Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hello. I feel this may be considered to be a petty complaint on my part but would really appreciate views and insight please and I promise to wear my big girl pants and not take offence.  I have lived in my home since 1986. My neighbours moved in a year or two afterwards. In November 2013 I had solar panels installed optimised individually by solar edge and the panels are meant to be ' self cleaning'.  On Wednesday 21.8.19, my semi detached neighbours had a new TV aerial and a satellite dish fitted. It's near to my boundary wall,but clearly fitted on their own wall. I did not look out while his installer was working and did not know what had been done till I went to the front door to see what all the drilling was about then later to get washing in and saw the items on a flex pole. My issue, and this may be where you say I'm being petty, is that the  aerial is angled back and is over my airspace and sitting over my end solar panel. I went next door and told my neighbour my concern about birds sitting on the  aerial and guano issues as well as shading potential interns of the panel.  He said he'd ring the installer. Next morning, he is cleaning in his garden. I saw him and asked if he'd spoken to his installer. He said yes and the chap couldn't get back for 2 weeks.i asked if it could not be sooner, could the aerial not just be slightly moved when the discussion became heated. He said I had no rights to the space above my roof, I had to look at other aerials In the immediate area and he'd taken pictures and would do something if birds mucked Inthe panels and if it was him, he would have bought panels from a company who visited to clean them. I told him I fully appreciated the signal issue but asked could he not have the aerial on the chimney as I do and he told me not to be stupid as he had a dish as well and dishes cannot go on a chimney. I told him I was aware of this. He was by now shouting at me to listen and as I said, it became heated. He then said if I thought the air above my homeward mine I could sort the issue and he would cancel the installer call back. I rang his installer. My neighbours had not recontacted him. He asked if my concern was birds pooping on my panels  and the metal Ariel shadow would have no impact on panel generation and he would ring my neighbour. I am on my own and hate conflict and feel a little intimidated, but am also sure I've done nothing wrong. He told me it was my responsibility to have come out as the work was being done. So, please be frank, am I being petty? Should I just live with this ? I'm aware neighbour issues can escalate and have no desire for that, I just want the darned thing angling slightly away from my solar panel. My aeriels are the chimney ones...his is the new one at the front aspect. Thanks for reading this. 
    • Sorry I should have seen that. Vcs always reply to SARS at the very last minute 
    • Sar(email to VCS) went on 07/08/19 and CPR letter went on 14/08/19 to dcb legal.
    • Thank you all for your input so far. I have now received a letter back from my CPR 31.14 stating 'CPR 31.14 is not relevant to small claims matter, pursuant to cpr 27.2......we are under no obligation to disclose the documentation at this stage.' I assume this response is expected?   I have reworded my defence and made it more succinct, I'm not sure what else I could add?   1. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.   2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. However, the defendant has no liability as they are the Keeper of the vehicle, and the Private Parking Company has failed to comply with the strict provisions of PoFA 2012 to hold anyone other than the driver liable for the charges.   3. Signage at the site is not sufficient. A sign is present on the left hand side of the entrance, away from the driver, and therefore cannot be easily read by the driver of a passing vehicle. On closer inspection this sign states ’Refer to the full Terms & Conditions signs located throughout the car park’. Signs are located so that information is often obscured by other parked cars and is difficult to read. These signs state ‘Entry to or use of this privately operated and managed car park is subject to the current terms and conditions of vehicle control services ltd. Motorists/persons utilising this car park hereby accept in full the terms and conditions.’ Therefore, the driver is deemed to have agreed to the terms and conditions by having entered the car park before knowing what those terms and conditions are. The elements of offer, acceptance and consideration both ways have therefore not been satisfied and so no contract can exist.   4. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the defendant contracted to pay, This additional charge is not recoverable under the protection of freedoms act 2012, Schedule 4 not with reference to the judgement in parking eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the civil procedure rules 1998    In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 
  • Our picks

Dodgeball

(Information/ discussion) Criminal procedure. (a brief introduction.)

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1443 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

I notice from the reaction I received when I mentioned the basic procedure for processing criminal actions, that there seems to be confusion as to the procedures and terms involved. It is not really surprising as most of the matters discussed here are of a civil nature. But for those not familiar with the fundamentals, here is my take on it.

 

Firstly all criminal proceedings must start in the magistrate’s court. I have read people saying that you can chose where to start an action on say a private prosecution, you cannot.

 

There are two kinds of offences which can be considered at the MC, these are defined by their seriousness, and the maximum fine or term of commitment that can be imposed on conviction.

These are: A “summary offence” and “indictable offence”

 

A “summary offence” is for less serious criminal offences. The sentencing is limited to a far lower level than in more serious(indicatable) cases which are passed up to the Crown court

 

An “indictable offence” can only be heard at the crown court, this is after the defendant has attended the magistrate’s court. The magistrates will remand or bail them to appear at the Crown Court after consideration of the case in question. These more serious offences such as theft rape or murder are generally heard by a jury.

 

In addition to these there are also “each way” offences; this is where the action could fall into either of the two categories. On application to the magistrate, they will make the decision as to which court is most appropriate for the offence, and assign it to the relevant one.

 

Most legislation which presents the possibility of criminal charges will also state the kind of action which may be taken.

 

For instance in section 68 of the Tribunals Act schedule 12, the action which may be taken for obstructing an EA in the course of his duty, is prescribed as “on summary conviction”.

 

68(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally obstructs a person lawfully acting as an enforcement agent.

(2)A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally interferes with controlled goods without lawful excuse.

(3)A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to—

(a)imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or

(b)a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, or

©both.

 

Similarly the theft act of instance will say by indictment and the fraud act may say either way.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a process, before Magistrates will hear any case. If someone prevents an EA doing their job, then i presume this would be reported to the Police and considered by the CPS first. This may happen quite quickly, as i think there are CPS Solicitors based in Police stations who will make a quick decision based on the evidence compiled by Police.

 

The Police will have questioned those involved and it would be up to a duty Sargeant or higher rank to decide whether to involve CPS, try to give a caution or to not pursue if they are not sure of the evidence.

 

If an EA allegedly assaults a member of the public, it would be up to Police to investigate. If the Police decided to not pursue, it is up to the person assaulted whether they wanted to pursue a private prosecution by laying information at Magistrates or to issue a civil court claim. In either case, it would be extremely unwise to do either without getting full legal advice. Magistrates are unlikely to view a criminal allegation by a member of the public with much merit, but may listen to a Solicitor. I understand there are cost implications if any case goes ahead, as the EA will seek to recover their costs. It is probably easier with a civil court case, to claim for injuries and any consequential costs.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite often it seems that there are associated offences in addition to the obstruction. Assault being the most common.

 

This again is triable as a summary offence under section 39 of the criminal just ice act, both may be tried together and the sentence may be cumulative.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/33/section/40


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...