilus

BTW, Mr Russell, but Moorcroft can't take you to court, not unless they own the debt. Like I said, Moorcroft and court; excuse me whilst I throw up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Cartaphilus

Oh, and BTW, but I just so happen to have a Halifax debt with Moorcroft right now. What a surprise.

Edited by Cartaphilus
Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, Mr Russell, but Moorcroft can't take you to court, not unless they own the debt. Like I said, Moorcroft and court; excuse me whilst I throw up.

 

hi mr cartaphilus, i do not think that moorcroft own the debt , they only send a letter" pre" court division on behalf of the halifax.

i have hade lots of court papers berfoe from the judges that wear the red coat,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Cartaphilus

They still wear red coats?

but Moorcroft can't take you to court, not unless they own the debt. Like I said, Moorcroft and court; excuse me whilst I throw up.

 

By that, I mean any action they threaten you with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An overdraft is not generally covered by a CCA request (part v exemption) but they still should send you something to show you actually had an overdraft facility

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Cartaphilus
hi mr cartaphilus, i do not think that moorcroft own the debt , they only send a letter" pre" court division on behalf of the

link3.gif

.

i have hade lots of court papers berfoe from the judges that wear the red coat,

 

Their pre-court division is on a level with a flying spaghetti monster. Doesn't exist. As to judges, red coats. Last one I saw wore perfectly ordinary every day clothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi mr cartaphilus, i do not think that moorcroft own the debt , they only send a letter" pre" court division on behalf of the halifax.

i have hade lots of court papers berfoe from the judges that wear the red coat,

 

hi, you mention in your post to judges that wear THE RED COAT these are indeed judges in the crown court, now county court and crown court is indeed a diffrent matter!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Their pre-court division is on a level with a flying spaghetti monster. Doesn't exist. As to judges, red coats. Last one I saw wore perfectly ordinary every day clothing.

 

ah a judge with a red hoody , jeans , and a tie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Cartaphilus

If you say so. Turning up like that wearing cargo pants, Republic gear. Skateboard out the back. Perhaps they felt the court needed a bit of a fashion lift.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Cartaphilus
INDEED , as it would only be a county court hearing the judge may indeed be

wearing cargo pants.

 

As it was the most catestrophic error I have ever made, the county court judge wore a plain suit, the claimants solicitor a cheap looking one. It was to save someone's house repossession which was successful but only with my help. My payment for all that? Being almost made homeless, life long debt and being betrayed. You may ask yourself why I try to give so much of myself to others when to some it would put them off for life being through all that. That's a question I ask myself every day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...