Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Good morning,   I just left bigmotor and return the vehicle. Staff from bigmotor wasn’t helpful they start from the beginning I need to have appointment. They mentioned there is no one today from after sell who can assist me today aswell. After few min  manager come to talk with me and collect all documents. All conversation has been recorded with full names for both people who was dealing with me in the store.   Thank you     
    • London1971 - he's sick. He & his partner would like to dispose of or utilise via a rental his uk assets and/or to have access to his own £s (including his pension) - to make his end of days more pleasant.  It seems that is now only going to be possible for his partner via probate if Barc won't unblock his account.   HB - sorry I didn't mean to appear rude. I just meant this post will probs end up having to be morphed over to barc threads ! I do appreciate your input
    • I am quite happy to give a breakdown of what happened yesterday in court, and most certainly if it helps anyone. As you can imagine it was quite nerve wracking, despite knowing I had done no wrong there is always a nervousness that things can go against you. As such, I will confess to not remembering legal terms used etc but will try my best. On arrival at court I was, once again, asked by the claimants representative if I wanted a chat in a consultation room. DWF / Adidas do not send their own solicitor , they use a local company of representatives who all seem well known to court staff and judges. This was the 3rd time I had been to the court and on each occasion it was a different representative. I believe the advice on here is to not get involved in these little chats but I felt comfortable with them. First two occasions they did try to talk me into coming to an agreement but this time he just ran through what would happen in court. Not relevant to anybody else's case but this guy was more interested in my Thai Tattoos as he was a Muay Thai fighter and planning a trip to Thailand to fight out there !! When the time came we were ushered into court and took our seats in front of a judge who was already seated. I have to say it was surprisingly relaxed despite my being nervous. The judge called the representative by name and advised that the rep knew him well, knew he had a "straight to the point" attitude towards civil cases and didn't accept pointless waffle. He then outlined the case and spoke to me advising that he was aware I had no legal background and if any of the legal terms he was required to use were not self explanatory to me just to ask a question. Adidas WS had been written by a Senior Manager of Risk Prevention based in Amsterdam and the judge asked if he was attending. He seemed a bit taken aback when advised he would not be. He questioned how it was deemed as "fair" that I could be cross examined but the Adidas employee could not. The adidas rep said that he had a list of questions he had been instructed to ask of me, but that he felt my replies would all be denial so agreed not to cross examine.  The judge, during his summary, came to the part where adidas said I had contacted them asking where my refund was, and they had paid me due to "customer appeasement". His exact words were "the defendant would have to have some brass neck to actually phone chasing a refund for items he knew he had not returned". He also commented that Adidas had claimed that the return went to an altered postcode but did not include an example of what their return label would have looked like at the time, which seemed and obvious bit of evidence to him.  He then handed over to the claimant to put forward their claim. The claim really consisted of their rep reading through their WS and highlighting things which "proved" my guilt. They had discovered on internet forums that people were altering the postcode and sending out empty envelopes in the place of the goods. This was known as FTID (False Tracking ID) and Instant Refund. Apparently I was refunded within 18 minutes of my parcel being scanned at the Post Office. He also suggested that the altered postcode was pretty damning. This took maybe 15 minutes for the full reading. The judge asked if I had any questions and advised that I didn't need to prove my innocence they had to prove my guilt.  I did make a couple of comments but really could have said nothing. I advised that when returning items to a post office, the first thing they ask you to do is put the parcel on the scales, which made a mockery of the empty envelope theory. They then scan the bar code or QR code, which would require in depth knowledge to be able to alter. I asked if adidas had been to this "altered" post code to recover the goods. The tracking provided by Royal Mail remarked "delivered no signature" I pointed out that adidas claim I was refund within 18 minutes but also say they refunded me following a call I had made chasing my refund, a total contradiction The judge then moved onto his decision. He started by saying that he had no doubt whatsoever that Adidas not received the returned goods. At this my stomach totally dropped.  He then said he had absolutely no doubt that I had returned the goods in good faith, and that the return system was obviously flawed for Adidas to have lost £10.4m. Adidas had provided absolutely no evidence to prove otherwise, and on that basis case dismissed. I walked out to the car park with the Adidas rep who advised me that there was absolutely no chance I was ever going to lose. If he had told Adidas what he thought of their case and evidence he wouldn't get any more work, they had no case whatsoever I am quite certain I will have missed some details of the day so quite happy to answer any questions that may jog my memory
  • 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

FPN for littering (dropped a cigarette) - Now Single justice procedure (FPN out of time?)

