Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • If anybody has any advice here, it would be greatly appreciated, I already suffer with pre-existing disabilities & have struggled with this so far. 
    • so return of goods order etc etc read upload  scan pages to jpg, redact in mspaint. the convert to and merge to one mass PDF  read upload and use the online listed sites for all 3 stages. do you want to keep the car? i will guess this was a manual paper claimform direct from the co.court or was it org sent from salford bulk processing and has just got reaq ssigned?      
    • Speaking of the reformatory boys, here they are with all of their supporters, some of whom traveled with them from miles away, all carefully crammed together and photographed to look like there were more than about 80 .. rather like Farages last rally with even fewer people crammed around what looked like an ice cream van or mobile tea bar ... Although a number in the crowd apparently thought they were at a vintage car rally as they appeared to be chanting 'crank-her'. A vintage Bentley must be out of view.   Is this all there is? Its less than the Tory candidate. - shut up and smile while they get a camera angle that looks better
    • in order for us to help you we require the following information:- Which Court have you received the claim from ? Canterbury Name of the Claimant ? Moneybarn No 1   How many defendant's  joint or self ? One Date of issue –  29/05/24 Acknowledged by 14/06/24  Defence by 29/06/24  Particulars of Claim PARTICULARS OF CLAIM 1.  By a Conditional Sale Agreement in writing made on 25th August 2022. Between the Claimant and Defendant, the Claimant let to the Defendant on Conditional Sale. A Ford Ranger 3.2 TDCi (200 P S) 4x4 Wildtrack Double Cab Pickup 3200cc (Sep.2015) Registration No, ******* Chassis number ***************** (“The Vehicle”).  A copy of the agreement is attached  2.  The price of the goods was £15,995.00. The Initial Rental was £8500.00.  The total charge for credit was £3575.;17 And the balance of £11,070.17 was payable by 59 equal consecutive monthly instalments of £187 63. payable on the 25th of each month. 3.  The following were expressed conditions of the set agreement, Clause 8: Our Right to End this Agreement  8.1   Subject to sending you the notice as required by law, any of the following events will entitle us to end this Agreement: 8.1.2  You fail to pay the advance payment (if any) or any of the payments as specified on the front page of this agreement or any other sum payable under this Agreement. 8.1.3 If any of the information you have given us before entering into this Agreement or during the term of this Agreement was false 8.1.4 We consider, acting reasonably, that the goods may be in jeopardy or that our rights in the goods may otherwise be prejudiced. 8.1.5 If you die 8.1.6 If a bankruptcy petition is presented against you; if you petition for your own bankruptcy, or make a live arrangement with your creditors or call a meeting of them. 8. 1.7 If in Scotland, you become insolvent or sequestration or a receiver, judicial factor or trustee to be appointed over any of your estate, or effects or suffer an arrestment, charge attachment or other diligence to be issued or levied on any of your estate or effects or suffer any exercise, or threatened exercise of landlords hype hypothec 8.1.8 If you are a partnership, you are dissolved 8.1.9 If the goods are destroyed, lost, stolen and/or treated by the insurer as a total loss in response to an insurance claim. 8.1.10 If we reasonably believe any payment made to us in respect of this Agreement is a proceed of crime. 8.1.11 If steps are taken by us to terminate any other agreement which you have entered into with us. Clause 9.  Effect of Us Terminating Agreement 9.1 If this Agreement terminates under clause 8 the following will apply 9.1.1 Subject to the rights given to you by law, you will no longer be entitled to possession of the goods and must return them to us to an address as we may reasonably specify, (removing or commencing the removal of any cherished plates) together with a V5 registration certificate, both sets of keys and a service record book. If you are unable or unwilling to return the goods to us then we shall collect the goods and we'll charge you in accordance with clause 10.3 9.1.2 We will be entitled to immediate payment from you for all payments and all other sums do under this agreement at the date of termination 9.1.3 We will sell the goods or public sale at the earliest opportunity once the goods are in a reasonable condition which includes a return of the items listed in clause 7.1.4 9.1.4 We will be entitled to immediate payment from you of the rest of the Total Amount Payable under this agreement less: ( a) A rebate for early settlement ias required by law which will be calculated and notified to you at the time of payment (b) The proceeds of sale of the goods (if any) after deduction of all costs associated with finding you and/or the goods, recovery, refurbishment and repair. Insurance, storage, sale, agents fees, cherished plate removal, replacement keys, costs associated with obtaining service history for the goods and in