Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The Contract itself The airport is actually owned by the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan. There should be an authority from them for Bristol airport group  to sign on their behalf. Without it the contract is invalid. The contract has so many  clauses redacted that it is questionable as to its fairness with regard to the Defendants ability to receive a fair trial. In the case of WH Holding Ltd, West Ham United Football Club Ltd -v- E20 Stadium LLP [2018],  In reaching its decision, the Court gave a clear warning to parties involved in litigation: ‘given the difficulties and suspicions to which extensive redaction inevitably gives rise, parties who decide to adopt such an appropriate in disclosure must take enhanced care to ensure that such redactions are accurately made, and must be prepared to suffer costs consequences if they are not’. The contract is also invalid as the signatories are required to have their signatures co-signed by independent witnesses. There is obviously a question of the date of the signatures not being signed until 16 days after the start of the contract. There is a question too about the photographs. They are supposed to be contemporaneous not taken several months before when the signage may have been different or have moved or damaged since then. The Defendant respectfully asks the Court therefore to treat the contract as invalid or void. With no contract there can be no breach. Indeed even were the contract regarded as valid there would be no breach It is hard to understand why this case was brought to Court as there appears to be no reasonable cause to apply to the DVLA.............
    • Danny - point taken about the blue paragraphs.  Including them doesn't harm your case in any way.  It makes no odds.  It's just that over the years we've had judges often remarking on how concise & clear Caggers' WSs have been compared to the Encyclopaedia Britannica-length rubbish that the PPCs send, so I always have a slight preference to cut out anything necessary. Don't send off the WS straight away .. you have plenty of time ... and let's just say that LFI is the Contract King so give him a couple of days to look through it with a fine-tooth comb.
    • Do you have broadband at home? A permanent move to e.g. Sky Glass may not fit with your desire to keep your digibox,, but can you move the items you most want off the digibox? If so, Sky Glass might suit you. You might ask Sky to loan you a “puck” and provide access as an interim measure. another option might be using Sky Go, at least short term, to give you access to some of the Sky programming while awaiting the dish being sorted.
    • £85PCM to sky, what!! why are you paying so much, what did you watch on sky thats not on freeview?  
    • Between yourself and Dave you have produced a very good WS. However if you were to do a harder hitting WS it may be that VCS would be more likely to cancel prior to a hearing. The Contract . VCS [Jake Burgess?] are trying to conflate parking in a car park to driving along a road in order to defend the indefensible. It is well known that "NO Stopping " cannot form a contract as it is prohibitory. VCS know that well as they lose time and again in Court when claiming it is contractual. By mixing up parking with driving they hope to deflect from the fact trying to claim that No Stopping is contractual is tantamount to perjury. No wonder mr Burgess doesn't want to appear in Court. Conflation also disguises the fact that while parking in a car park for a period of time can be interpreted as the acceptance of the contract that is not the case while driving down a road. The Defendant was going to the airport so it is ludicrous to suggest that driving by a No Stopping  sign is tacitly accepting  the  contract -especially as no contract is even being offered. And even if a motorist did not wish to be bound by the so called contract what could they do? Forfeit their flight and still have to stop their car to turn around? Put like that the whole scenario posed by Mr Burgess that the Defendant accepted the contract by driving past the sign is absolutely absurd and indefensible. I certainly would not want to appear in Court defending that statement either. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I will do the contract itself later.
  • 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

Police NIP/driving with undue care and attention


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4714 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

Hi

While parking my car on 8th June, i touched another car while trying to get into a space. I looked and there was no damage to either car. I was trying to get into a space which is very tight but marked with lines. Its a private car park where tickets are usually issued if you dont use the marked spaces. The parking attendent, whom i had spoken to before shouted "dont worry mate, ive got your details and will let them know". I thought nothing more of it until 20 June, when I got a notice of intention to prosecute from the Herts Police. There were two letters, one said NIP for driving without due care and attention, and the other letter, which I had to sign and send back to the Police lists this as well as Failing to stop at the scene of an accident, and Failing to give my details. I dont know if the other car owner (who i never saw) or the attendent passed on my registration number to the Police. I dilligently sent back all the info they asked for, insurance details, MOT and driving licence, and an explanation that there was no damage to either car, that the attendent said he had taken my details, and that i didnt feel it necessary to leave my insurance details as there was no damage. I replied to the NIP from the Police on 22nd June, and haven't heard anything since. Does anyone know what I can expect to happen next? There was something about 14 days in the letter I had to send back, but foolishly I forgot to take a copy of it. Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds rather odd - sounds as if the attendant could have passed your details to a dodgy no win no fee accident or insurance claim company (that would be illegal wouldn't it without your permission?) and may have taken a fee for it.. Then a false insurance claim could be being made? Or maybe gets a fee from the police for reporting things? Stranger things have happened..