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 195 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Good afternoon everyone,

on the 10th of may this year I was given a FPN for littering (dropped a cigarette) .Wrong I know but there you go.

Through out the summer I spend a lot of time away from home at our holiday home.

whilst I was away 2 reminders were sent to me and to honest I totally forgot about it,

last week I received a SJP ,

what I need to know is the time limits on these,

the information is  

  • Offensive committed  on 10th may ,
  • postings date 30th November,
  • charge date 30th November,
  • this over the 6 month deadline

could anyone clarify this please as

I have limited time to respond to the notice and should I seek legal advice if it's out of time,


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to FPN for littering (dropped a cigarette) - Now Single justice procedure

thread title updated.

where are you reading if an FPN for littering is outside of 6mts they cant now do court?

why dont you just get on and pay it? £150 i think (was £75) ?

sadly there is not alot you can do about the ignored reminders now.

you could plead not guilty to the SJP and goto a later court hearing, but then you'd expose yourself to almost doubling again the sum you currently owe if not more!


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

  • dx100uk changed the title to FPN for littering (dropped a cigarette) - Now Single justice procedure (FPN out of time?)

The offence is a "summary" offence, meaning it can only be dealt with in the Magistrates' Court.

With a few exceptions (which do not apply here) court proceedings for summary offences must begin within six months of the date of the alleged offence.

Those dealt with under the "Single Justice" procedure are begun with a "written charge" (which goes to the court) and an SJPN (which goes to the defendant).

The legislation (s.29 Criminal Justice Act) says that these should be issued "at he same time". 

What is the date on your SJPN?

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi thanks for replying,

the posting date is 30th November 23 ,

charge date also 30 th November 2023

I accepted the FPN but went away a few days later and pretty much forgot about it

the fine was £75 

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, terrence said:

Hi thanks for replying, the posting date is 30th November 23 , charge date also 30 th November 2023

Then perhaps a puzzled phone call or eMail to whoever issued it, to establish on what basis they have begun court proceedings outside the statutory six month time limit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The key question is “what date was this laid before the court?”

it is possible it was out of time, but equally, what if it were passed to the court in time but the court was delayed in issuing it?

(So, as an example, if laid before the court 9th November, just “in time” and then the court took until the 30th to issue the paperwork).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Under the "Single Justice" procedure the court does not issue any paperwork - that is the responsibility of the prosecutor.

The prosecutor must raise a "written charge". This is the equivalent of "laying an information" with the court. He must also issue an SJPN. This is the equivalent of a summons or postal requisition. The legislation says these should be issued "at the same time".

Whilst there may be a momentary difference  between the time these two are issued there should be no substantial difference. This means that if the OP's SJPN has a date of 30th November, the accompanying written charge should have the same date.

This seems to be confirmed as the OP says he has a "charge date" of 30th November. - which appears to be out of time.


  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Man in the middle, thanks for the info,

that’s the information I’ve been struggling to find anywhere on line,

after the weekend I shall telephone the local authority and ask them to withdraw the charges on the basis they are out of time

I shall also offer to pay the FPN I was issued and hopefully draw it to a conclusion.

I will update when I have more information ,

many thanks 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, terrence said:

I shall also offer to pay the FPN I was issued and hopefully draw it to a conclusion.

I would be a bit careful about how you phrase that. If your prosecution is indeed out of time (and from what you say it certainly appears to be) the council has no further alternatives. I would firstly get their view on the legality of their prosecution. Make absolutely sure of the date of the "written charge" which they sent to the court. If it is later than 10th November, ask them if they are aware of the provisions of Section 127 of the Magistrates' Court Act (which provides the "six month" rule) and how they believe a Magistrates' Court will deal with their prosecution:


An Act to consolidate certain enactments relating to the jurisdiction of, and the practice and procedure before, magistrates’ courts and the functions...

If it is earlier than 10th November (Making it considerably earlier than the date on your SJPN) ask them to explain why the two were not issued "at the same time" as required by Section 46 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act (note 46.3):


The prosecution is either in time (and so is lawful) or it is late (and so is unlawful). There is no reason why you should give them an incentive to decide one way or the other. Making an offer to pay the FP might give them the impression you are unsure of your ground. There is no need to be adverserial about this. They should be able to answer your questions quite readily.

Edited by Man in the middle
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...