Dear Popeye1000, I regret that you are showing that you too have little mechanical knowledge. 'You took your car in for a squeak when accelarated, grease the fan belt first'. I doubt that the OP will consider this to be of any help.

Dear bigfluffy, I can understand your worry, but you have been given advice on your other thread ' Help please, very bad situation' Posts #28, 31 and 41 of that thread have tried to reassure you that it is very, very unlikely that you would be sent to prison, SRPO being prepared to put money on your not. You do need to take on board the expert opinions that you have been given. Whilst the forum will give advice on procedures and options, it is not really the place for counselling. For that you would be better advised to approach your local vicar, priest or minister if you have one or alternatively the Samaritans. You must not sentence yourself! Read through the responses in your other thread again. Regards

Dear pierre188, The spelling does not pose as big a problem as your lack of paragraphing. Unfortunately it does make quite a long narrative quite difficult to read and assimilate. I suggest that you remove your revised post then copy and paste your post #7 into a quick reply, putting in paragraph breaks to indicate chronology. It makes it easier for the experts on the forum to deal with the various points raised. I am not overly familiar with your particular vehicle, there are others here who certainly are more experienced on Alfas than I and who will be able to give you an opinion specific to your problems. My 30+ years as a self-employed independant workshop leads me to believe that you have fallen foul of the 'we service any make' culture, when specialist knowledge would very likely result in a better, quicker and less expensive repair. If you do go to see the manager/owner tomorrow, I would recommend that you take an independant witness with you, preferably one with mechanical knowledge. Do not go in all guns blazing, be polite however difficult that may be in the face of a potentially aggressive person. Do not let it escalate to the point that the Police become involved, it is better to leave and deal with it through legal channels. # Do not accuse their mechanics of riding around in your vehicle unless you have evidence such as mileage readings on jobcard for the AA or on the invoice. After all they would have needed to road test the vehicle which could have been when it was observed by your neighbour. The plastic underneath also could have been something as innocuous as a plastic bag caught underneath and melted onto the eahaust, something that can happen to any of us at any time. Spend a little time making a list of the aspects that you feel that they have let you down (Revising your post may help there) and decide what you would like doing to rectify your complaint. You can say that you have since spoken to an Alfa specialist who has explained that if the fuel pump is accessed correctly, the seal does not need replacing. Be assertive about the fact that the boot lid badge was intact when you took your possessions out on their premises and that this was witnessed (no need to say that it was your partner as he could then paraphrase Mandy Rice-Davis 'well she would say that, wouldn't he?') Do not approach the situation expecting to have the Police assist you. They will tell you that it is a civil matter and if a breach of the peace issue arises it could be you who is judged to be responsible as it is you who has approached the manager/owner and should haved backed off. Hopefully more specific advice will come your way if you do make your post more reader friendly. Regards

Dear malifact, 1) Yes, you have in part answered your own question as the witness would be giving evidence as to character and personal situation only. They could also give evidence of his conduct in seeking understanding of the legal terms and conditions. The witness would not be able to also act as an interpreter unless requested by the magistrates if they realized that he was having difficulty understanding them and they did not consider that it would be in the publics interest to adjourn until a court appointed interpreter could be summoned. 2) Yes by all means produce the previous insurance policy or any other document to support the mitigation of prior entitlement. It would help the bench if the relevant section is highlighted in some way to save having to plough through the small print. 3) The issue of the fixed penalty and 3 points for the mobile offence will not have a great bearing especially if it is some time ago. If it was within the last 3 years it will mean that he comes close to the 12 point mandatory ban of 6 months (subject to no particular hardship plea being accepted) Even if 'spent' after 3 years, they remain evident on the licence until a request to remove , or a renewal due to age or change of address following the period shown in the footnote. Just as a general guidance, anyone addressing the court, either as a witness or by letter etc., should prepare what they wish to say and keep it simple. Waffle will not go down well and being too complicated can result in being tied up by the prosecutor or magistrates in questioning. They are not permitted to read from a script. The demeanor and appearance will benefit the defendant if they are smart without being over formal and show remorse. The magistrates will understand nervousness, especially from a first time offender, but sometimes an embarrassed smile, which is common with a lot of people, can appear to be a smirk! Whilst the magistrates are there to assess the facts, they are after all human, so anything to influence them in his favour should be considered. I regret that gloryhunter is a little mistaken with the points issue, the following applies. 'How long endorsements stay on your driving licence An endorsement must stay on your driving licence for the following periods of time: Eleven years from date of conviction If the offence is: drinking or drugs and driving - shown on the licence as DR10, DR20, DR30 and DR80 causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs – shown on the licence as CD40, CD50 and CD60 causing death by careless driving, then failing to provide a specimen for analysis – shown on the licence as CD70 Example: Date of conviction is 3 December 2002 - the endorsement must stay on the licence until 3 December 2013. Four years from the date of conviction If the offence is for: reckless/dangerous driving - shown on the licence as DD40, DD60 and DD80 offences resulting in disqualification disqualified from holding a full driving licence until a driving test has been passed Example: Date of conviction is 28 May 2004 – the endorsement must stay on the licence until 28 May 2008. Four years from the date of offence In all other cases. Example: Date of offence 10 June 2005 – the endorsement must stay on the licence until 10 June 2009.' Regards

