Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I googled "prescribed disability" to see where it is defined for the purposes of S.92. I found HMRC's definition, which included deafness. I don't  think anyone is saying deaf people cant drive, though! digging deeper,  Is it that “prescribed disability” (for the purposes of S.88 and S.92) is defined at: The Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1999 WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK These Regulations consolidate with amendments the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1996...   ….. and sleep apnoea / increased daytime sleepiness is NOT included there directly as a condition but only becomes prescribed under “liability to sudden attacks of disabling giddiness or fainting” (but falling asleep isn't fainting!), so it isn’t defined there as a “prescribed disability”  Yet, under S.92(2)(b) RTA 1988 “ any other disability likely to cause the driving of a vehicle by him in pursuance of a licence to be a source of danger to the public" So (IMHO) sleep apnea / daytime sleepiness MIGHT be a prescribed disability, but only if it causes likelihood of "driving being a source of danger to the public" : which is where meeting / not meeting the medical standard of fitness to drive comes into play?  
    • You can counter a Judges's question on why you didn't respond by pointing out that any company that charges you with stopping at a zebra crossing is likely to be of a criminal mentality and so unlikely to cancel the PCN plus you didn't want to give away any knowledge you had at that time that could allow them to counteract your claim if it went to Court. There are many ways in which you can see off their stupid claim-you will see them in other threads  where our members have been caught by Met at other airports as well as Bristol.  Time and again they take motorists to Court for "NO Stopping" apparently completely forgetting that the have lost doing that because no stopping is prohibitory and cannot form a contract. Yet they keep on issuing PCNs because so many people just pay up . Crazy . You can see what chuckleheads they are when you read their Claim form which is pursuing you as the driver or the keeper. they don't seem to understand that on airport land because of the Bye laws, the keeper is never liable.   
    • The video-sharing app told the BBC that a "very limited" number of accounts had been compromised.View the full article
    • The King is the second monarch to appear on Bank of England notes which will be fed gradually into the system.View the full article
    • The King is the second monarch to appear on Bank of England notes which will be fed gradually into the system.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3725 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

They just have a very good way of wording their letters to scare people like me!

 

 

 

Are you still scared, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that nothing willl happen apart from RLP sending some letters, which are, after all, just words printed on a page?

 

As others have pointed out, paying firms like RLP does nothing whatsoever for you, and lends a legitimacy to their activities that isn't deserved. They only stay in business because people are scared into paying them, including many vulnerable people.

 

However, only you can decide what to do. By all means go to CAB - but do read their report in the stickies here - and come here as often as you need for support and advice.

 

Paying these wretches may seem like the easy way - but why not try to hang on to your money. You might be surprised at how empowering it is to beat these undeserving creatures!

 

 

If you think that giving some money away will make you feel better, give it to a charity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no debt, so they cant touch your credit rating unless they go to court and win. And they dont do court.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

All good advice - you can be confident that many many people have been where you are and have been equally frightened, but also bear in mind that not one of the hundreds who have taken advice from here and elsewhere - the advice that we give is common to other self-help sites - has come back to tell us that the store have issues proceedings against them. That means no police involvement down the line, no court claim and no mention whatsoever on your credit file.

 

This should tell you a great deal about RLP and their business model. We know that they are relying on guilt, shame or worry to make people believe that paying up will solve the problem, and RLP most certainly know this to be the case, but the fact is that they make a good deal of money out of this. If it were me I would want to protect what, on the face of it, is a very lucrative little scheme, and be under no illusion that this is exactly what RLP will do. The next letter will tell you that you are obliged to engage in 'pre action protocols' which are required under the civil procedure rules in order to reduce the prospect of court action. They will also tell you that the fact that you are not engaging with them or showing remorse will be taken into account by the court, and (since they like playing detective and matching up the circumstances of cases mentioned on forums like this, that you have 'admitted guilt' on a nasty internet forum and that you are risking serious damage by taking notice of armchair lawyers with no legal training who really ought to be out there working rather than sitting behind a computer screen. The poor deluded woman behind RLP has even gone so far as to claim that we are under criminal investigation for attacking RLP, and got a fancy firm of lawyers to threaten legal action if we did not take down information which she did't like. Strangely, we have never heard from the police, nor did we ever hear any more from the lawyers.

 

So, whilst a thick skin might be needed,

 

1. You will receive a series of letters using increasing pressure and pseudo-legalese jargon

2. You will be warned that as you have not responded the case is being transferred to a debt collector specialising in 'undisputed claims'

3. The debt collector will write and tell you to pay up

 

At any point you may either ignore altogether, or write a letter simply stating that you do not accept any liability to their company or any company that they claim to represent - nothing more

 

4. RLP will write to tell you that since you obviously have no shame or intention of contributing to this year's staff bonus they will be recommending to their client that proceedings are issued for the full amount of costs that your actions incurred

5. You will hear nothing further

 

Why? Because it would cost the retailer far more than they stood to recover, as your actions actually cost them very little. They could only ever claim the costs that were directly incurred as a result of what you did. The staff who apprehended you were on duty and would need to be paid in any case and it can never be proven or even reasonably estimated whether the store lost anything further through security staff being diverted whist they processed you. The last retailer that RLP managed to persuade to issue a court claim was made to look (along with RLP) extremely silly in court as one by one their claims were knocked back by the Judge. Not many will be brave enough to try again, and in fact the 'recent cases' section of RLP's website is now more than a tad out of date!

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...