Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi BazzaS, I wasn't in a good mood when I wrote post 47. I read your post feeling the same way as you, first step find out what happened behind the decision to use sleeping tablet X and if it was noted in the records or not by the Gp.   Lets get an explanation and medical records first then go from there.   This is the letter I have written requesting an explanantion.   Please can you provide an explanation why GP1 (name here) on xx/xx/xx, GP2 (name here) on xx/xx/xx and GP3 (name here) on xx/xx/xx prescribed (medication) to my brother? What was the rational behind the prescripton?   Is this letter good enough does it need tweaking?   Is a cover letter needed that your writing on behalf on a relative to request an explanation the surgery might refuse under GDPR regulations
    • The right to mitigate losses is being worn away by JL's negligence. OP also has the right to have their guarantee fulfilled at little inconvenience to themselves.   By disregarding the guarantee JL have effectively given up their "claimed right" outlined in the guarantee to be the executive decision maker as to whether the guarantee is fulfilled by way of repair or replacement with a TV of equivalent specifications and thus disregarded their opportunity to mitigate their own costs.   As outlined in the guarantee the OP has the right to both options.   Given JL's unreasonableness it could be deemed entirely reasonable for OP to feel it is less inconvenient to purchase a new TV with equivalent specifications. The new TV will come with a fresh set of statutory rights. OP will be able to receive some continued albeit diminished benefit from their faulty TV until the replacement arrives. If the replacement TV turns out to be faulty it can be returned at little cost or inconvenience. This is in contrast to the significantly inconvenient option of arranging to have the TV repaired which involves. Arranging for collection. Risking paying for a repair with no guarantee of success. Awaiting the TV to be returned. In the meantime OP receives no benefit at all from the ownership of the faulty goods.   Rather than being instantly out of pocket and in the position of having to risk a claim to be restored to their original position (despite being very likely to succeed), a better option would be to locate a TV of equivalent specifications and bring a claim for that amount.   Should JL continue to flaunt its own guarantees then JL is unlikely to be successful if they then choose to contest the amount claimed by the OP on the grounds OP should have diminished their costs when JL had their own opportunity to do so by simply arranging for repair of the goods themselves.   While not the direct intention, JL may decide that it is in their interests to arrange for the repair of the faulty TV than risk a claim for what is likely to be a more expensive replacement TV.
    • You should file something like this -   1.  The Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle].   2.  It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant.   3.  In any case it is denied that the Claimant broke the terms of a contract with the Defendant.   4.  The Defendant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer.    5.  The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety.  It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.   Points (2) & (3) are catch-alls, they can be fleshed out at WS stage to include bye-laws, prohibition, you not being the driver, etc.   I see you have till 1 June to file the defence, so don't do it now, hang on and see if others suggest to tweak the above.  Don't file at the very last minute though, in case MCOL has a hissy fit!   
    • John Lewis have already told me that they cannot do anything or contribute to the repair via the manufaturer LG, as their guarantee explicitly states that 'screen burn' is not covered.   To be fair to them, on the back of my receipt it does have a list of exclusions including "image ghosting or screen burn".  The issue is that their repairer has incorrectly stated in his report that the fault is due to customer misuse/screen burn, and therefore it is not included in their guarantee and they cannot help.   LG the manufacturer have sent me an email where they state "...based on the nature of the issue that the unit has developed, the outcome is a Panel fault issue which has been confirmed by our technicians after a review of the images you provided..."  and they offered to repair it for £200.  So there is disagreement on the cause of the issue between the retailer and the manufacturer too, with JL conveniently deeming it something that is excluded from their guarantee.  John Lewis as mentioned previously are holding onto this engineer report as gospel and refuse to budge.  I understand that more recently they offer an additional extended warranty at a cost on televisions, which DOES cover screen burn, but obviously this is no use to me.    
    • I agree. Maybe I didn't read it correctly. I had thought that the whole matter had been referred to the repairer by John Lewis   On the other hand, if John Lewis has washed their hands of it – then I think a letter to them explaining that you are going to mitigate your loss by having the set repaired by the recommended repairer and that you will be pursuing them afterwards for your expenses – in view of their lack of interest. I think that will cover everything
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 32 replies
    • 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
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

court case for refusing to give details - Cardiff speeding PCN


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1582 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

Hey everyone, not sure if this is the correct place to post but will give it a try.

