Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • statute barring in Scotland is 5yrs from last payment/use date or date of default Notice + 14 days, whichever is the later. dont confuse that with the 6yrs debts show on credit files (DN's 6th bday regardless to payment or not). they'd never get a claim raised by august in 99% of cases . as long all these debts were taken out whilst resident in scotland and you have not moved since taking them out but failed to inform the original creditor before the debt sale....... then stay radio silent until sb date is reached. then if you wish send our scottish sb letter. just remember unlike E&W in scotland debts are extinguished, dead , gone , parrot. once SB'd dx  
    • Hi all, Love this site and it's no nonsense advice, have dipped in and out of the consumer forums over the years, mostly to assure myself that what I was doing was the right thing when dealing with various businesses (almost 100% success rate, thanks in part to reading and more reading here.). Anyway, the time is almost approaching where I might need to ask for some specific help and I have a couple of queries that I can't see definitively answered. Due to financial mismanagement and severe anxiety issues I stopped paying all unsecured debt in December 2018 (one slipped to the first week in Jan 2019 when the last payment was made having rechecked my bank statement from that period - all my unsecured debt direct debits were cancelled in early Jan 2019). This has left half a dozen debts;  a couple of credit cards, a bank loan, Shop Direct and some Hitachi Finance stuff having been sold on and passing the rounds through the usual suspects, Lowells, Link, PRA Group, others related to them, and then back to them again. I have somehow successfully managed to maintain radio silence and avoided anything more worrying than their begging letters.  I have blocked their phone calls and texts, bumped all emails to the spambox and had a chuckle at their desperate letters.  I've never had anybody at the door.  I have been at the same address since before I defaulted and all correspondence comes to my current home address.  I have NEVER contacted them or admitted any debt. In anticipation of them perhaps ramping up action at the last minute I've had a look at my credit report on Credit Karma (rec'd from this very place) and I see that the default dates on these range from May 2019 to November 2019. Also in preperation I've been reading, reading and reading lots here as advised. Obviously being in Scotland there are a lot fewer posts relating to these matters and it's always quite annoying when OP's do not follow up with any outcome on their cases - how rude! This has also left me a bit confused of when I am able to finally breathe easy (although cancelling all the direct debits in Jan 2019 was the biggest sigh of relief as I knew it was all going to be unmanageable and, well, default one, default all.). I've been reading that defaults should be filed 3-6 months after the missed payment but one of my larger debts was defaulted on 27th August 2019 when the last payment I made was 10th December 2018, meaning the first missed payment was 10th Jan 2019.   My query for now is - when should I infer that these debts are prescribed?  From when the payment was missed, or taking the default date plus 5 years from the credit report? The three I have with the May date are moot anyway as either way they are gone  - some letters from Lowell offering me 90% off to settle is what got me thinking these must have been near SB status, however I have one big 10k+ with a July date and another 10k+ at the end of August I am feeling a bit anxious again, even though I know there is nothing to worry about with the begging letters.  Reading the various forums I am not sure why the OC's didn't take action against me when I read time and again the surprise that other posters haven't already been taken to court for lesser amounts - I'm also surprised I've avoided any action this long as there are plenty in this forum and sub forum who are whisked off to the court by the beggers minions after only a year or so after defaulting.  There are no CCJ/decrees listed on my credit report and I have not received any such judgements against me.  I still just regularly receive the begging emails to the spambox, the blocked phone calls and the letters from the they. I'm also reading that there is no need in Scotland to send an LBC so what should I be looking out for to know that the time has come to engage with CCA requests etc? I'm afraid in a fit I threw a lot of the paperwork out but I have a box of stuff I'm going to go through which may have the original letters from the OC's. Thanks in advance for any advice.  
    • I'm at work now but promise to look in later. Can you confirm how you paid the first invoice?  It wasn't your fault if the signal was so poor and there was no alternative way to pay.  There must be a chance of reversing the charge with your bank.  There are no guarantees but Kev  https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/09766749/officers  has never had the backbone to do court so far.  Not even in one case,  
    • OK  so you may not have outed yourself if you said "we". No matter either way you paid. Snotty letter I am surprised that they were so quick off the mark threatening Court. They usually take months to go that far. No doubt that as you paid the first one they decided to strike quickly and scare you into paying. Dear Chuckleheads  aka Alliance,  I am replying to your LOCs You may have caught me the first time but that is  the end. What a nasty organisation you are. You do realise that you now have now no reason to continue to pursue me after reading my appeal since you know that my car was not cloned. Any further pursuit will end up with a complaint to the ICO that you are breaching my GDPR.  Please confirm that you have removed my details from your records. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I haven't gone for a snotty letter this time as they know that you paid for your car in another car park. So using a shot across their bows .  If it doesn't deter them and they send in the debt collectors or the Court you will then be able to get more money back from them for  breachi.ng your data protection than they will get should they win in Court-and they have no chance of that as you have paid. So go in with guns blazing and they might see sense.  Although never underestimate how stupid they are. Or greedy.
    • Thank you. Such a good point. They did issue all 3 before I paid though. I only paid one because I didn’t have proof of parking that time, only for two others.    Unfortunately no proof of my appeal as it was just submitted through a form on their website and no copy was sent to me. I only have the reply. I believe I just put something like “we made the honest mistake of using the incorrect parking area on the app” and that’s it. Thanks again for your help. 
  • 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

