I always thought that once you've discontinued a claim, if you wish to litigate again in regards to the same claim, then you'd have to have special permission from the court to do so. Their actions seem vexatious to me.

I would advise highly against saying anything of the sort to a magistrate. As stated above, you've been charged with driving whilst over the prescribed limit of alcohol. You can't really mitigate in regards to a drink drive charge such as this. You should in court most definitely apologise for your actions, as it remains the only offence you've committed, you need to draw their attention to this and just accept that it was irresponsible of you, and something that remains out of character. Magistrates will most likely show people who take responsibility for their actions more respect then those who are denial of the facts, they've probably heard every excuse in the book. You're worrying to much in my opinion, many people are prosecuted each day for drink driving offences, many are much worse then yours. Show up, dress up smart, be remorseful and apologetic, ask if a drink driving awareness course is available (might reduce your ban by a few months), and just learn from the experience. As stated above, expect a driving ban of around 16 months, a large fine + costs + victim surcharge, and the possibility of having to reapply for a provisional license once the ban is up, and retake your theory and practical driving test.

That's very fortunate for you that the police dropped the "Failure to stop" charge, driving for 5 miles with a police vehicle with blue lights on is good evidence to get a successful prosecution. Where you driving late at night? Early morning? I'm interested as to why the police initially decided to perform a s.163 RTA 1988 stop on you. You say that your driving wasn't what drew attention to yourself, but unless somebody reported you, or you somehow activated an ANPR camera, or unless you were driving late at night/early morning, then it's rare to be randomly pulled over. They could, in court use the distance it took you to stop when signalled to do so as an aggravating circumstance, but a first time drink drive offence with a lower reading (58ug) I would imagine you'll receive a 12-16 month ban as stated before. Let us know how you get on.

No one is here to judge you on your situation, so don't worry about that. Blowing 58ug, as you said it's your first offence would not warrant any custodial sentence or any community service order (unless you blew a high reading). You're looking at a driving ban for 12 months (minimum) and a fine/costs/victim surcharge, however a breath sample of 58ug would in my opinion see you banned for 16 months minimum, and the court can also require you to retake your driving test (theory and practical) again before obtaining a license. You'll see increased insurance premiums as a drink driving conviction will stay on your license for 10 years (removed on the 11th anniversary). Take your driving license along with any evidence of your benefits to the court, ask for weekly deductions from your benefits. Just be apologetic, show remorse for your actions. You've pleaded guilty, just learn from this mistake for when you're able to drive again in the future.

RLP have no legal basis to actually issue proceedings against you, as this would be entirely up to TK Max to initiate, so ignore their silly letters and store them next to the toilet should you run out of toilet roll at some juncture. Anybody can issue a claim, I can issue a claim right now against my next door neighbour if I so wish, only at the point when you receive a genuine claim form (N1) from Northampton County Court Bulking Centre should you actually give this issue any attention, in any event returning here for advice on filing a defence, however I highly doubt any proceedings would be brought forward. TK Max would have to demonstrate their losses (the actual value of the goods, not the retail price) in which they are seeking. Also TK Max would have to be the party issuing proceedings unless they delegated a solicitor firm to deal with this matter on their behalf. A silly debt collection agency or a silly company like RLP doesn't hold any rights to any alleged claim and therefore do not have any capacity to issue proceedings. Any psuedo comments in regards to "seeking staff costs" and so forth can easily be dismissed. The staff who dealt with the matter (Loss Prevention) were actively engaged in their duties, not diverted. That's like the chief constable of the police force in question invoicing you for staff costs in regards to the time spent detaining you and questioning you, claiming they were "diverted from their duties" would be absolute rubbish. You were not charged with a crime, neither were you found guilty in a court of law, therefore you are innocent of any allegations made against you. If there was strong evidence of wrong doing (fraud or theft) then you would be dealt with via the criminal justice system. My advice is to ignore all correspondence from RLP and any debt collection agencies. Writing to them only encourages them to go mad with the red ink and capital letters and not to mention the irrelevant legal jargon and quotes to intimidate you, if they had a claim and could actually issue proceedings they wouldn't write to you every few days, they'd issue legal proceedings to recover any amount legally due, as would most people. If you receive anything from TK Max or a solicitor acting on behalf of them, then come back for any advice and help, however, personally, there's more chance my car will transform into a Ferrari over night then that happening. Stop worrying, look forward and get on with your life.