relation to obtaining a duplicate V5 registration certificate 4, The following are particulars required by Civil Procedure Rules. Rule 7.9 as set out in 7.1 and 7.2 of the associated Practice Direction entitled Hire Purchase Claims:- a)     The agreement is dated 25 August 2022. And is between Moneybarn No1 Limited  and xxxxxxxxx under agreement  number xxxxxx. b)    The claimant was one of the original parties to the agreement. c)    The agreement is regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. d)    The goods claimed Ford Ranger 3.2 TDCi ( 200 PS) 4x4 Wildtrack Double Cab Pickup 3200 cc (Sep2015} Registration No ^^^^^^^ Chassis number ***************** e)     The total price of the goods £19570 f)     The paid up sum £1206 5 g)    The unpaid balance of the total price £7505 (to include charges) h)    A default notice was sent to the defendant on 20th February 2024 by First class post i)      The date when the right to demand delivery of the goods accrued 14 March 2024 j)      The amount if any claimed as an alternative to delivery of the goods 7505 22 include charges 5.  At the date of service of the notice the instalments were £562.89 in arrears. 6. By reason of the Termination of the Agreement by the notice, defendant became liable to pay the sum of £7502 7. The date of maturity the agreement is 24th August 2027. 8. Further or alternative by reasons of  the Defendant breaches of the agreement by failing to pay the said instalments, the Defendant evinced an intention no longer to be bound by the Agreement and repudiated it by the said Notice the claimant accepted that repudiation 9. By reason of such repudiation the claimant has suffered loss and damage. Total amount payable £19570 Less sum paid or in arrears by the date of repudiation £12064 97 Balance £7505 (to include charges.) ( The claimant will give credit if necessary for the value of the vehicle if recovered.)  The claimant therefore claims 1.    An order for delivery up of the vehicle 2.    The MoneyClaim to be adjourned generally with liberty to restore,  Upon restoration of the MoneyClaim following return or loss of the vehicle. the Claimant will ensure the pre action protocol for debt claims is followed. 3.    Pursuant to s 90 (1)  of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. An order that the Claimant and/or its agents may enter any premises in which the vehicle is situated in order to recover the vehicle should it not be returned by the Defendant 4.    further or alternatively damages 5.    costs Statement of truth The Claimant believes that the facts stated in these Particulars of Claim are true. The Claimant understands that the proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes or causes to be made a false statement in the document for verified by statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. I am duly Authorised by the Claimant to sign these Particulars of Claim signed Dated 17th of April 2024  What is the total value of the claim? 7502   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? No   Never heard of this   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? n/a Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? No   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After  Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? In a garage  Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes  Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Original Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? n/a   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? They said sent but nor received   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? None seen   Why did you cease payments? Still Paying,   What was the date of your last payment? Yesterday  31st May 2024   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? Yes on 12 Feb 2024   What you need to do now.   Can't scan, will do via another means as you cant have jpg  
    • Now that is an interesting article which adds afew perspective that I hadn't thought significant - but on reflection of the perspectives offered ... Now Starmer is no Blair, however 'blairite he may be perceived, but the Tories aren't tories and aren't even remotely liberal   The fast 'unannounced and unexpected election call from sunack may well be explained by the opinion linked that he hoped reform would be unprepared and effectively call a chunk of Farages largely empty bluster - making him look even more of a prat, leave scope for attacks on shabby reform candidates and mimimise core vote losses to reform - while throwing the 'middle ground' (relative) tories TO THE DOGS - and with the added bonus of likely pacifying his missu' desire to jogg off to sunny cal tout suite somewhat   thumb in the air - I expect about 140ish tory seats, but can hope for under a hundred Reform - got to admit the outside possibility of 1, maybe 2 seats with about 8% of the vote - but unlikely. I think projections of over 10% of the vote for reform is nudged and paid for speculation - but possible with the expected massive drives from Russian, Chinese and far right social media bot and troll prods targeting the gullible.
  • 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

