Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Firstly, I would like to thank everyone for their help in this matter. Since my last post I have received a reply from Plymouth Council Insurance Team concerning my wife’s accident (please see enclosed letter and photo of the offending Badminton post) which they deny any responsibility for the said accident. I feel that the Council is in breach of their statutory duties under the following acts: The Leisure Centre was negligent in its duty of care and therefore, in breach of the statutory duty owed under section 2 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (the Act) to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all their employees, and others who might be affected by its undertaking, e.g. members of the public visiting the Leisure Centre to use the facilities. The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 that requires employers to assess risks (including slip and trip risks) and, where necessary, take action to address them. The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (PUWER) require the risk to people’s health and safety from equipment that is used at a Leisure Centre be prevented or controlled. I would like some advice to see if my assumptions are correct and my approach to obtaining satisfactory outcome to this matter are accurate. Many thanks   PLM23000150 - Copy Correspondence.pdf post docx.docx
    • Talking to them does not reset the time limit, although they will probably tell you it does, they'd be lying. Dumbdales are the in-house sols for Lowlife, just the next desk along. If Lowlifes were corresponding with you at your current address then Dumbdales know your address. However, knowing that they are lower than a snake's belly, you would be well advised to send them a letter, informing them of your current address and nothing else. Get 'proof of posting' which is free from the PO counter, don't sign it, simply type your name. That way then they have absolutely no excuse for attempting a back door CCJ.   P.S. Best course of action, IGNORE them, until or unless you get a claim form......you won't.
    • A 'signed for' Letter of Claim has been sent today so they have 14 days from tomorrow... Lets wait and see what happens but i suspect judging by their attitude they wont reply 
    • I am extremely apprehensive about burning our files.... I do not know why, so it is becoming an endless feedback loop. Scared to pull the trigger to speak in the desire not to mess up my file. 
    • Hi All, So brief outline. I have Natwest CC debt £8k last payment i made was 7th November 2018 Not a penny since. So coming up to the 6 year mark. Can't remember when i took out the  credit card would be a few years before everythign hit the fan. Moved house 2020 - updated NatWest as I still have a current account with them. Then Lowells took over from Moorcroft and were writing to me at my current address. I did get a family member to speak to them 3 years ago regarding the debt explained although it may be in my name I didn't rack it up then went contact again. 29th may received an email from overdales saying they were now managing the debt. I have not had any letter yet which i thought is odd?  Couple of questions 1. Does my family member speaking to lowell restart statute barred clock? 2. Do you think overdales aren't writing to me because they will back door CCJ to old address even though Lowells have contacted me at current address never at previous? ( have no proof though stupidly binned all letters  ) Should I write to them and confirm my address just incase? Does this restart statute barred clock? 3. what do you think best course of action is?   Any help/advice is appreciated I am aware they may ramp up the process now due to 7th December being the 6 year mark.   Many Thanks in advance! The threads on here have been super helpful to read.  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Speeding ticket and improvement course.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4472 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

Check and see if the hire firm are the registered keeper of the vehicle, like most company cars, many hire company cars are leased and the NIP to the hire company may be the second one in the chain which would explain the delay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi My experience might be of some help to you. I was flashed 37 in a 30 in Bristol but I live in Essex. Requested the Speed awareness course to be transferred but they wouldn't do it. I claimed this was unreasonable wrote several letters worked my way up the police hierarchy. in both Essex and Avon and Somerset. Got summonsed to Bristol attended didn't get heard that day was rescheduled for another hearing meanwhile got in touch with head of the CPS in the area and also the Chief Inspector who were both reasonable people especially the Head of the CPS and the case against me was thrown out.

 

I tell you all this because I think that if you originally opted for the speed awareness course then there are people at the right level who have the power to reopen this opportunity if they can be persuaded to make the effort. I went from feeling I was being brutalized to having my faith in the system strengthened by my eventual experience but they put you through the mill first. Speed awareness course What a Joke! A ritual of humiliation is all that is so I have heard but its better than 3 points!.Any way I can help dont hesitate to message me. PK

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

Ok havent updated this for a while, but yes its still going on.

 

Ive been back to court three times, repelled the bailiffs twice, and FINALLY got somewhere last week.

 

Went to court on the 12th december 2011 and had the matter fully reopened, then adjourned after the magistrates said I could have a chance to write to the police and to the drivesafe organisation.

 

I did so, recieved a reply from the drivesafe lot saying it was nowt to do with them, and I should contact the Police.

 

I did that, and received nothing back from the police by the time I was due to go back to court in 16/1/2012.

 

Fortunately this time I wasnt up before a magistrate, rather a full blown Judge. As I had written proof that I had done everything the mags had told me to do, and as the prosecutor didnt have a clue what to do, the Judge handed down a bollocking which he told the prosecutorto pass on to the police. As there was ample 'special reasons' he told the prosecutor the police had 6 weeks to reply.

 

He also said the court wanted to make it clear that they would look favourably on my being allowed to sit the course as it was the most 'common sense' result, as I had already paid for it once and was not objecting to paying for it again.

 

He also made it clear that if the Police said no, then I should return to the court on 27/2/2012 where he would arrange to have the case heard before him again and he would encourage me to argue special reasons and to ask for an absolute discharge which he would be inclined to grant.

 

He also had some extremely scathing words for Marstons bailiffs who turned up at my front door a week after the initial adjournment attempting to force entry and congratulated me on standing up to them. He also suggested I take civil action against them for their actions.

 

So all in all, a positive outlook so far. The fight goes on..............

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok havent updated this for a while, but yes its still going on.

 

Ive been back to court three times, repelled the bailiffs twice, and FINALLY got somewhere last week.

 

Went to court on the 12th december 2011 and had the matter fully reopened, then adjourned after the magistrates said I could have a chance to write to the police and to the drivesafe organisation.

 

I did so, recieved a reply from the drivesafe lot saying it was nowt to do with them, and I should contact the Police.

 

I did that, and received nothing back from the police by the time I was due to go back to court in 16/1/2012.

 

Fortunately this time I wasnt up before a magistrate, rather a full blown Judge. As I had written proof that I had done everything the mags had told me to do, and as the prosecutor didnt have a clue what to do, the Judge handed down a bollocking which he told the prosecutorto pass on to the police. As there was ample 'special reasons' he told the prosecutor the police had 6 weeks to reply.

 

He also said the court wanted to make it clear that they would look favourably on my being allowed to sit the course as it was the most 'common sense' result, as I had already paid for it once and was not objecting to paying for it again.

 

He also made it clear that if the Police said no, then I should return to the court on 27/2/2012 where he would arrange to have the case heard before him again and he would encourage me to argue special reasons and to ask for an absolute discharge which he would be inclined to grant.

 

He also had some extremely scathing words for Marstons bailiffs who turned up at my front door a week after the initial adjournment attempting to force entry and congratulated me on standing up to them. He also suggested I take civil action against them for their actions.

 

So all in all, a positive outlook so far. The fight goes on..............

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

VICTORY!!! The magistrates have decided to find 'Special Reasons' and decided to decide my case and gave me an absolute discharge. Bailiffs are also in the sh*t for trying it on and the court and information commisioner are both gunning for them hahaha!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...