Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I understand what you mean. But consider that part of the problem, and the frustration of those trying to help, is the way that questions are asked without context and without straight facts. A lot of effort was wasted discussing as a consumer issue before it was mentioned that the property was BTL. I don't think we have your history with this property. Were you the freehold owner prior to this split? Did you buy the leasehold of one half? From a family member? How was that funded (earlier loan?). How long ago was it split? Have either of the leasehold halves changed hands since? I'm wondering if the split and the leashold/freehold arrangements were set up in a way that was OK when everyone was everyone was connected. But a way that makes the leasehold virtually unsaleable to an unrelated party.
    • quite honestly id email shiply CEO with that crime ref number and state you will be taking this to court, for the full sum of your losses, if it is not resolved ASAP. should that be necessary then i WILL be naming Shiply as the defendant. this can be avoided should the information upon whom the courier was and their current new company contact details, as the present is simply LONDON VIRTUAL OFFICES  is a company registered there and there's a bunch of other invisible companies so clearly just a mail address   
    • If it doesn’t sell easily : what they can get at an auction becomes fair market price, which may not realise what you are hoping.
    • Thank you. The receiver issue is a rabbit hole I don't think I'm going to enjoy going down. These people seem so protected. And I don't understand how or why?  Fair market value seems to be ever shifting and contentious.
    • Hungary is attempting to be a world power in manufacturing electric vehicle batteries, despite locals' reservations.View the full article
  • 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

NIP - 76 in a 50 motorway zone - short term disqualification


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1619 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

I am amazed a professional who is concerned there is so much at stake hasn’t done basic research (& nor, it appears, have the legal professionals you have approached).

Surely their obligation to their client is to find out what their client’s main objective(s) is / are?, and the impact with the GMC appears to be your primary concern.

 

If in the BMA (as your Trades Union) : have you asked them?

Your defence body (MDU / MPS) if you have one

Have you informally approached the GMC?

 

Furthermore, the most cursory of searches provides:

https://www.gmc-uk.org/-/media/documents/DC4594_CE_Decision_Guidance___Annex_D___Convictions_Guidance.pdf_58067974.pdf

Motoring offences which result in a charge or summons to appear before a criminal court require disclosure to the GMC. We do not investigate speeding offences unless there are specific aggravating features which raise a question about the doctor’s fitness to practise.

 

I’m just gobsmacked neither you nor they have looked for and found this, and separately that they might aim for a ban rather than points!

 

The ‘advantage’ of a ban : “over & done with” rather than the future prospect of a ban by “totting-up”.

Yet, you’ve had points before and seen them lapse by not getting further points before they expired.

 

You MIGHT get a ban. A ban is possible even at 66-75 in a 50, and 76 is just into the next band for sentencing.

(Check the Magistrates Court Sentencing Guidelines online)

 

My advice?. Get a solicitor (local to the court, who knows the bench and the best approach to take!).Plead guilty, attending court, with the solicitor making a plea in mitigation.

Hope for points and a band C fine, then avoid getting more points.

Let the GMC know as soon as you are summonsed and let them know you are going to plead guilty (and when you do so, the outcome). If there are no complicating factors, if you keep the GMC informed: that is where their interest will end.

 

An alternative will be to let one of the “legal loophole” expert firms look at it and see if they can get you off on a technicality.

Advantages : no points, no risk of ban, no effect in your insurance, and definitely no GMC involvement.

Disadvantages: Cost, relies on there being a looophole to find (else all the advantages vanish!), if it means them attending court you may lose credit for a guilty plea and the “local knowledge” factor.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I called the GMC for advice. They refused to give any advice without me identifying.

.........

 

MDU- I am a member but they deal with clinical governance issues and patient care and clinical incidences/negligence's but I will ask

 

Re: GMC

Why anonymously?

Nothing to stop you saying “I MAY be prosecuted....(& am considering if I should plead ‘not guilty’)”, so why the concern of identifying yourself. If it proceeds to court you’ll have to identify yourself at the summons stage anyway, as per the GMC guidance.

 

Re: MDU. As it isn’t an issue within your indemnified clinical practice I agree it is unlikely they’ll provide you with legal representation. However I suspect you won’t be the first MDU member to be prosecuted for speeding (nor likely the last ..), so my expectation is that:

a) they won’t provide a lawyer for you, but

b) they will be able to advise you re: the GMC, its processes, and what your expectations should be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

6 months from the offence to lodge the papers with the court.

 

Once lodged, the “clock is stopped” and there will be no effect of any delay that occurs until the court issued the summons.

If the court is very busy and doesn’t have an available date, only issuing the summons much later, it doesn’t affect the “6 months” limit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • dx100uk changed the title to NIP - 76 in a 50 motorway zone - short term disqualification

What, you mean watching for speed limit signs, and indicators of presumed 30 limit (such as built-up area with street lights), like every driver should be doing if they want to avoid risk of a speeding ticket?

Perish the thought! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...