NIP for crossing train level crossing **FPN of £50 and no points**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2983 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

My betting is that is says so on the signs above the phone, you can see one across the other side as well. I can't see you have much hope here.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]49279[/ATTACH]

 

The other sign is not confusing, the wording makes it quite clear that if you are driving a low loaded lorry you could ground.

 

Conniff, I think you may well be correct that it says so on the signs above the phone although I cannot tell from the photograph. But, surely anything on that sign would only be read if you approached the phone and if that was the case then wouldn't that be considered as the notice being too late to be adhered to, as stated in the Road Traffic Signals Manual Chapter 1 - 1.2. :-

Signs must give road users their message clearly and at the correct time. The message must be unambiguous and speedily understood; it must be given not too soon for the

information to have been forgotten before it is needed, and not too late for the safe performance of consequent manoeuvres.

 

That would be my opinion; but I would happily bow to your opinion if it differs to mine, considering your extensive knowledge of many of these situations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

That is exactly the point you can only be able to prosecute you if they are able to prove beyond reasonable doubt and with many motoring offences unless there is photographic evidence then there is reasonable doubt.

 

Fallacious.

You said "Yes there is specific requirements for photographic evidence on some offences", and can't substantiate that : you've been asked which offences but can't give examples - likely because you can't accept you are wrong.

 

Now you claim they are only able to prosecute if they can prove beyond reasonable doubt .... but that is the court's role in reaching a verdict, not the prosecution's on deciding which should be prosecuted.

 

The CPS are the main organisation that decide on if a criminal prosecution should take place. Their 'yardstick' is two-fold:

a) that prosecution is in the public interest, and

b) that Crown Prosecutors must be satisfied there is enough evidence to provide a "realistic prospect of conviction" against each defendant.

 

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown_prosecutors/

 

If you wish to rely on statements like "Yes there is specific requirements for photographic evidence on some offences" in court, the "prove it " and "be precise, because you've got it wrong" you've seen here won't be a patch on what you'll likely face in court!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fallacious.

You said "Yes there is specific requirements for photographic evidence on some offences", and can't substantiate that : you've been asked which offences but can't give examples - likely because you can't accept you are wrong.

 

Now you claim they are only able to prosecute if they can prove beyond reasonable doubt .... but that is the court's role in reaching a verdict, not the prosecution's on deciding which should be prosecuted.

 

The CPS are the main organisation that decide on if a criminal prosecution should take place. Their 'yardstick' is two-fold:

a) that prosecution is in the public interest, and

b) that Crown Prosecutors must be satisfied there is enough evidence to provide a "realistic prospect of conviction" against each defendant.

 

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown_prosecutors/

 

If you wish to rely on statements like "Yes there is specific requirements for photographic evidence on some offences" in court, the "prove it " and "be precise, because you've got it wrong" you've seen here won't be a patch on what you'll likely face in court!

 

In which case can you explain how someone caught speeding on the motorway by the gantry cameras can be prosecuted without photographic evidence ?

I was not fellacious, it is you being pedantic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In which case can you explain how someone caught speeding on the motorway by the gantry cameras can be prosecuted without photographic evidence ?

I was not fellacious, it is you being pedantic.

 

If caught by a gantry camera : the court can't require a camera to take the witness stand, and the photos are entered into evidence instead. (I suspect you knew that anyway)

 

However, this doesn't mean that the offence of excess speed always requires photographic evidence : the evidence of a suitably qualified traffic police officer would suffice, for example.

