Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • slow down ...read what i'm asking , stating and trying to clarify.. it all might seem useless or totally irrelevant but it's important information moving forward with the whole situation and useful in the SPC claim moving forward     there was not 2 loans - the litigated OD is not a loan but it appears from your comment here..     sorry but then you did get scammed on many fronts... they allowed you to settle the loan exploiting your confusion over thinking it was the litigated account. they didn't tell you either and they would also have been aware of your statement filed response form:   The respondent had a junior account with the Bank of Scotland since a young age.  The Bank of Scotland offered the Respondent a loan of around £2500. This Respondent serviced the loan until losing her source of income and ran into some financial difficulty resulting in defaulting in servicing the loan.   they settled for a discounted sum... why? we usually find this is because they hold no enforceable paperwork at all. or was full of charges , charges could have been the discount or it could have been due to 'a business decision' ...   but sure as eggs is eggs there is no way 1st credit would not have raised a court claim for both the OD and the loan unless there was a very good reason. they didn't that smells...badly.   OD 's are notoriously difficult to litigate upon if defended properly...but with a loan in the same claim, with enforceable paperwork, they would have almost been guaranteed to win.   it's also a shame you didn't come where before you did anything but we are where we are.   now the above might seem harsh..even petty but our posts are not only for you and your issue they are also for future readers that find us via search engines or read like threads here alerting debtors to frequent pitfalls and innocent wet myself actions many do that all these dca's will and have exploited time and time again over the last +40yrs .   i'll try and get around to properly redacting all your pdf's tonight and get them back up. but before i finish and get on with the above........the status of the claim as it stands now.   From what i can gather the claim now hinges upon proving her ex at the time settled by a discounted payment to HBOS well before the sale to Intrum and the SPC Claim.   In all honestly and with regard to your comments in your previous posts upon his character, i seriously doubt this ever happened. the disclosures from Intrum contain all the OD statements , should that have happened, it would be detailed in those.   there is little point in the claimant hiding that info as they would be in far more legal trouble should they have doctored them than insuring a mere +£1k claim win. Even 1st credit wouldn't pull such stunts.   Sorry but there is little point in requesting HBOS to attend any future hearing, nor hoping the SAR shows anything different to the statements the claimant has disclosed . That will cost you more money , and more money in terms of the claimant attending another hearing.   there is one exploitation i see. that being the mention of a default notice. the claim states:  The respondent fell into arrears under the Finance Agreement. A Default Notice was Issued by the Original Creditor .   now default notices are not issued for OD A/C's (which ties in to the possible loan confusion and scam settlement i mentioned) . This tallies with a common mistake that many DCA's, including why i keep mentioning 1st credit, which is the previous name for Intrum, made on numerous claims and was one of the reasons for the name change. To Hide that They lost many Statutory Demand and court claims over the non existence of a DN or proof of it's issuance by the OC (a DCA can't issue a DN) .. No copy of a default notice is fatal to to successful  litigation.   even though in this OD case one was not ever needed. (Poor particulars of claim showing copy and paste, and never expecting a claim to be defended but responded to by a wet themselves response , which you did by settling a loan which you believed was the claimed debt when it never was)    other than that you indicate you made an OOC F&F offer in 09-20  have you advanced this option since ?   dx
    • A government-backed firm is looking for new ways to get people to put money aside for a "rainy day". View the full article
    • Hi 1983 and welcome to CAG   Bear with us as it gets quieter here over the weekend.   CCA requests will not be appropriate for the bank account overdrafts.   Before further suggestions are made about CCA requests from the creditors, can you give us approx opening dates for each of the 5 CC a/c's and the bank loan a/c.
    • Hi,    I'm new to this forum and hoping for some advice!   I have various overdraft, credit card and loan debts, which are all a bit of a mess:   Barclaycard (2 cards) = £14,000 (1 card suspended, but not in arrears) Lloyds CC= £3,800 Tesco CC = £3700 Natwest CC = £650 Natwest Loan £17,000 Natwest OD = £1,400 Halifax OD = £1,500   Currently, I have not missed any payments, but I'm reaching a point where these debts are becoming unmanageable. I have just about kept up with repayments but now all 0% have ended and minimum payments are increasing making it impossible.    I am considering a debt management plan... Reading through other people's experiences, dmp's seem to have mixed opinions and I'm also unsure if I should use a company like Step Change or Payplan whether I'd do better approaching the various creditors myself.   My wife also has debts, but much less (approx £10k and up to date, but struggling). Is it prudent for us to both start a dmp, or will that effect our long term plans if/when we want to remortgage/move down the line? (i know it'll be 6 years after default before these will disappear from our files).   As it stands, my min payments next month are approaching £1k, which is absurd. What kind of level of min payment would I expect to pay in a dmp?   Also, there seems to be a lot of advice on obtaining CCA's. At what point should I be asking for these, or is this something best left until the debts are inevitably sold on?   Sorry for the multiple questions!   Thanks in advance,   A    
    • No I have not  . . . there are two loans bought by Intrum.  An overdataft debit and a Loan. The Overdraft debit has not been settled.   . . . It is still going and it is in the Simple Procedure Court  . . .  and this is what my post is about The Loan debit has been settled by accepting the dicounted settlement.
  • Our picks

    • 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
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

Mobile Speed Camera in front of GATSO


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 905 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

Hi. I'm just wondering what the law is regarding having Mobile Speed Camera Vans stationed next to GATSO's.