Dear malifact, Firstly it is good that you are helping someone who has communication difficulties. Try to reassure your colleague, it is unlikely that he will lose his licence if this is a first offence of this nature. The usual penalty is a fine commensurate with his earnings and 6 penalty points on his licence. This translates into an automatic withdrawal of licence only if it is within 2 years of the licence holder passing their test in which case the process of provisional licence holder restatrts, or by totting up to the 12 points mandatory short ban. With regards to the appearance in court, he will have two choices, 1) to give evidence under oath from the witness box, in which case he can be cross examined by the prosecutor. 2) make a statement from the 'dock' in which case he cannot be questioned. Magistrates do give more credence to evidence given under oath for obvious reasons. The oath is adjusted to the persons religious beliefs including by affirmation. (I put dock in inverted commas as in most Mag. Courts the defendant stands in the area in front of the bench of magistrates - less formal). I would suggest that he pleads guilty and ask for the circumstance as outlined above in post #3 to be considered in mitigation. Although only law professionals are permitted to represent a defendant, he can ask for you or any other person to give evidence on his behalf. This again would need to be on oath from the witness box and be open to cross examination to test the probity of the witness. Alternatively he could submit a letter from you outlining the circumstances of the mistake made and also other details perhaps of a personal nature that might help the mitigation. This sort of letter is best backed up by your being present and being available to be quizzed by the magistrates. The fact that he is a foreign national (my assumption) and that his English might make understanding legal documents difficult, could point to an interpreter being beneficial. If this is so and only you and he know if that is necessary, the court should be made aware before hand in order to arrange this, the cost would be included in the overall court costs that he would be asked to pay. If time permits, it could be beneficial to pay a visit with him to the Magistrates Court to see 'justice' in operation and familiarise yourselves with the procedures. All courts other than Family, Youth panels and exeptional High Court cases are open to the public to observe. I hope that this gives you some pointers. Regards

Dear Pierre188, If your complaint is the damage to the boot badge, then unless you have any corroborating evidence, witness (AA attendant?) then as huggys boss has suggested, a letter of grievence to the Managing Director would seem to be your recourse. If however this was the proverbial 'straw' and you feel that extra or unnecessary work was carried out without your authorisation, you need to provide more information to enable the many experts on the forum to formulate an opinion as to what you can do. It would help if you could state:- 1) model, year and mileage of the vehicle. 2) The provisional diagnosis by the AA if given. 3) Any diagnosis or suggestion by the repair garage as to the cause(s) of the problem. 4) Any conversation when you left the vehicle ie. permission or instructions as to extent of repair that you gave or any promise that they made to appraise you of work being undertaken. 5) Details of the work done or purported to have been done together with the list and cost of parts fitted and labour times and cost. 6) Details of the telephone conversation with who at Alfa Romeo, Main Dealer - Head Office ? If you provide this information it might be that suggestions will be forthcoming as to your best course of action. Regards

