Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well we can't predict what the judge will believe. PE will say that they responded in the deadline and you will say they don't. Nobody can tell what a random DJ will decide. However if you go for an OOC settlement you should still be able to get some money
    • What do you guys think the chances are for her?   She followed the law, they didnt, then they engage in deception, would the judge take kindly to being lied to by these clowns? If we have a case then we should proceed and not allow these blatant dishonest cheaters to succeed 
    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
  • 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

Fined - Thought 35mph in a 30 zone was OK?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2841 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

Hi people,

i have just received a fine for an offence doing 35mph in a 30..

 

...i didnt realise i had done this so was shocked!

 

can anyone advise if this is legit

as i thought it was 30+10%+2mph that you can get away with ?

 

Also they have offered a course but i think i did one 2 1/2 years ago,

 

can i still apply now they have offered it or would it be rejected later as its one every 3 years ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, it may be legit.

the percentages you refer to may only be guidelines.

recorded 31-40 in a 30, cld end up with at least fine and 3 points.

how were you recorded; fixed camera, pol van, etc. have you had an NIP

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

yes, it may be legit.

the percentages you refer to may only be guidelines.

recorded 31-40 in a 30, cld end up with at least fine and 3 points.

how were you recorded; fixed camera, pol van, etc. have you had an NIP

 

 

yes received it a few days ago

Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to recall that Limit+10%+2mph is the trigger point, so at 35mph that is the lowest speed at which a ticket will be issued under the ACPO guidelines?

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

can i check with someone also, the offence was on the 14/6/16 and my NID date is 8.7.16 . Should they have to advise within 14 days ?

 

The 14 day limit (with a few exceptions) only applies to the first NIP to the registered keeper, there is no time limit for the service of subsequent NIPs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
can anyone advise if this is legit

as i thought it was 30+10%+2mph that you can get away with ?

 

Those are the ACPO guidelines but are only advisory. ACPO guidelines don't change the law. The law permits penalty for anything above 30 mph. Individual police forces can decide to issue penalties at lower limits if they want to, at discretion of the Chief Constable. I've read somewhere that a couple of Police forces don't follow ACPO guidelines and have gone for 'zero tolerance'. Can't remember which ones. One might have been Devon + Cornwall.

Link to post
Share on other sites

as posted earlier eg #5, ie yes are guidelines. but, they can summons if less then 50 in a 30 if.....see the link #5 'a police officer has discretion to act outside of them providing he acts fairly, consistently and proportionately.' :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

as posted earlier eg #5, ie yes are guidelines. but, they can summons if less then 50 in a 30 if.....see the link #5 'a police officer has discretion to act outside of them providing he acts fairly, consistently and proportionately.' :)

 

 

Yes agreed Ford. I was making a slightly different point. ACPO guidelines (or maybe it's the CPS summary?) do say "Note that these are guidelines and that a police officer has discretion to act outside of them providing he acts fairly, consistently and proportionately" but that seems to have in mind decisions made on individual cases. My point was that in some police areas the Chief Constable, as a matter of enforcement policy in that police force, has decided that they will not follow ACPO guidelines but will apply some lower threshold, or even 'zero tolerance', across the whole police force area.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...