In the end it is for the court to weigh the evidence in front of it, photographic or otherwise.

 

No matter how you try to spin it, you still can't come up with an offence that always mandates photographic evidence to be proven.

 

Sometimes the evidence is photographic and sometimes it isn't, but it isn't always required to be photographic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi all, apologies for my absence, I had to go away for work for a while.

 

Thank you for all the comments. I have taken the NIP and edited it and attached. Looks all normal to my uneducated eye.

The whole thing was that I was CONFUSED by the signs, taking them to mean heavy vehicles need to phone. I wasn't being lazy and not phoning, I genuinely thought the signs meant for large vehicles.

 

So with me being away, I need to get the NIP back to them by the 11th. The attached scan is of Part A. There is another sheet with part B, Part C and Part D where I can explain myself.

 

Now looking at the alleged offences, they state 2 incidences:

Driver of vehicle failed to inform and the 2nd one, vehicle crossed tracks in front of train causing train to brake.

 

In my part D I propose to say the following:

 

"Due to the nature and location of the various signs it led me to believe that all heavy vehicles should stop and phone for permission. The signage is very ambiguous and not immediately clear as to the correct course of action. In the second part of the alleged offense, it is stated that the vehicle crossed in front of the train, causing it to brake. This is in fact incorrect. On seeing the train approach, I waited for the train to pass me and on visual inspection I then determined the track was clear to cross. A short distance away from the crossing the train came to a complete stop, before I had even crossed the tracks. I propose that the train was in fact in the process of slowing down before it passed the crossing as it was coming up to a red light which is a short distance away from the crossing."

 

Any suggestions/comments? What I'm curious about is how did they get my reg no.?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

Hmm, I would of thought that to bring a successful prosecution, they will need some evidence in the form of some CCTV footage of the 'incident' or a witness statement. Both of which should be made available to you prior to any court hearing. Have you spoken to a solicitor yet about this?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which offences have specific requirements for photographic evidence?.

 

Speed cameras provide photographic evidence but even so a prosecution for speeding doesn't require photographic evidence : evidence from a police officer may suffice (for example)

 

I'm not aware of any offence that has a specific requirement for photographic evidence : just that the evidence (photos or otherwise) can be tested (if need be) in court, to the criminal standard of proof ("beyond all reasonable doubt")

 

You are right, it's not the offence, it's the detection mechanism. Devices approved for unattended operation need a second corroborating detection mechanism eg: Gatso's radar + photos. If the two don't agree to 10% then there is insufficient evidence. Somewhere I recall 'shall not be convicted on the word of one officer alone', and there is good legislative support for 'Formed Opinion' confirmed by a device that is regularly ignored in court, where the reverse order seems to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi All,

I have not updated this for a while as I heard nothing since I sent the NIP back to BT Police until tonight.

 

Received a phone call from the PC investigating and

he said on reviewing my reply I sent them and speaking to the driver of the train,

they are dropping the alleged offense of crossing in front of the train (which I did not do),

but they are prepared to offer me a police caution for not using the phone before crossing.

 

This will have to involve me going to the BT station,

and admitting that I crossed without using the phone,

and then I will receive a police caution and would not need to go to court.

 

Can anyone please explain to me what this would involve,

what implications this would mean to me, etc.

 

I have never had anything remotely like this happen to me previously.

 

I still contend that I was confused by the signage, so did not do it on purpose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the bottom lines is its a verbal a slap on the wrist.

 

end of the matter

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All, I have not updated this for a while as I heard nothing since I sent the NIP back to BT Police until tonight. Received a phone call from the PC investigating and he said on reviewing my reply I sent them and speaking to the driver of the train, they are dropping the alleged offense of crossing in front of the train (which I did not do), but they are prepared to offer me a police caution for not using the phone before crossing.

 

This will have to involve me going to the BT station, and admitting that I crossed without using the phone, and then I will receive a police caution and would not need to go to court.