 

My Mum and Dad run a family business that I also work at,

in September we were working in Blackpool for a couple of days.

A few weeks later we received a speeding fine through the post from Cardiff central ticket office. No photo was attached just the notice form.

 

My Mum replied saying yes that was our van reg ect but we wanted to see the photo just to make sure it was us and to identify who as driving at the time (me or my farther)

 

We received a reply saying we must provide details of the two possible drivers but still no photo.

 

My Mum replied with the details of the drivers but stated again without a photo we could not confirm who was driving.

 

Then we received a letter saying we had failed to provide details of the driver and the matter may go to court.

 

My Mum sent a message again saying who the two possible drivers were and to send the photo and we can easily confirm the driver.

 

We heard nothing more until a court notice come through in December with the photo attached.

 

Rang the central ticket office tried to explain what had gone on

, but said we should just fill out the court form the court has to deal with it.

 

She said just to put what has happened on the sheet and they will see its a mistake and will return to the ticket office.

 

Now my Mum hasn't kept any of the correspondence with the ticket office as she didn't believe she has done anything wrong,

 

we received a letter from the courts at Cardiff saying we must attend a hearing there on February.

 

Now my questions are

Do we have to travel to Cardiff just for the hearing

or can we have it changed to our local court.

 

Any one got any ideas how we can defend this as they genuinely didn't send a photo until we received the court papers

 

I sent a sar from the library to the central ticket office to just get the info they hold on my Dad hoping for copies of the letters my Mum sent,

they have refused saying we need to prove identification but my dad did sign the form

Thanks in advance for any help

Jay

Link to post
Share on other sites

you go to Cardiff unless there is a compelling reason to have the matter transferred such a locla court better able to cope with a disability for example.

So, are you beimg prosecuted for failing to say who was driving at the time or for the speeding offence? If the former some evedentail paper trail will be needed and then you might get the matter dismissed and just the driver prosecuted for the driving offence, which can be pleaded guilty by post to save a journey.

If someone had taken this by the horns they would have propbably just got a speed awareness course rather than a couple of convictions unless they have been there before .

as for SAR, you cant get other peoples data so you dad will have had to sign it and send it to get his personal data, you cant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply ericsbrother,

bummer so its a day off work and go there then. They are prosecuting for saying we wouldn't supply name of the driver, but without the photo we were unable to do so as we were up and down the road several times that day.

I wish my mother had kept the receipt for posting mate, because I agree we are going to need a paper trial. I thought after our statement it would be dismissed as well with them not providing the photo. We do have there correspondence tho from there side that will show we were in communication.

I just printed the sar off for him, he signed it sent a cheque with his business name on and signed for it, but they are saying he needs to supply his driving license and utility bill.

 

do we have to supply further evidence as in a witness statement closer to the time or do we just turn up at court with the letters?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If whoever was sent the form did not identify the actual driver, they will be guilty of the offence - s.172 (3), Road Traffic Act 1988. To be found not guilty they would need to convince the court that they used 'reasonable diligence' and were still unable to identify the driver - s.172 (4) of the same act.

 

They would not be entitled to any evidence of the offence at that stage, but some forces may only send a photograph if it is requested 'to help identify the driver'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah raykay we asked for the photo to identify the driver, we gave the info of who the possible ones were but needed the picture as we weren't sure which one it was.

If whoever was sent the form did not identify the actual driver, they will be guilty of the offence - s.172 (3), Road Traffic Act 1988. To be found not guilty they would need to convince the court that they used 'reasonable diligence' and were still unable to identify the driver - s.172 (4) of the same act.

 

They would not be entitled to any evidence of the offence at that stage, but some forces may only send a photograph if it is requested 'to help identify the driver'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah raykay we asked for the photo to identify the driver, we gave the info of who the possible ones were but needed the picture as we weren't sure which one it was.

 

 

 

Some forces do not supply the photo, or reply saying that the photo would not help to identify the driver. The photos are only taken to identify the vehicle (some photos don't show the driver), it is the responsibility of the person receiving the s.172 requirement to establish and nominate who the driver was at the time.

Unfortunately giving the information about possible drivers does not comply with that requirement.