RLP can do nothing. Same advice as everyone else, just ignore them and get on with your life. There was no loss so there is no claim that can be made.

It seems reasonable to request a fee for coming to collect the vehicle, and to be honest £300 to move the car 150 miles is reasonable, especially as it has no tax or fuel, and remember that the company will have to use a tow truck of some kind (not cheap) through another company.

Of course you can issue a court claim. Nobody should be at a loss due to someone else's negligence, and no body should be at a loss when they have been the victim of a crime. Don't get me started with the criminal justice system in this country, a caution for an unprovoked attack is just typical of the justice system nowadays. How much are you looking to claim? Try and keep the claim as small as possible to keep costs down, but as long as you're keeping it at let's say around £200, then you'll only have to pay to issue a claim (£25? Via MCOL), in which you'll get back once you have a judgement in your favour. I can't imagine after admitting the unprovoked attack to the police that the defendant would be able to produce a defence, they broke the glasses through a deliberate and aggressive act, and should be made to reimburse any costs. Good luck.

Personally, I wouldn't get yourself all worried about this, unfortunately we live in a litigious society in which people will try to get all they can. The solicitors are trying to intimidate you, by making assumptions that you created a huge amount of damage and to mention that you were driving in a negligent manner, they hope you'll roll over and pay them. The good thing is, you have proof that you have been more than reasonable to sort this out, not to mention pictures of any alleged damage that you caused, this will go a long way should they decide to litigate. Accidents happen, but you shouldn't be put into a position by were you're having to pay for unesscairy work and subsidise for a whole new fence. You could of been one of those people who just drove off, which many people would do in this day and age to avoid being put in this situation. The police won't be interested, it's nothing but a waste of their time to deal with such a minor incident, you made a mistake, offered to pay for the damaged caused, and have acted in good faith. Simply write back stating that you will only pay for the damage caused by your actions, also mention that you have evidence of the damage caused, and that you put their client on strict proof of claim, and will vigorously defend any court action. Don't be intimidated.

In my opinion the police acted in a punitive manner. Firstly, unless you were actually under arrest (which clearly you weren't), the police have absolutely no right to state that you can not use your phone to call the insurance company. In actual fact, if they had waited for you to deal with the insurance company, then everything would have been sorted out at the roadside. I've always had the view that s.165A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 which gives the police authority to seize a vehicle at the road side to be completely unfair. An officer in uniform effectively acts as judge, jury and executioner, and issues summary judgment before any due legal process in the courts. How such practice hasn't been challenged in regards to the Human Rights Act 1998 (Schedule 1, article 6). Why did the police stop you in the first place? Was it via an automatic number plate recognition activation? Was your vehicle showing on the insurance database? Did the police stop you under s.163 of the Road Traffic act 1988? What directed their attention to you that morning? Unfortunately, like most motoring offences, driving without insurance is a strict liability offence, to say that either you had insurance or you didn't. Unfortunately there isn't any difference in the punishment between someone who drives to work with insurance but without commuting on their policy and someone who deliberately drives without any insurance cover. The facts are, you drove a vehicle to work without the correct insurance cover, rendering your insurance policy invalid, meaning you were technically uninsured at that precise moment. That fact remains unchallengeable, and unfortunately instead of exercising good judgment and due diligence, the officers took punitive action. As with the above, I couldn't see how you could challenge the offence in court. Someone else will be able to help you better here, but my opinion is to simply put it down to a bad mistake and an error of judgment on your behalf and move onwards. Sorry I couldn't be of any real help, best of luck.

