Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • @Tom Price   Thank you for your note, which is very helpful.   Did VCS cite the following cases?   1. VCS v Ward 2. Semark Jullien   VCS threw the two cases to me in the last minute at my previous hearing. The judge accepted the extra WS and adjourned my case for me to read/defend it. My case is going to be held on 30th March.   Thanks!      
    • Hi,   So, I received a letter today from a debt collection law firm threatening CCJ action on behalf of Volvo/Santander for a voluntary termination of a vehicle. (I did request Volvo/Santander that a complaints procedure be started as I think the terms of the contract were miss sold but alas, they ignored me and went straight to CCJ action via a debt collection law firm!).   I digress, anyway, so the letter was addressed to me, it included my original signed contract, but, there was another document inside. This document was another hire contract with some other person details on it!   It includes:   Their full name Their address and postcode Their handwritten signature Their email address Their mobile telephone number Their debt amount Their vehicle registration    Is this a breach of the data protection act? On the flip side, my details could be in the hands of someone else, who knows?    What should I do now, is this a trump card that I could use if this matter does actually go to court? I did intend to argue against this debt in the first place.   Any advice on this would be most grateful!   TIA         
    • Hi guys   I received a county court claim form on Thursday dated 18/02/2021 saying that the claimant (CABOT FINANCIAL (UK) is claiming for the sum of £2140.14 on behalf of  NEW DAY LTD RE MARBLES. but it requests all documents to be sent to MORTIMER CLARKE SOLICITORS.   Now i think i did have a marbles card a while ago although my partner says that that was a capital one card.   But either way i don't like the idea of these parasites chasing me for money for a debt they probably bought for £10.    From looking around here it seems that i should be sending them a CCA request and a CPR 31.14.   I've bought a £1 postal order.   Is there anything else i need to do?   Thanks for any help given
    • Yes that is an absolute must. Generally the Council has no wish to see people committed to prison for Council Tax debt. They want to see the debt recovered where it is properly due and the debtor has the ability to pay. If he hasn't that ability they will take into account the debtor's financial situation and make any arrangements they can. But only a court can remit some or all of the debt. The more you engage with the Council the easier this will be.
    • I think you'd need to have formally noted you were working under protest at the time. 
  • 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

The MOT headlamp aim test is changing


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1818 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

From 24 March 2016, the way headlamp aim is measured on the MOT test is changing. The new testing standards will emphasise the importance of correct alignment and stress that it shouldn’t be just a quick check.

 

It’s been trialled with the help of VTS council member volunteers with the results verified by the Vehicle Safety Research Centre at Loughborough University.

 

Headlamp aim consistently tops the MOT compliance survey as one of the most likely items to be assessed incorrectly by testers.

 

In other words, the most complained about as a test failure.

 

These new changes will look to reduce errors and increase test consistency.

 

 

The changes will slightly widen the tolerance band for European ‘E’ beams with headlamp centres up to 850mm. There will also be the requirement to test the ‘image break’ point for all European 'E' beams.

 

https://mattersoftesting.blog.gov.uk/the-mot-headlamp-aim-test-is-changing/

Edited by citizenB
Source link added
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...