 

I received a ticket, my fault I was over the limit but was already slowing as I go past the GATSO every day.

 

It's a 70mph dual carriageway which drops to 60 about 500 yards before the camera, then returns to 70 again. There have been no recent incidents here, any reason the Police would do this?

 

Just seems like a way to make money from those passing the '60' signs still just over the limit as they slow down.

Edited by dx100uk
Spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd go with the latter, perhaps the GATSO was out of order, so they guessed making it even more obvous by sticking a whacking great white van next to it would give drivers a better opportunity to slow down.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a making money scheme at all. If you didnt speed, theyd make no money. Cameras are placed in areas of high risk or more so, proven high risk/accident areas.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Money making scheme.

 

Nothing you can do about it rather than slam on the brakes next time you see the sign dropping the speed limit for no reason whatsoever and hope nobody hits you from the back.

 

Many of these speed traps here in London, some of them have the reduced speed limit only for a couple of hundred yards in the middle of nowhere.

 

Just consider it another tax for the luxury of having a car.

Don't get upset for things you cannot change.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Money making scheme.

Nothing you can do about it rather than slam on the brakes next time you see the sign dropping the speed limit for no reason whatsoever and hope nobody hits you from the back.

 

Or drive within the speed limit, and remain aware of the driving environment.

When the speed limit changes the signs don’t leap out at the last minute.

Read the road ahead and reduce speed in advance of the sign : there will then be no need to “slam on the brakes”!

 

Just seems like a way to make money from those passing the '60' signs still just over the limit as they slow down.

 

The speed limit drops from 70 to 60, a whole 10 mph, and you can’t slow down in time?

Sounds like you aren’t paying attention or were already going over 70 prior to the limit decreasing ......

Link to post
Share on other sites
Money making scheme.

Nothing you can do about it rather than slam on the brakes next time you see the sign dropping the speed limit for no reason whatsoever and hope nobody hits you from the back.

Many of these speed traps here in London, some of them have the reduced speed limit only for a couple of hundred yards in the middle of nowhere.

Just consider it another tax for the luxury of having a car.

Don't get upset for things you cannot change.

 

you REALLY need to stop giving out bad advice

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Speed trap in middLe of nowhere and only 200 yards to reduce speed.

 

My God what speed are you doing if you can't reduce your speed over 200 yards. Breaking the limits?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Same old story.

Gatso are placed at high accident spots.

It could be where there is a junction coming up, 70 to 60 is reasonable.

Could be pedestrians cross etc etc.

 

The best excuse I hear is my car is not designed to go 20mph.....

Well yes it is, your attitude is not designed to drive at 20mph

Link to post
Share on other sites
you REALLY need to stop giving out bad advice

 

What advice is bad?

That there's nothing the op can do?

If you want to give false hopes and tell the op to appeal and go to court, by all means do that, but it will be a hopeless and costly exercise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

T

Or drive within the speed limit, and remain aware of the driving environment.

When the speed limit changes the signs don’t leap out at the last minute.

Read the road ahead and reduce speed in advance of the sign : there will then be no need to “slam on the brakes”!

 

Sounds like you don't drive.

 

In a dual carriageway while everyone is going 70mph and there are no obstacles or bends but just straight road ahead, it is not unusual for drivers to pay attention to the traffic rather than street FURNITURE.

 

Dropping the speed limit just for the purpose of the camera is a clear money making scheme.

 

There's no other reason for the limit to be dropped in a straight line in the middle of nowhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Going with the flow of traffic... No defence.

Speed limits are not dropped for no reason. Their is always a reason.

 

Junction coming up.

School zone

Blind hill

Etc etc

 

You might not agree with the reason but that's no excuse.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds like you don't drive.

In a dual carriageway while everyone is going 70mph and there are no obstacles or bends but just straight road ahead, it is not unusual for drivers to pay attention to the traffic rather than street FURNITURE.

Dropping the speed limit just for the purpose of the camera is a clear money making scheme.

There's no other reason for the limit to be dropped in a straight line in the middle of nowhere.

 

Then in your scenario, the drivers are at fault.

Speed limits are there for a reason.

Not for you to ignore because everyone else does.

 

And again, the speed limit doesnt drop just because theres a camera.

 

The camera is there because theres a historic trend of people speeding on that stretch of road/driving dangerously, or many recorded accidents on that stretch.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds like you don't drive.

In a dual carriageway while everyone is going 70mph and there are no obstacles or bends but just straight road ahead, it is not unusual for drivers to pay attention to the traffic rather than street FURNITURE.