I was hoping for some advice, I'm currently the claimant in legal proceedings against a bank in the county court. I've currently accidently sent the court and defendant two different particulars of claim. The defendant denied receiving my particulars of claim, so I sent them a new copy and a new copy to the court which was a different version (I lost the original through a problem with my laptop). I'm concerned that I've caused a problem by sending two different versions, what next? Is there a procedure for making an amendment or have I messed up my claim?

Another point to add is in relation to CEL's admission of the use of ANPR cameras. ANPR cameras do not demonstrate an accurate account of the time spent parking. Because they work by recording your number plate on entry and comparing the time spent on exit. You could enter a carpark, and spend 10 minutes seeking a parking spot, and 5 minutes exiting the car park, therefore ANPR doesn't record the time you parked for, merely the time you were on the premises. Your defense is good, put the claimant on strict proof of permission to actually undertake a claim on behalf of the landowner, seek a copy of the contract or retainer that allows and authorises them to undertake legal action on behalf of the landowner. Genuine pre estimate of loss, how can they have incurred £130 in damages by a small overstay, Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (Regulation 5(1) and 5(2) and schedule 2(e), Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 s.4(1), Penalty clauses and relevant case law. You'll be fine.

Typical behaviour of a bottom feeding payday loan company. Their charges and fees remain completely unenforceable under law, all you are contractually obliged to pay is the original loan amount plus one months interest, nothing more. By debiting these funds from a failed payday loan application, I would consider these transactions to be unauthorised and therefore the bank should conduct an immediate charge back of all monies. Issuing a claim is easily done through Money Claim Online, however you need to ascertain all the evidence and the facts of your case before doing so. You will need to issue CFO lending with a letter before action, giving them 14 days to remedy the situation and refund the monies, outline your dispute and put forward the facts and why you'll be issuing a court claim. After 14 days, go ahead and issue proceedings against them. Also ensure you make a complaint to the Financial Conduct Authority (used to be the office of fair trading).

As Vauxhall Vectra's are quite common vehicles, would it be plausible that maybe someone has taken it off at some point? It may sound strange, but it does happen, we actually had someone steal a parking sensor from the rear bumper of our 2007 Ford Focus, which set us back nearly £90 to put right. I honestly can't see that you would be able to pursue the dealer directly on this one.

After reading your post, my opinion is that this remains somewhat more of a personal attack against an individual, which isn't backed up with any evidence or facts to prove your allegations. - You would not be able to pursue a defamation claim against either Ocado or the individual in question, to pursue such a claim you would need to prove that you have suffered some form of loss or damage as a result of the allegations made, which as they were made to on duty police constables, I can't see how you have had your reputation damaged or incurred any true loss of any kind. - You mention the driver was drugged or drunk, and you also mention the police were in attendance. Your allegations made to a company in regards to an employee as serious as this without any evidence to back you up is extremely dangerous grounds to be on. - When the police arrived, if it was of their opinion that the driver might be intoxicated and driving whilst impaired through drink or drugs, then why did they not perform a breath test to establish the alcohol breath measurements? Furthermore, if the police suspected that the person in question was impaired through drugs, then he would have been arrested and would be given the opportunity to undertake several tests to either prove he was under the influence of drugs, or to prove he wasn't. Your opinion versus the opinions of the police will not succeed in any case. - Have you considered maybe the driver was coming to the end of their shift, and therefore would be tired? Maybe they might not of eaten or drank in a while causing a sufficient dip in their blood sugar levels causing these symptoms that you described having witnessed. Many other factors such as headaches, migraines, tiredness could lead to impaired motor function and slurred speech. To immediately assume it is alcohol or drugs without any evidence and having the police in attendance but not taking any action would just appear to be a personal attack on this individual in my eyes. - Whilst remaining impartial and just trying to place my opinion, you post looks more to be a grievance against this individual. Perhaps they did something or acted in a manner that was contrary to what you expected from Ocado, and something happened that angered you. We've all probably at some stage had bad customer service, and been left extremely annoyed at an employee of a company, but you've really got to rethink the contents of your post on the grounds that making the statements that I've read, without any credible evidence looks like you're having more of a personal attack against somebody and trying to seek some kind of monetary compensation. - What actions did the police take on attendance? You mention he committed a criminal offence by making a false allegation, has he actually been spoken to about this by the police? Questioned? Charged? Many times people drop assault allegations as they realise it's petty to continue an allegation where perhaps some pushing or shoving is concerned, and there is no evidence to enable a successful prosecution in court.

