Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have been living with my partner since 2013. But after the birth of our son in 2014 things became unstuck. We were living together but I was making plans to move out, even viewed properties etc and therefore began claiming CTC and WTC to ensure that I could afford to go it alone. Eventually we worked it out but it has been on and off for years. In addition to this, I was in a lot of debt, had lost my job and knew that (selfishly) I needed the tax credits to keep my head above water.  My partner has no idea that I was claiming and if he finds this out he will leave me for sure. The house, the bills, everything is in his name. I work but I dont make enough money to contribute to the house as well as pay all my existing debts (my partner doesn’t know about half of these either). I  once had a bailiff call at the house and I had to tell him about it. He was so angry and mortified (as was I) and I just feel like I am bringing so much shame onto our family. I have been living this lie for 6 years and I couldn’t find a way out of it. I know I have made a huge mistake. I just want to pay it back and try to move on from it. I’m worried that I will have to go to court, prison, or they will want to speak to my partner about it. I really don’t want him to know about this because it’s so shameful. From my estimations it could be between 28-30K. I have absolutely no idea how I will pay it back, as we wouldn’t be able to claim any further credits as a joint claim because he earns too much money.  I haven’t eaten or slept in days. I feel physically sick and I just can’t cope with the guilt and humiliation. I did make false claims and now I’m worried I will pay the ultimate price and lose everything I have.    
    • Hi All,   Hoping for a little help and advice please.   This company Link Financial are chasing me for a debt that I had as a credit card with Royal Bank of Scotland. Out of the blue and having no correspondence from RBS a few year back this company claimed I now owed them the sum of money. I have written in response stating I do not acknowledge any debt to Link financial and asked them to supply evidence of liability. I also requested a true copy of the alleged agreement, a full statement of account, a signed true copy of assignment and any other documents referred to in the agreement. I also enclosed  a £1 payment for the credit agreement request and clearly stated that this £1 payment under no circumstances should be set aside for any alleged debt and if the documentation can't be supplied the fee should be returned.   Link's response was just a small statement of account with credit agreement number, account number (same as the RBS number), date of agreement and transaction sheet where they had taken the £1 fee off the debt value after I asked them not to. There was no true copy of assignment, true copy of alleged agreement or evidence of liability.   For reference, In 2009 my debts started to mount after my wife I had lost a child and we weren't at work for months, so ended up paying the mortgage on a credit card. Eventually it got too much and the RBS took me to county court in 2011 where I received a CCJ and then RBS was granted a charging order on my property which is in my name only. I was ordered to pay a monthly fee.    I received my first letter from Link in 2016 just stating, we have not written to you in some time as we have had to locate your address. We would like to discuss your intentions regarding the outstanding balance on  your account. I had no correspondence from RBS about this so I thought this was a scam company.  Unbeknown to me I also realised the monthly payment to the RBS had stopped being taken directly from my account.   After a few letters backwards and forwards about me disputing Link and this debt today 26th February 2021 I have now received another letter from Link stating. As you are aware a charging order on the beneficial interest you have in the property at.........has been secured. They are now seeking payment and will accept monthly payments on the account in accordance with my current financial situation. If I chose not to settle in full or fail to complete and return the form below or contact them within 7 days they will take further legal recovery action. There is a little boxed section at the bottom monthly or weekly payments for me to fill in and send off.   I'm really at my wits end now of what to do next. I have two years left on my mortgage and finding it really hard to get through that two year financially, especially since this pandemic has really hit home money wise. The last thing I need is the family home to be taken away especially with a 10 year old in the home.    I really appreciate any help and guidance. Thank you.    
    • OK lets pick out a few words in the ramble   Free energy?  Slavery?  Constructive manslaughter?  Weaponised energy of 5g Biowarfare Only wearing medical masks for criminal intent   Please may I suggest an extra layer of foil on the tin hat?    Oh and FYI there is no class action in the UK... 
    • i thought that was the point of mediation, to show them that you think they havent got a case to go to court with? I realise you know far more about this type of thing than i do though, but i thought that not fulfilling the CCA properly - ie by not supplying t&c - was an automatic fail at court for them.   I dont know what to do now -   @Andyorchcan i have your thoughts too please   the hassle just makes you feel like giving in to them
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2463 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Ended up with a Notice of Intended Prosecution for doing 65 MPH on the M1. The NIP says the variable speed limit was 50 MPH.

 

Seems a bit unfair given the normal speed limited of 70 MPH on the motorway, but life is unfair.

 

I am 1 MPH over so I am not eligible for the speed awareness course.

 

NIP Details and Circumstances

What is the name of the Constabulary? - z9y4jVowuam4ebITTU7SR6IXx_hPvCK-h7-xa0Yd9DeVaVezYHWb_NvOe2kWtq4DC9.gif

Date of the offence: - December 2013

Date of the NIP: - 11 days after the offence

Date you received the NIP: - 12 days after the offence

Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - M1 Motorway, Northbound, Bedfordshire

Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes

Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - Not known

If your are not the Registered Keeper, what is your relationship to the vehicle? -

How many current points do you have? - 0

Provide a description of events (if you know what happened) telling us as much about the incident as possible - some things that may seem trivial to you may be important, so don't leave anything out. Please do not post personal details for obvious reasons - NIP states I was going 65MPH and the variable speed limit was 50MPH.