Dropping the speed limit just for the purpose of the camera is a clear money making scheme.

There's no other reason for the limit to be dropped in a straight line in the middle of nowhere.

 

I do drive.

 

I don’t pay attention only to the traffic.

I pay attention to the traffic around me, the conditions around me, and the signs showing the speed limit.

 

If I choose to exceed the speed limit, I equally choose to accept the potential penalty for exceeding the speed limit!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Then in your scenario, the drivers are at fault. Speed limits are there for a reason. Not for you to ignore because everyone else does. And again, the speed limit doesnt drop just because theres a camera. The camera is there because theres a historic trend of people speeding on that stretch of road/driving dangerously, or many recorded accidents on that stretch.

 

Anyone who drives knows that most speed cameras are there to make money.

 

I can point at dozens of them in my area that don't serve any other purpose.

 

Then of course there's the elite group of respectable people who blame and hate drivers.

 

Nothing us motorists can do about it rather than accept the fines and points so insurance companies can get richer.

 

BTW, I only got done once by a speed trap in 25 years driving , before you start saying that I'm a boy racer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hang on, then.

Is it a plot to make the insurance companies richer?

The speed camera partnership richer?

Both??

 

Just who is doing the plotting, and how??

Edited by dx100uk
Quote
Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone who drives knows that most speed cameras are there to make money.

But, equally, you could argue that anyone who drives but does not go past a speed camera location at excess speed does not get points or have to part with any money, and the camera partnership go broke. It works both ways.

 

 

And before you counter with, I'm obviously a lover of speed cameras... I'm not, I hate the damn things. I've been driving 35 years but I'm also switched on enough not to travel everywhere at warp 9. The only time I have been 'caught' by a camera in my own car was 75 in a 30 (3am, only car on the road, dry, clear, good vis etc) but that was a genuine emergency and it got NFA'd by the police.

 

Oh, and I did once get stopped by officers, not long after I'd started driving for doing 36 in a 30. But that was on a dual carriageway and I (wrongly as it turned out) thought it was a 40. That got NFA'd as well.

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What advice is bad?

 

This is:

 

Nothing you can do about it rather than slam on the brakes next time you see the sign dropping the speed limit for no reason

 

Not only bad but irresponsible.

There is no need for anybody to "slam on the brakes" when they see a change of speed limit.

 

Most changes can be accommodated without any braking at all.

 

The other aspects of your argument are largely obtuse.

 

Answering the original question, there is no "law"against having Mobile Speed Camera Vans stationed next to GATSO's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another one ready to point fingers at drivers.

 

If I am on a motorway and been doing 70mph for miles and miles, the corner of my eye is gonna see a 60 sign and a few yards later a yellow box, automatically the right foot will go full on the brakes to avoid lining pockets of insurance and government.

 

Then of course everyone else is a great driver like you and never gets caught in these speed trap...

 

That's why there are so few motorists caught...

 

I want to use words out of movies like obtuse, but I don't watch tv while driving...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that got out of hand quickly,

was just a question so no need to rant at each other.

 

Yes there is a filter junction just ahead of the GATSO which is clearly marked well in advance

 

I don't travel at Warp 9 or Slam My Brakes on at every camera.

I simply ease off the throttle as I pass through the speed change sign.

 

The law technically states that you must be at the new speed as you pass the sign so that's my fault, no problem with that.

 

The mobile camera

- pointing backwards toward oncoming traffic passing the threshold

- was put in place on the day purely to make money from this.

 

Everyone is travelling at 60 well before the junction and the GATSO.

Makes zero difference to road safety.

Edited by dx100uk
Spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is another one ready to point fingers at drivers.

 

If I am on a motorway and been doing 70mph for miles and miles, the corner of my eye is gonna see a 60 sign and a few yards later a yellow box, automatically the right foot will go full on the brakes to avoid lining pockets of insurance and government.

 

Then of course everyone else is a great driver like you and never gets caught in these speed trap...

 

That's why there are so few motorists caught...

 

I want to use words out of movies like obtuse, but I don't watch tv while driving...

 

If you only see the 60 sign “out the corner of your eye” and “Have to go full on the brakes” to avoid passing it at more than 60 : you aren’t paying enough attention to the road ahead.

 

“automatically” going “full on the brakes” is an appropriate response to the sudden appearance of a new hazard.

It is below the standard of a careful and competent driver for fixed speed limit signs.

You may not be watching TV while driving but you aren’t paying appropriate attention to the environment you are driving in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If a police officer could prove it , it would be driving without due care and attention.

 

I do find the driving does get in the way of me watching tv tho! 😁

Link to post
Share on other sites
If a police officer could prove it , it would be driving without due care and attention.

 

I do find the driving does get in the way of me watching tv tho! 😁

 

‘Without due care & consideration for other road users’ if another road user is inconvenienced.

Careless driving is the almost identical offence, but doesn’t require another road user to be inconvenienced.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...