 

Can anyone please explain to me what this would involve, what implications this would mean to me, etc. I have never had anything remotely like this happen to me previously.

I still contend that I was confused by the signage, so did not do it on purpose.

 

Do you require an eDBS?. A caution would show on an enhanced DBS.

 

However, if the offence is a "strict liability" one then lack of intent doesn't matter : either you did it or you didn't. What exactly are they now saying you could be given a formal caution for?. Is it a strict liability offence?

Link to post
Share on other sites

They did not say. He just said it would show on my police record as a caution, but no one would know about it, not even employer etc.

 

He also just said that I would be given a caution for driving through the crossing without using the phone. I didn't admit anything, just agreed to see him at the BT police station next week.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They did not say. He just said it would show on my police record as a caution, but no one would know about it, not even employer etc.

 

He also just said that I would be given a caution for driving through the crossing without using the phone. I didn't admit anything, just agreed to see him at the BT police station next week.

 

He would say that, wouldn't he ......

How does he know for sure that you aren't about to apply for a job that requires an eDBS, where any caution wouldn't be regarded as 'spent '?

 

http://www.nacro.org.uk/what-we-do/resettlement-advice-service/advice/frequently-asked-questions/criminal-records-and-dbs-crb-checks,1616,NAP.html#15

Link to post
Share on other sites

After a few days of thinking, I've decided I'm going to refuse to accept the caution. I still believe that I was in the right and that the signage is confusing.

 

I'm also wondering why the first part of the alleged offense was dropped, namely the crossing in front of the train causing train to brake. Obviously they questioned the driver again and got the correct answer.

 

I'm going to print out the following to show the Bt police who wants to see me:

 

http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/@motor/documents/digitalasset/dg_191955.pdf

 

Page 28 shows the exact same sign that says park here and use phone...it states:

Place where drivers of large

or slow vehicles should park

near a level crossing while

contacting the signal operator.

 

I'm going to argue that this first sign I saw in the following photo (bottom sign)

[ATTACH=CONFIG]51020[/ATTACH]

 

Does anyone have any suggestions how to go about this?

What is likely to happen if I refuse the caution?

 

Questions I would like to ask the BT police:

 

1. Why did you drop the first part of the alleged offense.

2. how did you record my car reg number.

 

Any other questions anyone can think of?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I had my chat with the BT police this morning at Norwich Train station. I showed them all the signs involved, showed them the relevant bits in the "know your roadsigns" taken from the directgov website, and argued that I did not break any road traffic act regulations, as nowhere does it state motor vehicles HAVE to phone, and indeed the sign does say HEAVY vehicles need to phone.

 

The PC listened to what I had to say, then basically said "OK, I need to go through this form with you so we can get the story properly, and I need you to sign here..."

When I basically told him I'm not in a position to accept a caution over this at the moment. He looked totally bewildered and went to speak to his Sgt, who then came to speak to me.

 

He maintains that yes, the road traffic act does not state that I MUST phone to find out about trains coming, but that according to the Office of Rail regulations, ALL vehicles need to phone when crossing user and that I should be familiar with this law as well as a road user.

 

He then went on to say that he has no option, that I either need to accept the caution, or he would then be forced to hand it over to the Magistrate's Court.

 

The reasons I gave them for not accepting the caution:

 

a. I believe the signage and law to be ambiguous.

b. I'm going to be applying for my Citizenship shortly and there is a prerequisite in the application that the "applicant be a member of Good Standing" I'm fairly certain that with a caution on my record it would perhaps show I'm not of good standing and might influence my citizenship application.

 

He basically then said he advises I get legal advice and to contact them within 24 hours to let them know if I'm accepting the caution, which means I would need to go back to see them, or if I'm refusing the caution, which means they'll forward it on to the Magistrate's Court. He also confirmed driver wrote down my car reg number after he had passed my car.

