Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Bazooka Boo
      Loose mortar from neighbours roof falling into our garden

      By Bazooka Boo · Posted

      Thank goodness it's not your roof and you get to foot the bill! How big are these bits of mortar? How often are they falling into your garden? Hourly, daily? Just go ahead with your plans, of course, they're not going to be worried by your time pressures and the urgency of the situation, so simply carry on as you would have done and I'm sure everything will go fine. Unless there is a danger to life and serious structural issues which mean you cannot venture into your garden, then IMHO there is little more you can do less for what you have done so already and made them aware of the issue.
    • Mr T man
      Penalty Charge notice by City of London via RingGo

      By Mr T man · Posted

      Hi all!   Thank you in advance for any help you can give me!!    I parked up (at 18:08) in a rush, entered my Reg and paid for an hour of parking. At 18:20 I got a ticket for not paying for parking.    I've just looked at my receipt and noticed why ... I put "22" instead of "21"  when i put in my Reg. yes... what a stupid mistake.    I seem to remember there being a court case or a rule change about entering the wrong reg but the company wasn't at a loss because i had paid for the parking just technically for the wrong car. Am i making that up?    Any advice would be gratefully received, even some key points i have to hit when doing the appeal      
    • Man in the middle
      Summons to court for a S87 (1) offence

      By Man in the middle · Posted

      You haven't returned to the thread to give us your views, but a couple of other things strike me which you should consider: 1. You say that at no time was your father's licence revoked by the DVLA. It didn't have to be revoked. It expired in September and his "entitlement to drive" (of which the licence provides proof) expired along with it. He could only continue driving whilst his application was being processed by virtue of s88, and it seems clear to me (based on what you have said) that he was not able to take advantage of the benefits provided by that section. 2. The letter he received threatening to revoke his licence was probably a template letter sent when any medical issues are brought to the attention of the DVLA. But it is clear that beyond September until it was eventually renewed, your father had no valid licence to be revoked. I believe a "not guilty" plea in court will fail. The basic facts are that your father's licence expired in September, it was not renewed until February because the DVLA were looking into his medical declaration and he could not take advantage of s88. So in December he had no licence and no entitlement to drive under s88. The facts that he believed he was fit to drive and that his licence was eventually renewed may mitigate the offence but they do not provide a defence. I also asked whether he had received a summons (very unusual these days) or whether he had received a "Single Justice Procedure Notice". The way to proceed from here differs slightly depending on what he has received so if you let me know, I'll advise further.  
    • Andy111
      General question about CCJ's if not enforced or extended after 6 years

      By Andy111 · Posted

      Well, what I've read from various sources suggest if a CCJ is 6 years old that if becomes pretty much ineffective for enforcement purposes in its original form.  And that if it's about to expire then the claimant needs to apply to the court to extend the original CCJ within the final year.  Even if they do apply for an extension within the 6 years they have to have a very strong argument for doing so such as the person being out of the country or could not be traced, basically show they were actively still perusing the debt I guess. Now if a claimant ever does apply within the 6 years to extend the CCJ, would the person named on if be notified by the court that such an application has been made?.  In my case I've heard nothing from the court so assume no such application has been made.  The original CCJ in my own case is now a year beyond the 6 years of issue so must now make things even less likely again. So whilst the CCJ exists that they have not enforced it in that time must surely make it unlikely they can now take it back to court because as said it would be very rare for a judge to agree to such action now. That said, I guess they now can't use the CCJ to continue with any action for an attachment order to our mortgage either?
    • tobyjugg2
      US elections November 2024 [amended 18/04/24 - HB]

      By tobyjugg2 · Posted

      Donald Trump now banned from countries including Canada and UK as convicted felon WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK There are 37 countries that bar felons from entering, even to visit.  

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

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

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

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

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All

  • Recommended Topics

Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

Got final reminder for unpaid fine from court after 5 years plz help!!

shamsa01
 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4520 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

Old-CodJA

Old-CodJA

Posted
Posted
You'll receive a court date through the post. You can offer a settlement to the company right up until the court date, but whether they accept is entirely up to them. You need to act sooner rather than later if you want to offer a settlement, as it's gone about as far as it's likely to now!