Unfortunately "No Insurance" Offences are strict liability in the fact that either insurance was held or not, there is no middle ground, and it really would have to be under extreme circumstances that any judgement would be reconsidered. Unfortunately, continuous insurance enforcement which was brought in a few years ago means a vehicle that isn't declared as SORN must have a valid insurance policy held. Your son or who ever remains the registered keeper of the vehicle would have received correspondence before it got to the stage of court action. I personally think that just paying the money (telephone the court and ask for a payment plan if you can't afford the whole lot), as if you ignore it then it'll be transferred over to a bailiff company which just complicates everything ten fold.

Typical RLP rubbish. We all make mistakes in life, sometimes those mistakes are contrary to the law, hence why we have a criminal justice system. The police were not involved, therefore your actions in my view would not be considered criminal. Learn from it and move onwards with your life, don't worry about the RLP parasites. 1. RLP can do absolutely nothing to you, they can not take legal action as they are merely acting on behalf of Boots as a third party, and have absolutely no rights to any alleged debt in which they can pursue through the courts. 2. Boots would have to demonstrate in the county court system that some form of loss has been incurred, financial or otherwise. Loyalty card points have basically no monetary value. Sure, you could be considered as being in breach of a contractual term documented in your contract of employment, but boots have taken the decision to terminate your contract, and that's all. 3. Be ready to receive an array of letters threatening everything but doing nothing. Letters mentioning the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct (Civil Procedure Rules 1998), which isn't applicable to RLP as they're not a recognised law firm acting for Boots in a legal capacity (there is no means for negotiation or Pre-Action correspondence as RLP have no capacity to issue proceedings), merely a third party trying to cash cow you for as much money as possible. 4. Take the advice of others here which is either to send a one line letter stating; "I deny any liability to your company, and will not be entering into any further correspondence". Don't enter into letter tennis, just let them send you the usual rubbish they come up with. If you feel intimidated by any letters, and need any advice, just drop a comment in this thread with a scan of the letter, we're all here to help.

I've never read such ridiculous pusedo legal documentation in my life. What is this woman and her company on? Absolutely unbelievable that it can be considered legal to misinterpret the law and their position to attempt to make a financial gain. I love how they mention the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct (Civil Procedure Rules) when it has absolutely no relevance to her or her company in any incidents like this. Her company can't litigate in any capacity at any juncture as they are not entitled to the rights and title of any alleged debt and are acting merely as a powerless third party. Part 4 of the Practice Direction Direction on Pre-Action Conduct states that the court can make sanctions on parties who don't comply with the directions in regards to pre litigation conduct, but in any case, the claim she makes has absolutely no legal basis and therefore the alleged debtor has absolutely nothing to negotiate or settle, as they owe no money and are not indebted to her company. The only party that could make a claim would be TK Max, which would have to demonstrate that; - A financial loss has occurred. - Some form of damage occurred due to the alleged incident. - The product(s) recovered were no longer in a sellable condition. The above in your case can not be met as the goods were returned undamaged and in a sellable condition, security staff where actively engaged in their job which is to catch alleged shoplifters, so how she can claim that they were diverted from their normal duties is moronic. Everytime I read correspondence from this company I am shocked at how brazen they are to make such vexatious claims that you are somehow indebted to them, including irrelevant legal wording, and threats of a database (which the information commissioner needs to be informed about and would breach your rights under the data protection act 1998). If they had a legitimate claim, like anybody, they wouldn't send you a thousand letters requesting payment, they'd simply issue proceedings against you, but they won't because any claim issued would be struck out on the basis that it has no chance of success, or they would be humiliated in court like before. Personally I'd document her correspondence from the first letter and consider some form of litigation against this ridiculous company.