Prosecution for children not attending school ** Court June 2017 **


UK26
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2562 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,

 

My brother is being summonsed to appear at Magistrates Court in June for not sending his two kids to school regularly.

 

The School count the attendants twice a day and they are claiming that out of 154 possible attendances only 130 were attended which works out to 12 days (154 - 130 = 24 / 2 = 12

 

For each of the days, the council demanded a penalty fee of which was not paid as i advised my brother that they had no legal bases within the Education Act 1996 to charge such fees.

 

Out of the 12 unattended days of which penalty notices were issued the council later withdraw them and sent a letter to my brother stating that after reviewing the evidence submitted by my brother that the penalty notices should not have been issued.

 

The school had to be closed for a total of 5 days due to mice infestation in the schools kitchen. now my brother is stating that on both times of the school being closed a day or so before his kids were not well "being sick" 1st time for 4 days and the second time for 1 day (30 Nov and 13th Jan) the school was closed. they said the schools closure is not included in the attendance rating.

 

they claim that the attendance level was 84%

 

The council are saying that if they win the case, they are going to be asking for costs.

 

The case is being tried under 444(1) of the Education Act 1996 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/56/section/444

444 Offence: failure to secure regular attendance at school of registered pupil.

 

(1)If a child of compulsory school age who is a registered pupil at a school fails to attend regularly at the school, his parent is guilty of an offence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now looking at section 3 of the act.

 

I feel my brother could use some of this to further reduce the 12 days to zero

 

Section B) - 12 Days - if that fails then

Section 4 (a/b)

 

(3)The child shall not be taken to have failed to attend regularly at the school by reason of his absence from the school—

 

(a)with leave,

 

(b)at any time when he was prevented from attending by reason of sickness or any unavoidable cause, or

 

©on any day exclusively set apart for religious observance by the religious body to which his parent belongs.

 

(4)The child shall not be taken to have failed to attend regularly at the school if the parent proves—

 

(a)that the school at which the child is a registered pupil is not within walking distance of the child’s home, and

 

(b)that no suitable arrangements have been made by the local education authority F2. . . for any of the following—

 

(i)his transport to and from the school,

 

(ii)boarding accommodation for him at or near the school, or

 

(iii)enabling him to become a registered pupil at a school nearer to his home.

 

 

With Regards to the Council claiming costs for brining the case. I don't see this listed within the act

 

A person guilty of an offence under [F3subsection (1)] is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

 

[F4(8A)A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1A) is liable on summary conviction—

 

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

 

(b)to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Based upon the evidence submitted by the school they have admitted to sending the Penalty Notices for failing to send the kids to school

 

The Education Act 1996 does not give the Council or School the power to issue fines, the act states "A person guilty of an offence under [F3subsection (1)] is liable on summary conviction"

 

I wonder if Section 2 of the Fraud Act would put the Council in a very weak case?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/2

 

(1)A person is in breach of this section if he—

 

(a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and

 

(b)intends, by making the representation—

 

(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or

 

(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

 

(2)A representation is false if—

 

(a)it is untrue or misleading, and

 

(b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

 

(3)“Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of—

 

(a)the person making the representation, or

 

(b)any other person.

 

(4)A representation may be express or implied.

 

(5)For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention).

I would argue that the Council are guilty of

(b)intends, by making the representation— (The Penalty Notice) (i)to make a gain for himself or another "The Council", or

(ii)to cause loss to another (My Brother) or to expose another to a risk of loss (My Brother).

 

 

(2)A representation is false if—

(a)it is untrue or misleading (the Education Act 1996 does not give any power to issue FPNs), and

(b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.( Of couse, my brother sent a email to the council making them aware of this)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The recent Supreme court case confirmed that the council can apply this penalty for non authorised attendence and it can be escalated to Magistrates to impose the penalties plus the councils costs.

 

I think it is best to avoid it going to court and to try to come to a resolution beforehand. Ask for a meeting with the council to run through all of the information to see what penalties are correctly due and to come to a payment arrangement. If there are questions about the school being closed or sickness not recorded properly, then these can be looked into.

