Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • With Farage back in the news, here's a reminder of his interview with Claire Byrne on Irish TV a few years ago.  
    • So, why do DVLA (via that leaflet) say 1) that S.88 MAY allow a driver to be treated as if they have a valid licence (after an application that discloses a medical condition) AND   2) before DVLA have reached their licensing decision ? (Since S.88 ceases to apply once they have reached a decision to grant or refuse a licence)
    • Thanks for that, Bazza. It sheds some more light on things but I’m still by no means sure of the OP’s father’s likelihood of successfully defending the charge. This in particular from the guidance stands out me: He does not meet all the s88 criteria. S88 is clear and unambiguous: It makes no provision for either the driver or a medical professional to make a judgement on his fitness to drive under s88. S92(4) and the June 2013 guidance you mention defines in what circumstances the SoS must issue a licence. It does no modify s88 in any way. However, delving further I have noticed that the DVLA provides a service where the driver can enter a relevant medical condition to obtain the correct documentation to apply for a licence: https://www.gov.uk/health-conditions-and-driving/find-condition-online I haven’t followed this through because I don’ have the answers that the OP’s father would give to the questions they will ask and in any case it requires the input of personal information and I don’t want to cause complications with my driving licence. It is possible, however, that the end result (apart from providing the necessary forms) is a “Yes/No” answer to whether the driver can continue to drive (courtesy of s88). With that in mind, I should think at  the very least the OP’s father should have completed that process but there is no mention that he has. The Sleep Apnoea Trust gives some useful guidance on driving and SA: https://sleep-apnoea-trust.org/driving-and-sleep-apnoea/detailed-guidance-to-uk-drivers-with-sleep-apnoea/ I know nothing about SA at all and found It interesting to learn that there are various “grades” of the condition. But the significant thing which struck me is that it is only the least trivial version that does not require a driver to report his condition to the DVLA. But more significant than that is that the SA Trust makes no mention of continuing to drive once the condition has been reported. The danger here is that the court will simply deconstruct s88 and reach the same conclusion that I have. I accept, having looked at the DVLA guidance, that there may be (as far as they are concerned) scope for s88 to apply contrary to the conditions stated in the legislation. Firstly, we don’ know whether there is and secondly we don’t know whether the OP’s father would qualify to take advantage of it. Of course he could argue that he need no have reported his condition. The SA trust certainly emphasises that the condition should not be reported until a formal detailed diagnosis is obtained. But the fact is he did report it. As soon as he does that, as far as I can see,  s88 is no longer available to him. Certainly as it stands I maintain my opinion that he was not allowed to continue driving under s88. The only way I would change this is to see the end result of the DVLA exercise I mentioned above. If that said he could continue driving he would have a defence to the charge. Without it I am not confident.  
    • Americans are already keen on UK-made coins, and the Mint said it has seen a 118 per cent increase in sales to the US since 2022.View the full article
  • 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

Debt Help Required Please - Scotland


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1601 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

5 minutes ago, dx100uk said:

The cca changes are not retrospective if the agreement was prior to them.

Did I say anything differently?

5 minutes ago, dx100uk said:

so be careful about making sweeping statements that are not necessarily true for every situ regarding recons.

Again, did I make sweeping statements (apart from it helps if the agreement has been assigned, which it does

5 minutes ago, dx100uk said:

 

If someone knows they signed an agreement. Then it needs to be produced regardless of agreement age to be enforceable 

This gets technical so you might not understand. If the agreement was pre Apr 2007 you would expect the lack of a signed agreement to be fatal to a claim BUT it relies on the individual stating they did not sign any agreement AND the Judge believing them - See Arrow Global V Frost - they lost when no agreement was produced. 

 

Post 2007 the law is much fuzzier and the courts can enforce even with no signed agreement if they can demonstrate the money was advanced . It maybe that the Judge places some sanction such as a reduced amount but it is up to the judge. An example given is the Iron Mountain Fire. If a bank sends all its documents off to be stored - should they automatically be disadvantaged if these documents are lost due to fire , flood or natural disaster.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/127

5 minutes ago, dx100uk said:

 

Court and being enforceable under the cca are 2 very sep issues. But neither can protect against judge lottery........

 I said that very thing, a CCA Request is for information purposes only . Enforceability is a lot more complex than just a CCA Request and you are right- the wrong judge on the wrong day and you would lose. That is what I said in post 26

 

We are both on the same side - we want to fight for consumer rights so there is no need to try and get the last word in or prove me wrong. 

Arrow_Global_v_Frost.pdf

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

Yes technically they have the 12+2 working days to comply. After that time the debts become unenforceable but only until the do fully comply. Depending upon the type of debts you now need to make a decision; do you stop paying or carry on for another month for so and see what transpires. Only you can make that decision 

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good well cancel the dd or the cpa they were using too!!

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
35 minutes ago, fletch70 said:

RBS are usually slow at selling debts on but hang in there- they did eventually sell mine on and cabot couldn't produce the goods

 

As for CCA requests and O/Ds there was an appeal case where it was accepted a S78 request was needed for OD. It was MFS Portfolio v Phelan & West

 

Is the Amex a nectar card? I had one from way back when and in response to a CCA Request they produced some data with AMEX Canada Intranet at the bottom of the page- it certainly wan't compliant, another £3.5 K gone Statute barred

Amex I got from American Express fletch70

Link to post
Share on other sites

Amex didn’t sell my debt on even though I wasn’t paying. RBS sold both my Mint and NatWest  cards on after not paying for 5 years. 
 

Both had good S78 requests but dodgy default notices.

 

I had not assets or mortgage - well not by the time they sold it 
 

 

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Debt Help Required Please - scotland
1 hour ago, dellnasnoods said:

Does this apply in Scotland too?

 

Thanks

now he tells us....:bounce:

 

it makes a very big diff with regard to statute barring.

once you've not paid for 5yrs the debt is extinguished. dead parrot gone

unlike in E&W whereby it simply removes enforcement of any court judgement so fleecers don't bother to litigate.

 

can we just clarify...

you were resident in Scotland when you took all these credit accounts out? 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • AndyOrch changed the title to Debt Help Required Please - Scotland

:rockon:

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...