The Early TDCi Mondeos are notorious for fuel system problems, in fact the fuel system on common rail injection diesel engines is extremely sensitive and runs at very fine tolerances. You mention a smoking problem...what colour was the smoke? Black? Blue/grey? White? Smoke is usual when booting a diesel engine, and my two previous TDCi Mondeos would let out a little white smoke when cold or starting. Injector wear is usually the cause, these should be replaced every 100,000 miles (ignore these reconditioning companies, seek new injectors). More expensive yes, but will last you another 100,000 miles. The garage performing a leak off test is normal, to much leak back (delphi stipulate 25ml or more constitutes a fail when carrying out the test) is an indicator that the injectors are worn. Worn injectors means problems, anywhere from rough running, difficulties starting, limp home mode under hard acceleration (the infamous P0251 DTC code). To much leak back effects the fuel pressure in the system, as the fuel is leaked back to the fuel pump via the low pressure leak off pipes into the Inlet Metering Valve, once to much fuel is coming back, the system will not maintain fuel pressure causing a host of problems. Did the garage fit the correct injectors? (I.e. Nozzle lengths vary from 101z, 301z, 401z and 501z), all having either shorter or longer nozels and the injectors being thinner or thicker. Fitting incorrect ones will cause problems, and is often over looked. Did the garage re code the injectors? This is absolutely essential for the fuel mapping and drivabilty purposes, no codes or incorrect codes will lead to problems. The ECU will not activate the fuel injectors until there is around 150 - 200 bar of pressure in the fuel rail on cranking, have the garage confirmed cranking pressure is within limits? Anything less and the system will not spray the injectors. Air in the system can be a common cause (I.e. The garage not correctly bleeding the fuel system). Unfortunately once problems arise with the fuel system, it can be unbelievably difficult to get working again. Ideally, the car needs to be seen by a diesel specialist; - Injectors correctly tested, ensuring spray patterns are good, and they're working properly. - Fuel Pump needs to be tested, earlier TDCi pumps are known for the internal bearings breaking up over time, causing swarf (metallic particles) to enter into the high pressure fuel lines, into the fuel rail, and ultimately into the injectors causing wear and damage. - Faulty injectors need to be replaced with new ones (expensive yes, but it will save you hassle in the long run). Ensuring the injectors are the correct ones, and the C2i codes are correctly calibrated. Ultimately the garage should take responsibility, working on these fuel systems requires a high level of competence and knowledge on them. Good luck, consider buying the 2.0 petrol Duratec powered Mondeo next time bullet proof engines.

Speeding is a strict liability offence, there really remains absolutely no defense to your case or mitigation you could use that would help you. Whether you're a fan of the speed limits in this country or have different opinions in regards to the causes of road traffic collisions or the politics surrounding speed limits doesn't take away the fact that a speed limit remains the maximum speed permitted on the particular road. The police would be failing in their duties if they didn't prosecute those who where caught speeding. You'll most likely get a 3 point endorsement on your license and a fixed penalty. Sure you may have more expensive insurance premiums for the next few years, but it's best to deal with it and get it over and done with.