 

I'd perhaps check if with your insurance company to see if they've heard of anything.

 

I'd also contact the police personally to see what is going on from their side of things.

 

I hate to recommend other forums but the pepipoo forums are excellent for all things regarding motoring fines - many motoring lawyers hang out there too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised that the police would be pursuing this, unless they have been told a few porkies by whoever filed the complaint. Failing to stop after an accident would normally be pursued for driving away from a major traffic collision on the road or a hit and run. In cases like this, a minor nudge in a car park with nobody injured they would normally leave it to the insurers to sort out.

 

If the police are pursuing it the next step would be an officer coming to your house to take a statement. All you would need to do is stick to the truth, and say is that while attempting to park, you touched another vehicle, got out and checked and there was no visible damage to either vehicle so you did not feel that leaving your details was necessary, as no accident occured. They will probably ask to inspect your vehicle but obviously there will be nothing of interest there. I suspect it will go no further than this.

Edited by Cardiff Devil
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks CardiffDevil, I am inclined to think along the same lines as you, and as I haven't heard anything for a month yet from either the Police, or my/their insurance company, I am going to put it to the back of mind and not think about it too much. I did half expect the Police to jump on it as an easy prosecution to get their figures, but maybe that was me being cynical. I am surprised it has gone this far really - how many times have we all returned to our parked to find someone has caused a minor dent or scratch, and not bothered to leave their details? In this case, I didn't even scratch either car.

As far as I am aware, the laws of the road DO apply to private car parks and private roads where the public has acces. I bumped my car years ago into a lampost on my estate to avoid a cat, again, no damage to anyone or anything. But a neighbour saw, and called the Police. 45 minutes later they were on my doorstep, and it was my unfortunate luck that between the bump and getting back into the house and the Police arriving, I had drunk 4 double vodka and cokes (we were having a party), so they did me for drink driving, despite me arguing with them on the doorstep and in Court. :-(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bear in mind that it can take up to a few months before the police turn up to take a statement. I had a similar situation a few years back. I thought the matter had been closed, but was quite surprised three months later when an officer arrived at my house one evening to take a statement. The complaint was made that I had hit a parked car with considerable force (causing £1300 of damage) and driven off. The officer examined my car and noted the complete lack of any accident damage at all, the matter was referred back to the insurers who refused to pay out as there was no evidence at all that I was involved. A lot of hassle but a good result in the end.

 

 

Did you really get convicted for drink driving in that situation? They didn't breathalyse you at the roadside so surely they couldn't prove that you were over the limit when you were driving the car.

Edited by Cardiff Devil
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes., I was prosecuted, and received a 2 year ban. I was breathalysed on my doorstep, and was tice over over the limit (I even had a drink in my hand while doing it). I was arrested on my doorstep, taken to the station, and breathalysed again, and that showed twice over the limit, and hour and 15 minutes after bumping the lampost. I was put in a cell, until they decided the reading would be low enough to talk. At court, my solicitor argued my case, but I was advised if i pleaded not guilty, my punishment could be much more severe than just a 2 year ban. A few of my neighbours had given statements which were frankly a pack of lies, maybe they were annoyed I was having a bbq with friends. The statements read more like something the police would say than anything my neighbours could come up with. "I heard a loud bang and I was scared for my life", "a man who i didnt recognise drove at speed into the lampost, then parked in the parking space, and walked off". They had me in a corner, so I pleaded guilty. In retrospect, I should have got a better solicitor, but it was a long time ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...