are you saying it isn’t true? if you aren’t disputing it, what difference if it is or isn’t on body cam. if the officer decided to report you for consideration of prosecution : then up to the CPS, who have summonsed you, then up to the court a) if you are guilty or not, b) if guilty, the sentence: decided from the guidelines The penalty was increased to 6 points, as well as a Band A fine (maximum Level 3) https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/offences-appropriate-for-imposition-of-fine-or-discharge/3-offences-appropriate-for-imposition-of-fine-or-discharge/#Use_of_mobile_telephone

https://www.gov.uk/using-mobile-phones-when-driving-the-law that page isn’t a definitive statement of the law, but is persuasive, and notes “The law still applies to you if you’re: stopped at traffic lights ………. driving a car that turns off the engine when you stop moving” So I doubt the “auto brake was in, auto engine off was active” gives you a defence, nor that you were stopped in a queue of traffic. That you say you were still in control of your vehicle doesn’t matter when you consider you aren’t being prosecuted for not being in control, but instead using the handheld while driving. Compating it with speeding past a Gatso isn’t likely to be a useful tactic; the law was changed to increase the penalty. I suspect your opportunity was to persuade the traffic officer to give you words of advice and not submit it for prosecution : that ship has sailed.

If on a network where you can have multi-party / conference calls, iPhones can record calls (e.g. Tape-a-call app, or similar)

Unless held by a single individual the “legal” title to a property is ALWAYS held as a joint tenancy, and passes on by survivorship. This is the information held at the Land Registry under the legal title. The “beneficial” (or “equitable”) interest in the property can be held under joint tenancy or tenancy in common. By “severing” the joint tenancy, the partner made the beneficial interests a tenancy in common, allowing their share of their beneficial interest to be passed on in accordance with their will (or the rules of intestacy if there wasn’t one). So 3 scenarios: for both: A) the legal title was held by them both, or B) the legal title was held by your BIL, then, currently your BIL holds the legal title to the property, and holds the beneficial interest of their ex-partner on Trust, for the beneficiary / beneficiaries of the Will. If, however, C) the legal title was held by your BIL’s ex-partner, then the legal title passes to the estate, and the executor/s holds your BIL’s beneficial interest on trust for him. The presumption is a 50/50 split between your BIL and their ex-partner, though this is rebuttable (where different intent of the parties can be shown : did they have an agreement / discussion based around this?) For A or B: your BIL can sell the property but needs to pass the ex’s share on to her estate. For C : your BIL should contact the ex’s executor, reminding them they have a fiduciary duty towards the BIL, which comes ahead of any bequests the ex-partner may have made.

OP : original poster (so, you!)

Then OP needs also to clarify: a) if pension payments were made on their behalf, and if not b) where the pension payments taken off their pay have gone to!

“ i couldnt pull into the correct (green) lane in time because of other cars” do you mean the ones that pulled into the non-closed lane(s) because of the signs warning of a closed lane? What “green lane”…. ? I’ve not (yet, at least) seen a green sign associated with “red X”… they aren’t “traffic lights” (red, red/amber, green, amber, red……) https://nationalhighways.co.uk/road-safety/red-x/ Were you overtaking a stream of cars whose drivers were probably thinking “what an idiot, why aren’t they pulling over as the lane is closing? Why do they think they are more important than those of us who are waiting their turn as there is a lane closure” Was it those cars that prevented you from moving out from the closed lane? if you couldn’t pull in why didn’t you slow down approaching and stop before passing under the Red X?

Did you drive under a red “X”? if so, and you didn’t see it (and move over before it) : not sure you’ll pass the required vision to legally drive. If you saw it (was there a preceeding ‘move over’ gantry arrow?) and drove under it none the less: what is your expectation ? (the move over arrow is ‘closing’ the red ‘X’ is “closed”!)

Are you in a union? Sounds ripe for union advice / representation if you are.

In 2019, you said your complaint had been acknowledged. You haven't said what the outcome of that complaint was, did you get a response that you then didn't object to or respond to / or receive a final response? Was compensation offered, and did you accept it? (The answers to these will affect if you can now go to the Ombudsman without the firm's permission / if you still have a potential claim if you accepted compensation and didn't dispute it at the time).

Wow. For YEARS you've been posting about the financial hardship you have been facing. Now you are posting that you've known (for 4 years, at least), that you have a significant claim against a broker / their firm, and that you've "sat on it' for 4 years ........... CAG can help you, but you actually have to help yourself, with CAG's assistance. Why the 4 year delay? The delay may give the brokerage the impression that you aren't serious about following this issue up, especially if you SAR'd them (and complained) in 2019, if you didn't follow it up then. In 2019, you said your complaint had been acknowledged. You haven't said what the outcome of that complaint was. Was compensation offered, and did you accept it?