 

If you ignore the summons and don't say anything HMCS will assume you're ignoring it unless they get stuff returned to them presumably, such as 'not known at this address'. Of course that's all well and good, but if a Bailiff attends to recover the debt and you happen to be there, you'll find it's a helluva lot worse for you than simply holding your hands up in the first place. If you genuinely moved house or something, you have the right to have the case re-scheduled and the case re-heard, this is what's known as a Statutory Declaration, and you must do this to the court.

 

Perhaps you missed it Stigy, but this OPs case already stems from a Statutory Declaration. It is a re-issued Summons

 

In my experience the prosecution are less likely to accept an administrative settlement offer in such cases because there is always the chance that the alleged offender had ignored the original prosecution.

 

This does not prevent the OP from writing and offering to pay the fare and all the admin costs in an effort to avoid Court of course.

 

The one thing that is certain is that if the defendant ignores a re-issued Summons and either fails to turn up, or enter a plea after having already made a Statutory Declaration, the prosecutor will remind the Magistrates of this once a conviction in absence has been announced and they will normally take a very dim view in passing sentence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Stigy

Stigy

Posted
Posted
Perhaps you missed it Stigy, but this OPs case already stems from a Statutory Declaration. It is a re-issued Summons

 

In my experience the prosecution are less likely to accept an administrative settlement offer in such cases because there is always the chance that the alleged offender had ignored the original prosecution.

 

This does not prevent the OP from writing and offering to pay the fare and all the admin costs in an effort to avoid Court of course.

 

The one thing that is certain is that if the defendant ignores a re-issued Summons and either fails to turn up, or enter a plea after having already made a Statutory Declaration, the prosecutor will remind the Magistrates of this once a conviction in absence has been announced and they will normally take a very dim view in passing sentence.

Indeed I did miss it, although now clearly in the title...whoops, it was late, lol!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Old-CodJA

Old-CodJA

Posted
Posted
The summons i have received are dated 5 and a half year back . They did not send me the new summons .What is meant by that.Ii am confused. Please advice .

 

If you told the Court you did not know about the original hearing, the rail company are permitted to re-issue the Summons alleging the offence without time limitation.

 

You are Summonsed to answer the charge that you committed an offence 5 and a half years ago.

 

It's now up to you to answer to the Court regarding that charge.

Link to post
Share on other sites
shamsa01

shamsa01

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I am going to attend the the court on 12th jan. I have got a solicitor now he is going to convince them for out of court settlement if not we are going to attend the court . lets see what happens now I have paid 600 pounds to the solicitor.

Link to post
Share on other sites
samsmoot

samsmoot

Posted
Posted

I just want to mention that summonses, fixed penalty tickets etc are often cocked up by the issuing party.

 

A similar case was won by a friend after it was spotted that the offence alleged on the summons was travelling without a ticket from station A to station B, whereas he actually got on at station B and off at station A - he simply did not commit the offence alleged on the summons.

 

And another friend got a fixed penalty notice for littering which failed to identify the offence - the actions of the person accused were described but the warden failed to identify the actual offence it constituted - he simply forgot to tick the box. Consequently the fixed penalty could not be paid, as no offence had been alleged, and that was the end of the matter because you have to be given the chance to pay the fixed penalty before it can be taken any further.

 

You lot on here are all very clever and know plenty but it's amazing what can sometimes be achieved by a little studying of the paperwork - standards have dropped a lot over the last few decades and you don't always get the professionalism you might expect. I would suggest that the OP looks (or I can do it if asked) at the paperwork to see if there are any discrepancies - you never know. I woudn't expect the solicitor to bother doing it.

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO SEND YOUR CHILD TO SCHOOL TOMORROW!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Old-CodJA

Old-CodJA

Posted
Posted
IYou lot on here are all very clever and know plenty but it's amazing what can sometimes be achieved by a little studying of the paperwork - standards have dropped a lot over the last few decades and you don't always get the professionalism you might expect. I would suggest that the OP looks (or I can do it if asked) at the paperwork to see if there are any discrepancies - you never know. I woudn't expect the solicitor to bother doing it.

 

Sending personal and very private documents, such as Court papers via the internet, or to any unknown and possibly unqualified person to read, is a blindingly silly, not to mention possibly dangerous thing to do.

 

Reading the papers accurately is what you are paying a qualified Solicitor £600 to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
samsmoot

samsmoot

Posted
Posted
Sending personal and very private documents, such as Court papers via the internet, or to any unknown and possibly unqualified person to read, is a blindingly silly, not to mention possibly dangerous thing to do.