Dear Iduffy, I am sorry that you have this problem. There are experts here on various aspects, including Landrover Freelander vehicles, and others with specific Trading Standards experience. They will, I am sure, help you as and when they come online, but in the meantime I would like to suggest that any further posts include paragraph spacing to seperate the different issues and clarify chronology. It is difficult to digest the narrative in it's current form. Also, whilst naturally important to you, references to personal situation and feelings are not necessary and simply add clutter to the post. Information that others may need include:- year and engine model, mileage, any service history that you may have, any paperwork you have from the incident including details on any invoices from the repairers (as you are new to the forum you will not yet be able to upload scanned material, so break it down by parts fitted including cost etc). Read your OP (original post) again and perhaps you could copy and paste it into another post, then insert spacing and add the information above. It will make it easier for others to offer an opinion. Be aware that there are some who post on the forum (grahamengineering for one) who claim expertise but seem intent on despoiling good advice. Regards

Dear Surfboy, suggest you visit DVLA Failure to notify Advice required. This being the thread started by Paul Kennedy. Regards

Dear Paul, Congratulation on your tenacity in taking it to Crown Court, shame that they managed to outmanoeuvre justice in this way. I would suggest that a combination of newspaper/local television news magazines could be a good way to let more people know how devious they are, combined with a complaint through your MP. It might also be possible to complain to the Lord Chief Justice that the DVLA are using un proven interpretations of law in order to obtain convictions at summary level, which they then refuse to justify at appeal. He can call a case in if it is of sufficient public interest and make a ruling similar to a 'stated case'. Regards

Dear Myfamily, I am glad that you have now got the vehicle sorted. I hope you did not get too big a telling off from your Mum for letting her go abroad in a vehicle with bad brakes! Just kidding, you would most likely not be aware of the low pad material through normal use, it would only manifest itself during prolonged braking when the discs and pads heated up quicker than the air flow could cool them. Assuming that you have now taxed the vehicle you are close to being in the clear. As there was a break between the vehicle arriving back in the UK and your being able to Mot & tax it, there is a theoretical chance that it may have been seen by an ANPR camera and the lack of Tax & Mot noted, but the risk is low. During the Mot, provided that the brake efficiency and balance was above a set percentage and very serious scoring or corrossion was not observed, the remaining thickness of the pad material would constitute an advisory note only. I do not see how Kwikfit were able to determine this material to be less than 1.5 mm in situ, unless they took a series of measurements and a fair number of calculations, as during the test no dismantling is permitted and with most vehicle the pads are hidden by the caliper. I suspect that this was just a figure that they use to frighten the uninitiated. As far as the disc thickness is concerned, manufacturers provide minimum figures which differ model to model so without knowing which yours is, the figure of 22mm is meaningless. I have yet to see one of their 'fitters' use a micrometer properly. If the discs were as bad as they implied, the ridge on the outer edge would have been greater than the 1.5 mm pad material quoted and you would have had a loud scraping sound when you applied the brakes. I think Qwik fit saw a woman that they thought they could con a bit of extra money out of I think you have hit the nail on the head. Quite a lot of an Mot is subjective, each individual has to be satisfied in his own mind that what he/she is looking at complies with the regulations. Unfortunately those associated with fast turn around outlets may have an incentive to be 'extra careful'. I do not think that any good would come out of complaining to Kwikfit headquarters, as they will view their employer as having their interest/profit at heart. I would suggest that you drive the car as though it were brand new, or you were taking your driving test, in order for the new pads to 'bed in' to the less than perfectly flat discs. As far as possible avoid harsh braking by anticipating the traffic situation and use the gears to also slow you down wherever possible. This way the efficiency will increase over the next 200 miles or so and the pads will last longer. One up for the independant local garage. Regards

Then charge £25 for the extra work involved. This would still be paid by those having ligitimate reasons for the application, as in the main it would be reclaimable from the person that they were pursuing (insurance claim etc). It would, however, make speculative invoicing less profitable due to the number of successful 'cons' needed to recoup the outlay.

