Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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 198 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

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

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

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

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...