 

If your Brother shows he is dealing with it and looking to the council to help, if the council then tries to continue to Magistrates then the conduct of the council can be mentioned.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Based upon the evidence submitted by the school they have admitted to sending the Penalty Notices for failing to send the kids to school

 

The Education Act 1996 does not give the Council or School the power to issue fines, the act states "A person guilty of an offence under [F3subsection (1)] is liable on summary conviction"

 

I wonder if Section 2 of the Fraud Act would put the Council in a very weak case?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/2

 

I would argue that the Council are guilty of

(b)intends, by making the representation— (The Penalty Notice) (i)to make a gain for himself or another "The Council", or

(ii)to cause loss to another (My Brother) or to expose another to a risk of loss (My Brother).

 

 

(2)A representation is false if—

(a)it is untrue or misleading (the Education Act 1996 does not give any power to issue FPNs), and

(b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.( Of couse, my brother sent a email to the council making them aware of this)

 

 

How are you going to prove dishonest intent?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying your wrong but how can a Supreme Court issue a Judgement ruling based on something which is not listed in The Education Act 1996. He / She can not add to it what's not listed. Surely the act would need to be amended to allow FPNs?

 

The recent Supreme court case confirmed that the council can apply this penalty for non authorised attendence and it can be escalated to Magistrates to impose the penalties plus the councils costs.

 

I think it is best to avoid it going to court and to try to come to a resolution beforehand. Ask for a meeting with the council to run through all of the information to see what penalties are correctly due and to come to a payment arrangement. If there are questions about the school being closed or sickness not recorded properly, then these can be looked into.

 

If your Brother shows he is dealing with it and looking to the council to help, if the council then tries to continue to Magistrates then the conduct of the council can be mentioned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So to put my brother in a stronger case, try and arrange a meeting to discuss in detail the level of absences and see if they will agree to drop the case by an agreement to pay the FPNs

 

if that's the way to end this then OK, but to me that sounds like Section 2 of the fraud act yet again..

 

if its a meeting to discuss the level of attendance by way of discussing the issues which is causing the failed attendance fine, i would totally agree with that but to Agree to Pay the council a fee, i think is wrong.

 

If your Brother shows he is dealing with it and looking to the council to help, if the council then tries to continue to Magistrates then the conduct of the council can be mentioned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How are you going to prove dishonest intent?

 

By way of Letters being sent from the council even after giving them previous notice back in November last year of concerns of fraud due to The Eduction Act not giving power to issue FPNs and that if they repeatedly issued any more FPNS then action may be taken.

Link to post
Share on other sites

By way of Letters being sent from the council even after giving them previous notice back in November last year of concerns of fraud due to The Eduction Act not giving power to issue FPNs and that if they repeatedly issued any more FPNS then action may be taken.

 

Say again?.

 

That doesn't prove dishonest intent. It just shows they disagree.

 

If they say "Oh, we honestly believed the Supreme Court's judgment allows us to issue to penalty", then it isn't dishonest

 

(It even isn't dishonest even if they are wrong ... as long as they didn't make the representation knowing it was wrong.

Are they wrong, though, bearing in mind the Supreme Court's judgment.....

 

If they aren't wrong and are allowed to issue the penalty, according to the Supreme Court's judgment; then it isn't

a) false, or

b) dishonest .......

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying your wrong but how can a Supreme Court issue a Judgement ruling based on something which is not listed in The Education Act 1996. He / She can not add to it what's not listed. Surely the act would need to be amended to allow FPNs?

 

 

It's called 'statutory interpretation'.

 

The Government can amend the law to over rule the Supreme Court if they like but I can't see it being done with Brexit and everything else going on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Read the judgement https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0155-judgment.pdf

and http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/56/part/VI/chapter/II/crossheading/school-attendance-offences-and-education-supervision-orders

 

Regarding the FPN's

 

21.

The penalty notice regime, as an alternative to immediate prosecution, is

contained in sections 444A and 444B, introduced by

section 23 of the Ant social Behaviour Act 2003. The details need not concern us,

 

I don't see 444A and 444B within http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/56/part/VI/chapter/II/crossheading/school-attendance-offences-and-education-supervision-orders

Link to post
Share on other sites

444A and 444B were added into the Education Act by the Anti Social Behaviours Act though.

 

 

Plus the Supreme Court ruling says:

 

"21

The penalty notice regime, as an alternative to immediate prosecution, is contained in sections 444A and 444B, introduced by section 23 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003. The details need not concern us, but the broad shape is that an “authorised officer” may issue such a notice where he has reason to believe that a person has committed an offence under section 444. The notice offers that person the opportunity of escaping liability to conviction for the offence by paying the prescribed penalty. If he does so within the prescribed time he cannot be prosecuted for the offence. The current penalty prescribed by the Education (Penalty Notices) (England) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/1867) (as amended by SI 2012/1046 and SI 2013/757) is £60 if paid within 21 days or £120 if paid within seven days after that. If the person does not pay, he can of course be prosecuted for the original offence, as happened here. "

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...