Dear mumbles2011, I am still a little confused by the chronology of the work. In your first post you say that there was 500 miles from the Mot. You have just said that the Mot and service were at the same time. Are you now saying that you were advised to have the work done during the service, but waited two months/500 miles before having the brakes attended to? If this is the case, then I am even more of the opinion that offering you a free service/Mot next year was quite generous. You are incorrect in your statement that if you had taken it away and had the tyre changed, then you would have needed to have the Mot test redone. The vehicle had already passed, with advisories, so there was no need to have the tyre replaced at that time except that tyres close to the legal limit of 1.6 mm will show poorer road handling and braking capabilities, in addition to which the final wear to make it illegal could occur quickly and leave you open to 3 points on your licence. There are certain minor failures (light bulbs etc) that if rectified within 24 hours even if taken away, will result in a pass without further charge. The £300 that you refer to in your OP, if it was your total cost after 12 months motoring, would be considered by most to be very cheap motoring. Regards

Dear mumbles2011, The first piece of advice would be to suggest that with any future post you insert paragraphs in order to make the narrative easier to read. Using bullet points for each aspect enables those with expertise to reply in a logical progression. You state that you have owned the Suzuki for one year without problem other than the hand brake warning light flashing intermittently if not fully released, until you submitted it for an Mot and service after 10 months. In that time you completed some 6000 miles. Given this I doubt that anyone would say that the vehicle was not fit for purpose or not of satisfactory condition, so SOGA would not apply. In the 1980's the EU recquired a change of braking efficiency, including reducing the use of asbestos. This resulted in pad materials that abraded the disc more, resulting in them became a regular servicing item in addition to the pads. Typically front brake discs will require changing at the second change of pads which themselves will last 15-20 k miles, depending upon the type of driving (Alright someone out there will say they have had them last 50k - good for them). I am a little confused by your relating that the vehicle passed its Mot with certain advises, which would indicate that the test was properly conducted but then say that They rang me to say the tyre needed changing so we agreed and they also said the brakes needed doing as the discs were scored and the pads worn out . Are you saying that the garage who did the Mot testing then wanted to do the repairs, or is it a seperate service station who rang you when they started the service recommending the additional work at that time? Or is there a missing period of time when the 500 miles was covered after the Mot and the service, when you had another problem that required you to seek help? Read post #11 from j66 who states quite clearly the paramators for Mot brake failure. It would be unusual for an Mot station to pass a vehicle with advisories whilst also rectifying those, or at least some of them. When testing for an Mot it is the condition at that time that dictates pass or failure. When servicing, a judgement on dismantling for close inspection (not available to the Mot tester) is made as to the length of satisfactory use that is left in the components. After all, if you are going to have an annual service only, there needs to be 10k miles life left to be reasonably sure that there will be no problem before then. Unfortunately it is a little more than but my husband had the discs checked by a garage guy he knows to translate into whether the Mot station should not have passed them - VOSA would only be interested within 28 days and before the brakes were repaired; or if you had any recall on the selling garage after 12 months use. To have offered a goodwill gesture of a future Mot/service is in my opinion more than the seller was obliged to do. The issue of whether or not that is withdrawn due to a failure in communication is another matter. Regards

Dear Paul, I agree with Tony P in post #3, including the suggestion of assisting with any unclaimable costs incurred. Stay strong.

Dear Starkey&clutch, I am implying that when people use the statement 'not that Im suggesting you should do this', they mean the contrary. Otherwise what is the point of the post? The idea of the forum is to give good advice to the OP.

Dear Startkey&Clutch, I did read your caveat, but as not every one would appreciate your sense of humour/back covering, I thought it reasonable to post the warning.