Then how does this fit with: ”The only way I could can get some written proof, was to email MPAS, and ask them for the suppliers allocated to the meter that are in my property. They were able to confirm that the meters have NEVER been officially taken on by a supplier for a very long time, simpy because the field that records the supplier is empty - no GDPRrisk here as they have not told me anything "personal" How did MPAS get the info for the meter, and if they did, can’t they give you its MPAN (since that isn’t personal info…)

“We’d like to move our supply to you: the Meter number is…..” To the premises owners: “Let me know if you are already paying, I’ll ask them to take it off the” (last year ‘s only!) “back-billing.”

if you are that bothered: Register the meter. Inform the property owners you have done so, and they need to supply you with their submeter readings (and let you know if they are paying already). Sorted.

Is this for the CCJ? if not, likely SB’d if was for the CCJ, that never gets SB’d (though they’d need permission of the court to enforce this late on, which they MIGHT get if they say “couldn’t enforce as they went abroad, only now found they’ve returned to the jurisdiction”)

Part payment (or a payment agreement) doesn’t stop it showing on the register / your credit report. Only full payment, within 30 days.

Agree with HB …. It reads as “sorry I got caught” rather than “sorry I offended”. I’d also not say “am sure that it is in public interest to avoid a lengthy court process”, as it is in the public interest to deter fare evasion, and the prosecution team already have to decide “is this in the public interest to prosecute” : a) you don’t want to be seen to be “telling them their job”, while b) if you were correct they’d never prosecute anyone … so I doubt they’d agree you were correct. As for “the pass and my wallet being next to each other before I left the house in a rush” : I bet they’ve not heard that one before, (at least not in the preceding ten minutes!!) What wallet was the pass in? You really don’t want to get caught in a lie: if they are wavering on if to prosecute or not, suspecting you are lying would make them more likely to prosecute! When in a hole, stop digging.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/debt-and-money/borrowing-money/county-court-judgments-and-your-credit-rating/ if not settled within 30 days, on the register for 6 years. Even if then settled, it’s on the register for 6 years, and I’m not sure that it being marked as ‘settled’ has that much mitigation on the adverse effect on the debtor’s credit report.

Well, up to you to decide your priorities. You need to be aware when deciding those priorities: if not settled or sorted in time , the judgement will go onto the register, which will adversely affect the defendants credit rating.

Do we know if Simeon actually was the defendant in this case? Towards the end of one of the previous threads they noted that one of the reasons they posted contradictory information was that they sometimes posted (in the first person, as if it was themselves they were taking about) on behalf of 3rd parties….

I’d said previously about “seizing defeat from the jaws of victory” - if Simeon a) didn’t understand the process b) gets nervous and confused in court, and c) wasn’t sure about the previous strike out, I wonder if these had been highlighted (and the potential costs for the builder if Simeon lost), if then the advice might have been : take the offer (saving 8k based on the subsequent outcome!)

Those aren’t the judgments, though. What is needed are the judgment / orders (suitably redacted to remove personal info). Thanks to the site team we’ve got the ones for 10 Jan 22, and 1 Mar 23. I suspect Simeon is asking about 3k costs that followed on from the 16k success (so it’d be useful to confirm that by seeing the judgment for where Simeon thinks this 3k costs arise : if it’s an order dated before 10 Jan 22, in the same claim no., that’d confirm it). If so, I suspect it was an order dated on or around 19 July 2021. If that is the case, Simeon hasn’t understood that that all got cancelled when the builder’s application to set-aside the strike out of their claim succeeded (when they applied for ‘relief from sanction’) which happened in the order of 10 Jan 22. That’s my guess, but, as ever, who knows until we’ve got ALL the information.

Who knows? how can we tell if we don’t know a) same case or different case (are the claim no.’s the same?) b) was this from the same case and you are referring to the judgment against the builder that then later got set aside?

A) Claimant (the builder) given relief from sanctions. so the sanction (the strike out of their claim), was set aside, and their (the builder’s) claim could continue to be heard. B ) The success of Simeon’s claim for £16,577.12, (which had succeeded when the builders claim was struck out) was set aside, when the builder’s application for relief from sanction was successful. As a result, both claims were heard at the latest hearing, and Simeon’s grossly over-inflated claim was knocked back to the more reasonable sum of £1300 from 16k+, leading to him loosing overall, as the builder succeeded in a higher amount. If the claim had been in the small claims track, costs would have been strictly limited, but because Simeon went for the higher sum (16k+), this was in the fast track, and the sums the builder put towards a solicitor and then a barrister (counsel) need to be reimbursed by Simeon. Is that a fair / accurate summary?

I’m still not sure “I asked about my cost from claimant losing his setting aside application, she said that the case didn’t have anything to do with this hearing. it was finished at the lower court.” Please post up the last judgment relating to the strike out / set aside. I’m not sure you are correct the strike out wasn’t set aside, else how could the judge find for the builder in the amount of £2513.40