Edited by UKDomains
added section
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I had my chat with the BT police this morning at Norwich Train station. I showed them all the signs involved, showed them the relevant bits in the "know your roadsigns" taken from the directgov website, and argued that I did not break any road traffic act regulations, as nowhere does it state motor vehicles HAVE to phone, and indeed the sign does say HEAVY vehicles need to phone.

 

The PC listened to what I had to say, then basically said "OK, I need to go through this form with you so we can get the story properly, and I need you to sign here..."

When I basically told him I'm not in a position to accept a caution over this at the moment. He looked totally bewildered and went to speak to his Sgt, who then came to speak to me.

 

He maintains that yes, the road traffic act does not state that I MUST phone to find out about trains coming, but that according to the Office of Rail regulations, ALL vehicles need to phone when crossing user and that I should be familiar with this law as well as a road user.

 

He then went on to say that he has no option, that I either need to accept the caution, or he would then be forced to hand it over to the Magistrate's Court.

 

The reasons I gave them for not accepting the caution:

 

a. I believe the signage and law to be ambiguous.

b. I'm going to be applying for my Citizenship shortly and there is a prerequisite in the application that the "applicant be a member of Good Standing" I'm fairly certain that with a caution on my record it would perhaps show I'm not of good standing and might influence my citizenship application.

 

He basically then said he advises I get legal advice and to contact them within 24 hours to let them know if I'm accepting the caution, which means I would need to go back to see them, or if I'm refusing the caution, which means they'll forward it on to the Magistrate's Court. He also confirmed driver wrote down my car reg number after he had passed my car.

 

"He basically then said he advises I get legal advice and to contact them within 24 hours to let them know if I'm accepting the caution, which means I would need to go back to see them, or if I'm refusing the caution, which means they'll forward it on to the Magistrate's Court."

 

Wise to seek formal legal advice. To do so, you may need to find out exactly what offence they are claiming you committed, so that your legal adviser can advise more fully.

 

My understanding is that the police don't pass it to Magistrates, they pass files to the CPS, who then make a charging decision.

 

What is your key objective?. your immigration status??

 

A caution counts as a conviction. It appears to me the key issue is if you stand a chance of escaping conviction at court, as then it is worth declining the caution.

If legal advice is that you would be convicted at court : take the caution.

 

The disadvantage of taking a caution : it counts as a conviction which you MIGHT escape by going to court.

The advantage of taking a caution : no penalty other than a criminal record.

 

It would be worth knowing what you would be charged with, to asses the likely extra penalty if found guilty at court, to help you make your decision.

 

Edited to add:

 

In one of your photo's the "STOP" sign (red) appeared partly obscured.

 

Were there gates you had to open to drive across?. In opening the gates would you have had to have seen the "STOP" signs, and do those signs say you have to phone?.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was the sign at the gate the same as this one? :

http://www.drivingtesttips.biz/images/stop-look-listen-railway-sign.jpg

 

If so, nothing there to say you MUST phone. In fact by the fact that it says you must 'notify' (phone) for a vehicle that is "unusually long, wide, low, heavy or slow moving", you might conclude that for your car, if it doesn't meet any of those descriptors, that you don't need to phone.

 

The steps to take (listed at 1, 2, and 3 on that sign) : you complied with, as far as you could?

 

As for offences, you've posted the NIP which does set out the potential offences they are considering: under the Road Traffic Act 1988

 

S2 Dangerous Driving

S3 Careless Driving

S22 leaving vehicles in dangerous positions

S28 Dangerous cycling

S29 Careless cycling

S35/36

and "Aiding and abetting any of the above"

 

where does cycling come into it?!. Was there a cyclist they claim you "aided and abetted"?.

 

However, the wording in S28 and S29 is the similar to S2 and S3, just substituting "rides" or "cycling" and "cyclist" or "rider" in place of "driving" and "driver".

 

S2 Dangerous driving, they would have to show your actions fell far below the standard of a "competent and careful driver", and that it would be obvious to that competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.

 

S3 Careless driving, they would have to show your actions fell below the standard of a reasonably careful driver (and also "in determining what would be expected of a careful and competent driver in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused.")