 

NIP Wizard Responses

These were the responses used by the Wizard to arrive at its recommendation:

Have you received a NIP? - Yes

Are you the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned (is your name and address on the V5/V5C)? - Yes

Did the first NIP arrive within 14 days? - Yes

Although you are the Registered Keeper, were you also the keeper of the vehicle concerned (the person normally responsible for it) at the time of the alleged offence? - Yes

Were you driving? - Yes

Which country did the alleged offence take place in? - England

Edited by GuidoT

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to defend using the vague locus argument and have drafted that below, does anyone have any helpful comments?

 

 

 

I am in receipt of the above Notice of Intended Prosecution (‘NIP’) and for ease of reference enclose a copy herewith.

 

As you should be aware, where the driver was not stopped at the time, Section 1(1) c) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 requires that in order for a NIP to be valid, the alleged offence locus must be given therein, viz:

 

c) within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a notice of the intended prosecution specifying the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed, was—

 

(i) in the case of an offence under section 28 or 29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (cycling offences), served on him,

 

(ii) in the case of any other offence, served on him or on the person, if any, registered as the keeper of the vehicle at the time of the commission of the offence.

 

 

The said NIP states ’50 MPH Variable Speed Limit, M1 Motorway, Northbound, Bedfordshire, UNITED KINGDOM’. I am unable to determine where exactly the location the NIP is referring to. As far as I can determine the said motorway section is about 15 miles long.

 

I rely on the Divisional Court judgement of Young v Day (1959) 123 J.P. 317. In this case, it was held that‘the Hothfield to Bethersden Road’, which was a minor road 4 miles long, was insufficiently specific, it therefore follows that 15 miles will be similarly insufficient.

 

Further, I would refer you to the following comments by Lord Parker (making the lead judgement) in the said case:

 

‘it is obvious that they could have been more specific because, even if they could not specify the place by reference to an intersection, a building, or a church, they could indicate that the alleged offence took place a quarter of a mile from Hothfield or half a mile from Bethersden, or wherever the place was.’.

 

The M1 motorway section mentioned in the NIP is not featureless; there are both junctions and overbridges to which the NIP could have referred. Bearing that in mind and Lord Parker's comments referring to the accuracy required, on an apparently featureless minor road, it is clear that the locus of the offence in the NIP is excessively vague to constitute a valid notice.

 

Accordingly the NIP is a nullity.

 

Notwithstanding and without prejudice and to avoid malicious prosecution under s.172 Road Traffic Act 1988, I provide below the details required by the NIP as follows:

 

Driver name:

Licence number:

Date of birth:

Issuing country: England

Licence issued by:

Address and contact details:

 

The above is provided under duress to avoid a criminal sanction solely to satisfy any potential duty under s.172 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I'm Not 100% Sure But I Believe Using Th"Vague Locus" Defence You Have To Show You Was Disadvantaged In Preparing Your Defence Via The Lack Of Specific Location.

You Seem To Just Have The Argument They Should Be More Specific Because They Could Have.

You Acknowledge You Was Speeding, So If You Have Clean License I'd Recommend Taking It On The Chin. Going To Court On Technicalities Can End Up Expensive If You Lose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

they usually have variable speed limits down to 50mph in that area when they are doing roadworks,this is to protect the workforce,usually there are cameras in use,I would be very careful myself of contesting this as most courts would tend to throw the book at you

Link to post
Share on other sites

all they will do is get the excat gps location of the camera which i presume will be behind the vairiable gantry speed limit sign and tell you, then your scuppered.

i would seriously consider taking the points n fine as a lesson learned to keep to the speed limit posted

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Without wishing to tempt fate, looks like the vague locus argument worked as I have not heard anything else.

 

I see that they have now changed the description on NIPs to others to something more accurate, e.g. stating the actual junction number.

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Guido,

I hope you are right. Did you send your response recorded delivery and was it signed for? Even this is not definitive. Some SCPs max out and deal with the impending cases so it's brinkmanship all the way - NIPs sent 13 days after, cases laid 5 months 29 days etc. If they have lost a case or more on vague locus then you might be lucky. I wonder if the 1mph over SAC works in your favour: SAC is profit, Court is overhead to SCP. NIP wizard looks like pepipoo, some good expertise there.

Not that it helps at court, but the controlled study by Transport Research Laboratory report TRL595 now in public domain showed an increase in accidents with speed cameras used at roadworks. It's actually safer for the workmen *without* cameras. My view is people spend less time focussing on their speedo and more time looking at the road.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

So having tempted fate above, I heard from them shortly after wherein they provided a further description of the location.

 

This provision of a further description to my mind amount to an admission that the first description was inadequate and the NIP invalid given that the information needs to be provided within 14 days of the offence.

 

It has been around 5 months since the offence, I have seen a very similar case where they have dropped it, let us see what the next month brings.

Edited by GuidoT

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

That is then end of this phoned them (knowing the 6 months passed) and they have decided not to prosecute.

 

I do not an advocate of speeding, but 65 MPH on the M1 does not really deserve a fine and points.

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...