 

Reading the papers accurately is what you are paying a qualified Solicitor £600 to do.

Yes, absolutely correct - solicitors care a great deal about people and always do their best to help their fellow man - yes, best stick to those who really care.

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO SEND YOUR CHILD TO SCHOOL TOMORROW!

Link to post
Share on other sites
shamsa01

shamsa01

Posted
  • Author
Posted

My solicitor has replied to them in writing and asked them for out of court settlement lets see if they agree or not. I know its going to be expensive but thats the best i can do to obtain legal advise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Old-CodJA

Old-CodJA

Posted
Posted (edited)
Yes, absolutely correct - solicitors care a great deal about people and always do their best to help their fellow man - yes, best stick to those who really care.

 

Your sarcasm is understood, but is misplaced samsmoot.

 

Working on the opposite side of the Courts from defence solicitors for a very long time leaves me with no illusions, BUT I would never advocate that anyone send any personal information via the internet, or via any other medium to an unknown third party.

 

I don't think CAG should encourage it either

Edited by Old-CodJA
Link to post
Share on other sites
samsmoot

samsmoot

Posted
Posted

Sorry for having to answer and now it looks like a thread hijacking, but if personal info is redacted then what's the problem? Sometimes the only way to get to the bottom of things is by closely studying the documents and that's what needs doing IMO. I would not trust a solicitor any more than I would me to do this properly, so the offer still stands - it would not be the first time I have looked at stuff for a cagger. Whether or not I am unknown or unqualified has no bearing on my ability to find discrepancies in the paperwork.

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO SEND YOUR CHILD TO SCHOOL TOMORROW!

Link to post
Share on other sites
rebel11

rebel11

Posted
Posted

As you say about solicitors, that might be the case, but solicitors are regulated and the consumer has a certain amount of comeback it they haven't carried out their work in a diligent way.

 

Sorry for having to answer and now it looks like a thread hijacking, but if personal info is redacted then what's the problem? Sometimes the only way to get to the bottom of things is by closely studying the documents and that's what needs doing IMO. I would not trust a solicitor any more than I would me to do this properly, so the offer still stands - it would not be the first time I have looked at stuff for a cagger. Whether or not I am unknown or unqualified has no bearing on my ability to find discrepancies in the paperwork.
Link to post
Share on other sites
shamsa01

shamsa01

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I have got a very important question .In my case judgment was given in my absence on 25 september 2006 which is more than 5 and a half year ,so that means the criminal offence is already been spent, so is there a possibility if i pay the "court fine" which is 178 pounds before the court hearing date i will be fine. But bear in mind I have already given statutory declaration as well. Please advise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Old-CodJA

Old-CodJA

Posted
Posted

Your Solicitor should already have told you that, when you made a statutory declaration to the effect that you 'did not know about the original prosecution' and once that was accepted by the Court, the original conviction was declared 'null & void'.

 

Therefore, you cannot now pay that fine because that conviction does not exist.

 

The rail company would have been advised by the Court that this was the case and they would have been told that the effect of the statutory declaration did not alter the validity of their information, so they could start the prosecution again without being restricted by the six-month rule.

 

This means that your summons date on 12th January is effectively a first hearing of the allegation. The prosecution starts afresh.

Link to post
Share on other sites
shamsa01

shamsa01

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Is there going to be a trail on 12th or i just have to plead guilty or not plead guilty, and the trail would be on later date. i am asking this because I want to save some money by not taking solicitor on 12th and plead not guilty and take him with me on the later date. Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites
honeybee13

honeybee13

Posted
Posted

Hello again.

 

I don't know if you've seen OC's stickied thread about going to court, but here's a link in case it helps. There's more than one post about court days.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?313909-What-happens-when-you-get-to-court-by-Old-CodJA

 

Reading that, it looks as though if you plead not guilty, proceedings will be adjourned and there will be a trial another day. Would a quick call to your lawyer resolve that?

 

My best, HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
shamsa01

shamsa01

Posted
  • Author
Posted

My solicitor has called me today and confirm that TFL has agreed for out of court settlement for 303 pounds. I am very thankful for all the support and advise I have received from this forum. Thanks to all of you. Bye

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...