Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • FE499A8C-69E2-4D9A-9F00-8F3B570A546F.pdfFE499A8C-69E2-4D9A-9F00-8F3B570A546F.pdf Hi , I attached letters as described 
    • FSO is orchestra..FOS. erudio wont go anywhere near a court with this. your main issue is you keep poking the bear..and using the phone. they cant enforce them and they cant refuse back dated deferment.   get our copy of the old blank SLC deferment form from the home page of this SLC forum. filling out copies for the years you could/did not defer   send them off to erudio with a covering letter that you will not be entering into any further discussions over the issues   let 'em sweat.   as for admission, well you've got to do that anyway.
    • There's plenty information in the links I have provided which would suggest so...a deed must be witnessed ..not necessarily independent..but without three signatures its validity must be questioned.   See what your Solicitor thinks.
    • It seems there are a number of issues here. The first is that the matter was heard in your absence even though you informed the court that you would not be able to attend the hearing. It is most unusual for a court not to allow an adjournment for a minor motoring matter when the defendant has asked for one and has a good reason for asking.   Unfortunately, pleading guilty to speeding was the worst thing you could have done. They have no evidence that you were driving (that comes from you providing your details). When I asked you earlier whether you intended to ask for the usual “deal” (to drop the FtF charge in exchange for pleading guilty to speeding) I assumed you knew that you must maintain Not Guilty pleas to both matters until the deal was agreed. What I don’t understand is why you have not been convicted of speeding in view of that plea (and, as mentioned, how you didn’t land up with nine points).   The fine and costs seem to have been based on the default weekly income of £440 per week (the fine is 1.5 times weekly income). So, unless the income you stated was coincidentally £440 pw, it seems the statement of income you provided has not been used.   This is a mess, some of it down to you and some, it seems possibly down to the court. An appeal to the Crown Court is not advisable. You have not mentioned why you failed to provide the driver’s details but without you being there to offer a defence (and it’s a difficult charge to defend anyway) you were probably properly convicted of that. You were also lucky not to have been convicted of speeding. If you appeal against conviction to the Crown Court it will almost certainly fail and you may end up with a speeding conviction plus the Crown Court costs (which may be around £1k) into the bargain.   I believe your avenue of approach should be to the Clerk to the Justices of the area where the court is (details are available online from HMRC website). You should asked for the matter to be reopened under Section 142 of the Magistrates’ Court act. Paragraph 1 of that section says this:     Power of magistrates’ court to re-open cases to rectify mistakes etc. (1)    A magistrates’ court may vary or rescind a sentence or other order imposed or made by it when dealing with an offender if it appears to the court to be in the interests of justice to do so; and it is hereby declared that this power extends to replacing a sentence or order which for any reason appears to be invalid by another which the court has power to impose or make.   You should make your request on the grounds that you were refused the adjournment you requested, were not informed of that refusal, and therefore had no opportunity to attend your hearing. I would attach a copy of your original request. You were therefore not able to properly state your case. You can also state that you were not fined in accordance with your means (though be a bit careful with that if your income is significantly above £440 pw).   The issue really is that, faced with being unable to attend the hearing and learning only a short time beforehand that your adjournment had not been granted you were panicked into action that you had not properly considered (i.e. pleading guilty to speeding). I would not, however, put it like that (because that is what you intend to do anyway if you get a fresh hearing and are able to do a “deal”). The deal with the prosecution is conducted routinely every day and will be well known to the Clerk to the Justices, the prosecutor and the Magistrates. But you need to secure a fresh hearing, have the original conviction set aside, and start anew. A request under S142 is the only way to achieve that so I hope you succeed. You may want to seek legal advice to help you with the above. Alas to get representation in court will almost certainly cost you more than you might save but bear in mind you now have an endorsement code MS90 on your licence. Insurers absolutely hate that (because they wonder what you might have done that you didn't want to accept you were driving) and it will increase your premiums for up to five years (might be worth getting a couple of dummy quotes to see the effect).   I don't think I can help much further but if so le me know.  
    • Thanks for the response Andy.   That is correct, there is no third signature, the blanked out sections are my own name and signature. The deed was only signed by my self and the bank manager that dealt with me, so only 2 signatures.    Would you assume the deed is invalid?
  • Our picks

    • Future Comms is a Big Con. How to get out of it. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/417058-future-comms-is-a-big-con-how-to-get-out-of-it/
        • Like
      • 4 replies
    • Future Comms issues. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/416504-future-comms-issues/
      • 5 replies
    • This is a bit of a lengthy one but I’ll summerise best as possible.
      I was contacted by future comms by phone, they stated that they could beat any phone contract I have , (I am a limited company but just myself that needs a business phone and I am the only worker) 
      I told future comms my deal, £110 per month with a phone and a virtual landline, they confirmed that they could beat that, £90 per month with a phone , virtual landline  they also confirmed they would pay Vodafone (previous provider) the termination fee. As I am in business, naturally I was open to making a deal. So we proceeded. 
      Future comms then revealed that the contract would be with PLAN.COM and the airtime would be provided by 02, I instantly told them that this would break the deal as I have poor 02 signal in the house where I live as my partner is on 02 and constantly complaining about bad signal
      the salesman assured me he would send a signal booster box out with the phone so I would have perfect signal.
      so far so good.....
      i then explained this is the only mobile phone I use for business and pleasure, so therefore I didn’t want any disconnection time in the slightest between the switchover from Vodafone to 02
      the salesman then confirmed that the existing phone would only be disconnected once the new phone was switched on.
      so far so good....
      • 14 replies
    • A shocking story of domestic and economic abuse compounded by @BarclaysUKHelp ‏ bank complicity – coming soon @A_Gentle_Woman. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/415737-a-shocking-story-of-domestic-and-economic-abuse-compounded-by-barclaysukhelp-%E2%80%8F-bank-complicity-%E2%80%93-coming-soon-a_gentle_woman/
      • 0 replies
Sign in to follow this  

Final Tata Steel pensions deal 'days away'

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 677 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

A final agreement on pensions could mean Tata Steel's merger with a German rival is more likely to happen.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...