Unfortunately you have got it a little wrong! Under the continuous insurance regulation, every vehicle used on the road or that has a current licence must be insured. Only those that have been statutory off road notified are exempt from insurance. You 'scorn' this rule at your peril. Yes even Lada's need insurance! Dear Bonfires, There are a couple of ways to deal with your situation. 1) Pay a personal visit to you local DVLA office, it is worth a little travel time. By seeking the advice of an official there, you benefit from face to face interaction and can better display that you are genuine, than trying on the telephone or by letter to a faceless person in Swansea. You can also take with you any supporting evidence that the vehicle has not been on the road during the intervening time. You have committed 2 offences, (a) failing to notify a change of keeper details ie your new address, but as this can only be persued within 6 months of the change taking place, evidence of your moving further ago than that could be presented and thus nullified. However, having told you that, do not argue this with the person you see as you are wanting them on side to mitigate the main problem resulting from the second offence (b) of failing to sorn the vehicle. The penalty for that could include the lost duty for the intervening years. If the DVLA were to pursue everything, then would be the time to point out the provisions of the Statute of Limitations. If the vehicle has been partially dismantled, or is covered by an accumulation of dust and debris, photograph prints could be presented on a personal visit and whilst they could also be sent with a letter, are more likely to get lost. 2) If the vehicle is not of any particular value (neither monetary nor sentimental) you could consider passing it to a vehicle dismatler, handing over the V5c, filling in the V5c/3 slip and sending that in. Whilst there is no guarantee that this will prevent the DVLA following up the offences previously mentioned, there is a chance that when the dismatler sends in the V5c for deletion of the register, your mistakes might slip through. If you do wish to eventually recommission the vehicle, I would advise option 1) as soon as possible and view any penalty that is coming your way as a cost on recommissioning. You may receive posts suggesting that you transfer the vehicle to a 'friend' who immediately declares a sorn, then in the future transfer it back when you wish to put it on the road. Doing this could well come back to bite you and would make you liable to even greater penalty. Regards

If you do this you will be contravening The Road Traffic Act 1988 Section 22A ss1 (b) interferes with a motor vehicle, trailer or cycle, in such circumstances that it would be obvious to a reasonable person that to do so would be dangerous. As not everyone looks at their tyres, particularly at night, before driving to do such an act is criminally irresponsible. In addition, should the driver move off unaware of your action and inevitable damage result, you would be liable for the damage, just as much as if you had slashed them. sheila98765 much as it is annoying and we all at times stay awake at night running through scenarios to 'get out own back', I would urge you to disregard the above post and deal with the problem using the lawful suggestions already posted. Jamberson in post #7 has the best proactive suggestion, make use of your neighbours to influence the offender, peer pressure might well work and even if things later escalated, you would have a witness to your reasonableness. Regards

Dear ciderbubbles, As you will have seen from the above posts, it is very difficult to say for sure that the original 'fitters' have done anything wrong, without going through the process outlined by heliosuk. I would however point out that the Nexen tyres are a reasonable quality, budget item, retailing at about £70 - 90 including vat, fitted with valve, balancing and casing disposal, depending on which model fitted. (N3000, CP641 etc). In my opinion you have paid over the odds for them. Assuming that the 'track-rod ends' were the short bar, the £80 was Vauxhall retail, though I would imagine that pattern parts were fitted at a cost of £20 each. Not being present it is difficult to say if 2 hours was needed to change them, they can be siezed and some heat may be necessary to allow them to be removed, I personally have never needed that length of time. I fear that advantage has been taken of your lack of mechanical knowledge in the first instance, so you do need to be wary of them and not be intimidated by their macho approach. Regards

Dear ciderbubbles, To be able to give an informed opinion it is necessary to have more information. 1) Vehicle concerned, age and mileage? 2) How long ago was the work done? 3) What tyres were fitted ie., branded quality or budget? 4) Type of driving ie., all town, all motorway, country lanes etc 5) A breakdown of the original bill, cost of each part fitted and labour. The reason for asking these questions is because vehicles react to such things as potholes, road cushions, driving over kerbs etc., differently. The cost of £400 for some vehicles would be cheap, for others could be considered excessive. For both tyres to wear on the inner shoulder would suggest that the tracking is incorrect, toeing out too much being most likely. However there are other potential reasons such as camber/castor angle, all of which could be down to the original fitter, but likewise could have been caused in the intervening period by the manner of driving. Without pre-empting what you come back with, some 'fitters' do not preload the suspension correctly after fitting parts. Final adjustment should take place after a short drive to allow everything to settle down. However, time is money! Regards