They would be expected to show what reasonable diligence they used, other enquiries etc., to establish who the driver was - not just asking for the photo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the latest thing is that you have to identify any or all possible drivers of a vehicle and decide amongst yourselves who was driving at the time...or the main driver gets the fine/points... a bit like when you were at school and the whole class got detention if the miscreant failed to admit the 'crime'... TB

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO, I think you are being disruptive. I know every journey I have ever driven. Are you telling me, two grown men can't decide who was driving on that day?

 

Playing silly buggers won't help you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the paperwork not state the time of the offence ? You should be able to work out who was driving at that time.

 

And if you really can't remember, just decide between you who should take the hit. One of you might be eligible for a speed awareness course, hint hint.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Did the paperwork not state the time of the offence ? You should be able to work out who was driving at that time.

 

And if you really can't remember, just decide between you who should take the hit. One of you might be eligible for a speed awareness course, hint hint.

 

And as a Tory MP found out, DON'T LIE!

Link to post
Share on other sites
IMHO, I think you are being disruptive. I know every journey I have ever driven. Are you telling me, two grown men can't decide who was driving on that day?

 

Playing silly buggers won't help you.

 

Have you ever run a small company before ? If you have, you will realise that we have a little more to worry about than who was driving at that particular time. The notice come 4 weeks down the line and we travel a average of 50,000 miles a year. We traveled 300 miles round trip to get there and another 50 back and forth to the suppliers and drove by the said camera at least 5 times each. We have health and safety, cosh, quality of work and customer service to worry about not who was driving at that exact time. Can you remember what you had for dinner at work 4 weeks ago?

 

We wanted the photo because I was once charged for the dart charges with a car that clearly wasn't mine so I will never pay anything without it been proved first. So if you want to dismount that high perch and give a little constructive critasism rather than make assumptions it will be appreciated

Jay

Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you ever run a small company before ? If you have, you will realise that we have a little more to worry about than who was driving at that particular time...

As you are operating a vehicle commercially, you have a legal responsibility to know exactly who is behind the wheel of each of your vehicles at ALL times.

 

... back and forth to the suppliers and drove by the said camera at least 5 times each...
So you have delivery/collection notes/reciepts with times on them that you can match up to the PCN time ?

 

Can you remember what you had for dinner at work 4 weeks ago?
If I had a legal responsibility to keep records of my daily food intake, you bet I could!

 

It sounds like you dont keep proper records, like daily vehicle inspection sheets or vehicle handover records for when you change driver or licence check records. There is a reason why these kinds of records are important.

Just pray you don't get stopped by DVSA, they will take a dim view of a commercial operator not keeping proper records.

 

This IS constructive criticism. Hindsight is always 20/20, but that won't help you if your vehicle goes off road and injures someone, or worse, and you can't show the correct records to the DVSA/HSE/Police.

 

But back to your problem: even if you can't work out who was driving, someone will have to admit to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We wanted the photo because I was once charged for the dart charges with a car that clearly wasn't mine so I will never pay anything without it been proved first.

Jay

The initial stage is the service of the s.172 requirement and responsibility to identify the driver - there is nothing to prove at that point.

Once the driver has been identified, that is when the matter of the underlying offence is dealt with. The driver is not entitled to any proof or evidence until a court hearing and a not guilty pleas is made, It is only then that the driver is entitled to the evidence or proof that the prosecution will be relying on.

 

If, as in your case, the driver is not identified, whoever was served with the s.172 requirement would need to satisfy the court that they could not, with reasonable diligence, identify the driver. Which would include all the enqiries etc. made in attempts to identify the driver, not just relying on asking for a photo.

 

Without the identication of the driver, the underlying offence cannot be dealt with, only the s.172 offence of failing to nominate the driver.

Link to post
Share on other sites
As you are operating a vehicle commercially, you have a legal responsibility to know exactly who is behind the wheel of each of your vehicles at ALL times.

 

So you have delivery/collection notes/reciepts with times on them that you can match up to the PCN time ?

 

If I had a legal responsibility to keep records of my daily food intake, you bet I could!

 

It sounds like you dont keep proper records, like daily vehicle inspection sheets or vehicle handover records for when you change driver or licence check records. There is a reason why these kinds of records are important.

Just pray you don't get stopped by DVSA, they will take a dim view of a commercial operator not keeping proper records.

 

This IS constructive criticism. Hindsight is always 20/20, but that won't help you if your vehicle goes off road and injures someone, or worse, and you can't show the correct records to the DVSA/HSE/Police.

 

But back to your problem: even if you can't work out who was driving, someone will have to admit to it.

 

I'm not going to get into a tit for tat argument as it has no benefit to the case at all. What we do no is that it is impossible to no who is driving a vehicle at every minute of every day with it all logged. We drive a lgv Nissan van with no tacho therefore the paperwork to do such a task is simple unfeaseable hence why I asked if you have ever run a small company.

Now on the argument of legality we simple shouldn't of been speeding but like I said I don't live in a perfect world.

Now on the receipt side, yeah I actually can get the receipts if you think that would help us?

I a also requested the photo because we simply could of identified the driver from the cargo been carried. Once we got the picture we identified it to be my father, he would of simple done the speed awareness course and job done. We were just simply trying to make the task easier for us and not risk illegally naming the wrong driver.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You just need to remember not to stand up in court, as a commercial vehicle operator, and say that you don't know and don't have a record of who was driving. That's a no-no. It's acceptable for a private individual in their own vehicle, but not a commercial vehicle operator.

 

I asked about the receipts so you could match up the times with the PCN and find out if anyone remembers carrying certain cargo.

 

The photo only helps you, not the police, so don't expect any help from them. They don't care about making it easier for you, only convicting someone of something, whether it's the original speeding or the S172 offence.

 

Yes, someone who might have been driving and would be eligible for a lesser penalty should have copped for it originally, as long it wasn't a blatant lie and they genuinely think they might have been driving at the time.

 

And for the record, I am responsible for 28 vehicles at work; 1 car, 1 tacho'd HGV and 26x 3.5 ton vans so I know about the importance and the burden of correct record keeping, but one day it might keep you out of jail. I get on average 6 PCN's and 1 NIP each month and can deal with each one in less than 5 mins.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Crappoman can you please point me to some info of the legal responsibility we have with the van been under 3.5 tonne. I've been looking and can't find nothing only for over 3.5 tonne. We have been stopped a few times and never had to produce any driver times or such so we don't ever log it, but maybe we should start. Its a Nissan nv200 van and we are electricians.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There isn't a list of things you need to do, it varies between companies, but think what information would the HSE/DVSA/Police want in the event one of your vehicles caused an injury/death. You need to show that you are managing any risks, not just with your vehicles but with your drivers and your cargo too.

 

There is some stuff to read,

Driving at work - http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg382.pdf

Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/19/contents.

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/37/contents

 

Your vehicles are Nissan NV200's, which have an unladen weight of just under 1300kg.

Do you pull trailers ? Maybe generators ?

If so, would they take your combined unladen weight over 1525kg ? Is the trailer over 1020kg ?

If yes to both, you need an operators 'O' licence, and some expert advice and training.

 

Do you licence check your drivers annually ? If they have points do you check them more regularly ? say 6pts - check every 6months, 9pts+ check every 3months. It might sound like overkill, but if they get disqualified and don't tell you, how will you know ? You may still not find out for 3months, but at least you are taking reasonable measures to find out. You will need to use the D796 form to get authority to do the checks.

 

Do you have colour copies of their licence, print outs of the dvla licence check page, category entitlements and points ? A risk assessment for the type of work/driving they do ?

 

Have a lever arch file with all your drivers info in it and if the worst happens you can just hand it over to the authorities.

 

As for your vehicles, have a lever arch file for each vehicle with copies of legal documents (V5, tax, mot), garage repair sheets, daily walkround check sheets, and the folder can be handed over if needed.

 

You must ensure your vehicle is safe to drive before setting off on a journey. You should carry out a walkaround check of the vehicle every day. If something happens, the sheet will show that the driver checked the vehicle before they set off that day and any defects can be put on the sheet for you to rectify.

 

It's all about having the information to hand if the worst happens. Saying 'I don't know' won't be accepted. It's like insurance, if you get to the point of needing it without already having it, it's too late.

 

There have been some court cases over vehicle safety issues, with some lengthy sentences:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/lansdown_lane_-_men_convicted_of_unlawful_killings/

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/crane_hire_company_is_sentenced_for_corporate_manslaughter/

https://sm.britsafe.org/companies-ordered-pay-%C2%A3794658-over-runaway-lorry-death

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...