 

S22 leaving vehicles in dangerous positions

If a person in charge of a vehicle causes or permits the vehicle or a trailer drawn by it to remain at rest on a road in such a position or in such condition or in such circumstances as to involve a danger of injury to other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.

 

Yet, it seems to me from what you have posted that you claim you never left your vehicle AT REST in such a position, you drove forward, saw a hazard, and so drove back?.

 

S35 : failing to comply with traffic directions

Who gave you directions? it seems to me this section deals with being told or signalled directions by an authorised individual, whereas signs are dealt with at:

 

S36: Failing to comply with traffic signs.

You have already identified the requirement for the signs to be in the prescribed format, and 'clear' / unobscured.

 

The "fly in the ointment"? : As identified earlier by sailor sam, the Highway Code.

https://www.gov.uk/road-works-level-crossings-tramways-288-to-307/level-crossings-291-to-299

 

Within '297' "If there is a railway telephone, always use it to contact the signal operator to make sure it is safe to cross. "

 

It seems then that the issue is if breaching 297 of the highway code would be careless driving.

Points for : part 297 and the sign would lead a careful and competent driver to know they needed to phone

Points against: the signage was confusing, and the large signs at the crossing suggested that only drivers of large, wide, slow-moving etc. vehicles had to phone. If the requirement was for all drivers to phone, why did that sign not say "all drivers phone". "Expressio unius" would be a good point to argue ... the list didn't say "and such vehicles", it wasn't an illustrative list, but a 'complete list', which didn't include your vehicle.

 

The police may be looking for a speedy resolution avoiding court, for a minor offence, and thus offered the caution - I don't think you ought to be accepting a caution without them ensuring you know what offence you are admitting to!.

 

Equally, it may be that they know their case is weak, and a caution is an 'easy win' for them (and counts as a crime solved in their numbers!).

 

I'm not a lawyer, so it may be worth considering this with a solicitor.

Get a solicitor's advice, since you are worried your citizenship status turns on this. Unless they say "take the caution" get them to present the above (and their views) to the CPS on your behalf, and hope a decision not to proceed is reached?.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for all the time spent on looking into this. some comments from what you have posted:

 

1. What is your key objective?. your immigration status?? YES.

 

2. The sign you posted was not the sign in question. The sign at the gate, which is obscured when driving towards gate, but unfortunately plainly visible when you get out of your car and approach gate to open can be found on this page: https://www.translink.co.uk/Documents/Services/NI%20Railways/User%20Worked%20Crossings%20WEB.pdf

Page 11, right hand sign. Interestingly, bottom of sign states maximum penalty £1000. I could always argue that a caution is more of a penalty to me having citizenship refused based on caution.

 

The fly in the ointment? : As identified earlier by sailor sam, the Highway Code. https://www.gov.uk/road-works-level-...ngs-291-to-299 Within '297' ;If there is a railway telephone, always use it to contact the signal operator to make sure it is safe to cross. " YES, you are correct here. I had however read it to mean: 294 Railway telephones. If you are driving a large or slow- moving vehicle, a long, low vehicle with a risk of grounding, or herding animals, a train could arrive before you are clear of the crossing. You MUST obey any sign instructing you to use the railway telephone to obtain permission to cross. You MUST also telephone when clear of the crossing if requested to do so. Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 16(1)

 

I have attempted to get advice from CAB, who were unable to help, and gave me some telephone numbers of lawyers, who all wanted money before speaking to me.

Edited by UKDomains
formatting
Link to post
Share on other sites

The sign you have posted makes it clear you must phone.

It will be hard for you to claim you did not know what was required of you , if the sign would have had to have been clearly visible to you when you were opening the gate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The sign you have posted makes it clear you must phone.

It will be hard for you to claim you did not know what was required of you , if the sign would have had to have been clearly visible to you when you were opening the gate.

 

*sigh* I just don't know what to do. I just feel that in my situation the punishment does not fit the crime. I'm just devastated

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...