Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

Danger of injury due to vehicle condition - questions/assistance


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4040 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 everyone

 

my housemate i trying to sort out a strange problem that occurred a couple of week back.

 

He was stopped for having a bumper missing on his work van, just the cosmetic bumper not anything safety-wise. they gave him a traffic offence report (ticket i guess) for RT88457 for "danger of injury due to vehicle condition" in the "vehicle defect rectification scheme" section, nothing is written about that that condition is or mention of the bumper area, no photos taken, etc.

 

after hearing form him it appears the constable was a bit unsure what of what he was doing and no offer to get the van fixed within a time was offered. he was given a FPN of £60 and 3 points and a caution. This to me sounds completely over the top, i don't know much but I presume he should have given him the option to get it fixed within 14 days or something but straight went straight to all this....

 

He said that whilst in the car the officers have problem with the spelling of his name, they got it wrong, he challenged them politely about them entering an "n"where there was not one it it appears they got the hump for making a mistake and this may have led to them going this far.

 

he has gone up to station to speak to the constables supervisor to try and sort it out and complain and is waiting for a call back from a sergeant. whilst there the desk officer entered into a light hearted chat about the new forms being not very good and them having a number of complaints about them which was ironic considering.

 

Does anyone here know anything about this or what steps to take. it just strikes me as a something that has not been done properly and now he has to put up with higher insurance and a caution for potentially nothing?

 

thanks in advance

Link to post
Share on other sites

the bumpers on vehicles are really there to save cutting up/badly injuring a person if hit by the vehicle,obviously that only works at a slow speed though,but without the bumper there are sharp metal edges on most vehicles,thats what hes been fined for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the bumpers on vehicles are really there to save cutting up/badly injuring a person if hit by the vehicle,obviously that only works at a slow speed though,but without the bumper there are sharp metal edges on most vehicles,thats what hes been fined for.

 

yeah, fully understand that.

 

does anyone know why the the 14 days to rectify was not offered

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, very much over the top a fine and points

 

He should have been given vehicle defect notice and had the repairs modified within the time scale

 

I cannot understand what offence has been committed to warrant this punishment, might be an idea to send an email to the traffic division of your police force for confirmation, or even contact VOSA

 

Unsure if the law has been changed but i would challenge this

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, very much over the top a fine and points

 

he should have been given vehicle defect notice and had the repairs modified within the time scale

 

i cannot understand what offence has been committed to warrant this punishment, might be an idea to send an email to the traffic division of your police force for confirmation, or even contact vosa

 

unsure if the law has been changed but i would challenge this

 

Thanks, it does seem over the top. the problem is, as with all of these things, knowledge of how it works. Why was he cautioned as well as the fine and points is something that does not make sense to me or him? Do you get both or is the first two proper procedure?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are cautioned under PACE for a traffic offence?

 

This was not an offence under the Road Traffic Act to justify a caution

 

thanks, im not sure I know what you mean? do you mean that he should not have been cautioned due the wrong legislation?

Link to post
Share on other sites

A caution is used if the offence will warrant a possible prosecution due to a criminal act/offence

 

This was a vehicle defect of a minor matter

 

I understand you can get points for a brake light being out, but that is an immediate safety hazard. Even that does not warrant a caution under pace

 

I would try and find out under what offence you were cautioned to begin with

Link to post
Share on other sites

A caution is used if the offence will warrant a possible prosection due to a criminal act

 

this was a vehicle defect of a minor matter

 

i understand you can get points for a brake light being out, but that is an immediate safety hazard. Even that does not warrant a caution under pace

 

i would try and find out under what offence you were cautioned to begin with

 

I see, thanks, ill pass that on when he gets back

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I can tell The vehicle defect rectification scheme is non-statutory and at the discretion of the police. So he can certainly ask to be included in it, but he has no right to demand to be included - if he committed the offence he an be prosecuted for it. Generally it's used for relatively minor defects which the diver may not have been aware of, like blown bulbs or tyres slightly below the minimum tread depth. The occifer may have taken the view that he can't have failed to notice that the bumper was missing, so had already had ample opportunity to fix it. Or he any have thought that your mate was getting snarky. Or he any just not have been very sure of what he was doing. No harm in going up the line and asking why he wasn't given a VDRS, but the fact that he wasn't given one wouldn't give him any defence in court if the sergeant says no.

 

If he doesn't think the condition of te vehicle was bad enough to cause a danger of injury he can reject the fixed penalty and take it to court where the prosecution will have to prove that it did. As citizenkain says though, without the bumper there would likely have been sharp edges/protusions which could have caused injury to a pedestrian in an accident. He'd be risking a bigger fine but no more points if he was convicted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I can tell The vehicle defect rectification scheme is non-statutory and at the discretion of the police. So he can certainly ask to be included in it, but he has no right to demand to be included - if he committed the offence he an be prosecuted for it. Generally it's used for relatively minor defects which the diver may not have been aware of, like blown bulbs or tyres slightly below the minimum tread depth. The occifer may have taken the view that he can't have failed to notice that the bumper was missing, so had already had ample opportunity to fix it. Or he any have thought that your mate was getting snarky. Or he any just not have been very sure of what he was doing. No harm in going up the line and asking why he wasn't given a VDRS, but the fact that he wasn't given one wouldn't give him any defence in court if the sergeant says no.

 

If he doesn't think the condition of te vehicle was bad enough to cause a danger of injury he can reject the fixed penalty and take it to court where the prosecution will have to prove that it did. As citizenkain says though, without the bumper there would likely have been sharp edges/protusions which could have caused injury to a pedestrian in an accident. He'd be risking a bigger fine but no more points if he was convicted.

 

thank man, pretty well summarised. this all gives him a nice list of some things to ask or do, thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are cautioned under PACE for a traffic offence?

 

This was not an offence under the Road Traffic Act to justify a caution

 

Using a vehicle in a dangerous condition is an offence contrary to s.40A, Road Traffic Act 1988, where a caution could be given.

Link to post
Share on other sites

so, with that in mind, if he has been incorrectly cautioned, how do you rectify that?

What do you mean by a caution?

 

(1) A formal police caution as an alternative to prosecution

(2) a pre-interview caution - "you do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do not mention... etc"

(3) an informal telling off for driving with no bumper

 

(1) is not generally used for traffic offences, and certainly should not be used in conjunction with a fixed penalty. With (2) there isn't really anything to rectify as it would only be relevant if they wanted to rely on something he'd said in court, which would not generally be necessary for an offence like this. With (3) again there's nothing to rectify - the policeman can give him some choice words of advice if he wants to, and they won't be recorded anywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean by a caution?

 

(1) A formal police caution as an alternative to prosecution

(2) a pre-interview caution - "you do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do not mention... etc"

(3) an informal telling off for driving with no bumper

 

(1) is not generally used for traffic offences, and certainly should not be used in conjunction with a fixed penalty. With (2) there isn't really anything to rectify as it would only be relevant if they wanted to rely on something he'd said in court, which would not generally be necessary for an offence like this. With (3) again there's nothing to rectify - the policeman can give him some choice words of advice if he wants to, and they won't be recorded anywhere.

 

it was a section at the bottom of the Traffic Offence Report where he makes a comment and signs. im at work atm so can give any more detail but will check when I get home and add more detail.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...