Dear badboy09, You do now have the peace of mind that this is one area of maintenance that will not be required for 10-15k miles. Regards,

Dear badboy09, I fear that you are going about this the wrong way. You will have no recourse to VOSA as the repairs have already been effected. To be fair to the testing station, some vehicles are more difficult than others to see the amount of pad material left and they are not permitted to dismantle which is where the advisory probably came in. For example, the Mot station gave me an advisory on the rear brakes of my Mercedes C270, so I replaced them only to find that the pads were less than half worn, good for another 20K or so. It was just the angle from which observed that cast a doubt. In addition, 200 miles of hard driving could make a significant difference on front brakes. Did the Kwikfit 'technician' use calipers to measure the remaining thickness of the brake discs? Each model has a minimum thickness, above which replacement is not required unless significant ridging has occured. or excessive throw-out is detected. It is not totally unknown for pad material to delaminate, usually due to semi seized calipers causing higher than designed temperatures; cheap replacement pads being more prone to this than OE. Again the Mot station could not be faulted if everything was free on the day of the test. It was a problem in the 1990's with Vauxhall Astras, I bought quality pads by the carton. You have not posted details of the vehicle, most modern vehicles have detectors built in to give warning when the minimum advisable pad material has been reached. This can be as simple as a metal prong that rubs against the disc when the pad is low, causing a scraping noise when the brakes are applied, to an electrical circuit that illuminates a warning light on the dash. Your seller obviously was aware of a problem as you mentioned in your OP and you should pursue her for the cost of the repairs. The fact that it was on e-bay does not absolve her from responsibility for selling a vehicle in a dangerous condition unless it was specifically listed as requiring removal by trailer. Did you examine the V5c, how long had she owned it? Have you checked her eBay ID to see if she is fronting as private but actually is a business seller . There is a forum on eBay (eBay Motors) accessed through the discussion board in My eBay, where you may read threads similar to your own problem. Once you get past the testosterone fueled attitude that some of the regular posters display, you may obtain insight into the value of the sanctions available. Regards

Dear Lovelily, I can understand your being intimidated although I know many small middle aged women who make me quake! You have acknowledged that you made a mistake in not divulging your current address, although you mention in your original post that you provided a card that would have given all details. As the experts have told you, what you did could be considered to be a deliberate act to evade the lawful execution of the TOC powers. I have no experience of the prosecution process within the London transport system, but as Stigy mentioned in post #12, to contact them at this stage might confuse things somewhat. I would however, recommend that as soon as you receive the first communication through your friend at your old address, you write one of the excellent letters by Old-Codja and also point out that your contact address is now ................? If that first communication is to your current address, then you have been rumbled and in that case your letter should also include an apology for giving your old address; you could perhaps mention that by such time in the interview you were so distressed that you were not thinking straight (assuming this to be true). If you now accept that the TOC have the right to prosecute (you first expressed the opinion that you thought it wrong) and are remorseful of your error of judgement, then whatever the outcome, you have learnt a valuable lesson in life. Part of the reason for prosecutions is as a warning to others who might otherwise be tempted to follow suit. I do hope that you have an outcome that allows you to put this behind you and get on with your life. Regards

Dear Taffyinworcs, Unfortunately the street view clearly shows the kerb markings on the North direction carriageway, so loading restrictions in addition to the parking/waiting restriction apply. The 02 code is therefore correct. You could appeal and ask to see the Traffic Regulation Order in case a mistake has been made and the yellow painting has been done without authority. This is however a forlorn hope and you may well have to admit that you were wrong and pay up. If you do appeal the clock stops as far as early payment discount is concerned. Regards

Section 5 (2b) ofThe Criminal Damages Act 1971 provides a lawful excuse that the perpetrator believed that the damage was necessary to protect the property. As the clamping would be illegal, they would have compelling reason to believe that the clampers were likely to attempt to tow the vehicle away. In other words there is no mens rea (full Latin - actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea)