Then you were badly advised, I'm afraid. You are not entitled to any evidence before deciding whether or not to accept a fixed penalty and the solicitor should have known that. The idea of a fixed penalty offer is that you accept the allegation as it stands and are willing to dispose of the matter without it going to court. The police are under no obligation to provide you with anything until they begin court proceedings and then you are only entitled to the "Initial Details of the Prosecution Case" (IDPC). This, roughly speaking is the evidence the police intend to rely on to convict you, to enable you to enter an informed plea. You are not entitled to see "all evidence involved with the case" unless the court agrees to anything over and above the IDPC before your trial. This is something else the solicitor should have known I hope you didn't pay him or her any money. If you did I would seek a refund. My advice would be to simply plead guilty in response to the SJPN. You can mention the precise circumstances and request some leniency. A kindly Single Justice may reduce the fine a little, especially as you seem to have been badly misled. You might even be lucky and be sentenced at the fixed penalty level, though I would be surprised. But six points is the inevitable outcome unless something spectacularly unexpected happens.

Yes e mailed the court with WS as advised and asked for confirmation of receipt and received the following response AUTO RESPONSE – DO NOT REPLY** WE AIM TO REPLY TO CORRESPONDENCE WITHIN 30 WORKING DAYS HOWEVER AT BUSY TIMES THIS MAY BE LONGER If you are getting in touch about an upcoming hearing date or something urgent we will reply as soon as we can. IF SENDING BY EMAIL DO NOT SEND BY HARD COPY AS WELL As for sending to DCBL, I was able to send the WS to my wife to print and post it off by registered mail So lets see how this unfolds, I'm feeling pretty confident and will watch out on the off chance they see sense and drop the claim but they seem stupid enough to see it through Thanks for everyone's input- lets hope we can chalk up another win against the parasites

Apologies for butting in, but I have a question that may be relevant if this goes to court. Is it well understood what the functional and cost differences between the sub-base they installed and the one you specified are? I ask, because if this does go to court and they're able to show that the sub-base they installed performs at least as well, or possibly better, than the one you wanted, you could be stuffed. Of course I bracket that by saying I've no knowledge of this area, I just thought devil's advocate might be helpful.

Courts usually, though not always, are pretty quick with set aside hearings. However, at the moment all is in a state of limbo waiting for the set aside application to be considered. Nothing stopping a new LoC going off though.

Wizz Air Mr József Váradi CEO Email Jozsef.Varadi@wizzair.com

For context, a 'cylinder pressure test', more commonly known as a 'compression test', involves removing each spark plug one by one, screwing in a pressure gauge in its place and cranking the engine over on the starter until the pressure reading stabilises. Rinse and repeat for each cylinder. The labour to do this would vary based on the number of cylinders and the ease of access to the spark plugs, but I cannot believe it would be anywhere near £500. You could complete this test on a 3 or 4 cylinder Vauxhall Corsa engine in about 20 minutes.

police were not involved at the time, so cannot now, nor would they ever have been interested in the 1st place in getting involved. seriously, they, as the store are only interested in the organised gangs that carry out mass shoplifting to fund further criminal acts. members of joe public, even if they confess to multiple previous events or even if multiple events might be prevalent, are not on stores' radar, it does the stores no favour at all, to compound, what is probably understood through decades of dealing them, to take things further. it's hoped it's dealt with by the person with their family or professional help like a GP. they recognise it's a cry for help. please, totally ignore the very cleverly worded letters people like RLP and DWF send out, if read their letters CAREFULLY, you'll actually see , just like letters you get from DCA's, that they never say WILL anywhere....every other word BUT that one. it's a scam, the retailers dont see a penny of anything you pay RLP/DWF, their staff run straight down the pub, just like a DCA does if you pay them ANYTHING. tell her to move on.. dx

HI. From what we've seen here over the years I think it's unlikely the police will be involved. Better to concentrate your efforts on getting help for her to stop stealing. HB

As DX100 has already pointed out, category N is non structural , ie cosmetic damage it means the car has had a very minor accident in the past that wouldn't affect it's safety integrity or roadworthiness. It will affect the price because it's registered and accident repaired, but as cars get older, this becomes less significant. All you can do is chalk this up to experience, you could have done what your buyer did and checked the car's HPI report when you bought it. Ultimately though if you've had the car for a while, had good use out of it then what did the category N status matter?, it's only an issue now when trying to sell but what i suggest is to put in the advert that the car is cat N, explain what this means and then you'll only get inquiries from people who (rightly) aren't bothered by this.

You applied for a forthwith judgement. They should already have paid you. So no messing around, as soon as the 14 days are up - 18 May - go for enforcement. IIRC it'll cost you £83, but no worries, they will be paying that to the bailiffs too so you'll get it back. You also need to send another LoC. it can be identical to the first one, except for the below. Obviously check my additional words for accuracy as I can't remember when you sent the first LoC. The reason for adding the nine words is that, in the Virgin thread which you may have read, the charlatans' solicitors tried to argue that they were being sued for the same thing twice, so this is to scupper that excuse! Therefore I am giving you a final 7 days in which to satisfy my subject access request and if you do not do so I shall be beginning a County Court claim against you for £200 for distress for the period from 20 March to 15 May.