Need some advice, 1. Purchased a 2007 Ford Focus on the 20th June 2014 (10 days ago). 2. Have driven approximately 1000 miles since purchase with absolutely no mechanical problems, this is including a 400 mile round trip in which the car was absolutely fine. 3. Car was purchased from a dealer, paid for on finance. Car has full service history, passed it's mot with flying colors this month before being put on sale, no advisories. 4. Driving home yesterday afternoon, coming off a roundabout I noticed the clutch pedal was extremely light, with practically no resistance. Car will not go into any gear and I managed to get the car to a safe point before having to stop and with no clutch the engine obviously stalled. It looks and feels like the master cylinder is shot. 5. I have a 3 month warranty that covers all mechanical aspects, also I am aware of my rights under the Sales of Goods Act 1979, however I have been asked to go through the warranty company directly, and not the dealership. 6. Not sure what to do next, both me and my partner love the car, we don't want to reject it or to kick up a fuss. Obviously a car of this age, mileage (50000 miles) we where expecting to be reliable and a good replacement for our older tdci mondeo that turned into a money pit. 7. Problem has also occurred with a rear window in which it won't sit at the top, it bounces back almost as if there is a sensor problem, and the rear parking sensors have ceased to work. 2 expenditures not covered under warranty, what do I need to do to get these issues fixed as the car was sold with no issues. 8. What next? We're already going to have to pay an excess of 10% in regards to the clutch, and we'll most likely have to pay for the other faults to be rectified. What are our rights? Any advice is welcome. Many thanks.

s.165a of the Road Traffic Act 1988 gives a constable in uniform where he believes a car is being driven by someone without the correct license or without insurance the power to seize a vehicle. All police forces will have solid policies and guidelines in regards to the actual seizure of a vehicle, including taking into account the human rights of the person in question. If taking out a new insurance policy or a temporary policy, then it's always best to carry your documents with you for the first few weeks to ensure everything is updated on the police national computer (ANPR collects information gathered from the Motor Insurance Bureau/database and compares a vehicles number plate to the database, I believe the police use a service called MIDAS or something similar). When I renewed my insurance last week it took 4 days to show up on askmid, since taking the policy out and to this day I carry in my car my Certificate of Motor Insurance, valid mot certificate and my driving license and counterpart to fulfil the requirements of s.163 of the RTA 1988. You could challenge, if you had very deep pockets that your human rights where breached under the Human Rights Act 1998 (Schedule 1) articles 1 and 6 and the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). I don't know of any cases where this has been challenged at all, but unfortunately with motorists it's "Guilty until proven otherwise", even if the principle of law is innocent until proven guilty by a court of law and a trial by your peers. You could write to the police force who seized your vehicle, but I don't think you'll be successful. The law is an arse, and I do agree that giving a police officer the power to seize a vehicle on the roadside before any due legal process is unfair, you've got to remember that in 90% of cases where cars are seized the police used their powers correctly to remove unlicensed and uninsured drivers from the road. These offences generally lead to other findings, and in the day and age of computers and ANPR, most law abiding motorists will never be stopped or come to the attention of the police.

After reading through this thread, I was at first agreeing with the original poster that BAYV acted outside of "normal practice". However your posts have left me somewhat confused, because you contradict yourself quite a few times, I believe whilst stern, the BAYV's CEO response and comments were fair. As somebody who has been through the county court system on many occasions taking on cases for people, I can't see how you would have any chance of success, and your comments seem somewhat vexatious to me. To bring a claim for harassment against a party in the court, you would have to show that on the balance of probabilities that the defendants conduct was sustained and a repeated intentional campaign of harassment against you. One visit to your address wouldn't be deemed by definition as harassment, and therefore I would guarantee such legal action wouldn't be successful. To bring a claim, you would have to show some form of objective (i.e. what do you wish to achieve?). Furthermore, you would have to provide the court with your losses and damages and how you've calculated them. You seem to confuse the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 and the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct, you've actually made many comments on a public forum against BAYV which could be deemed as libelous as I fail to see any evidence that backs up your claims on here, not to mention your threats of legal action made on many occasions (have you actually sent them a letter before legal action? With a minimum 14 day period to dispute or settle any claim?). I think your correspondence is argumentative against BAYV, but that's just my personal opinion. Never use threats of legal action unless you intend on carrying it through. If you do issue a claim, then it will be interesting to follow the progress, don't take my comments personally, I just don't see what exactly you feel you can achieve.

I watched both episodes of parking mad and a few things made me feel really angry. - From my understanding, the bailiff company would utilize ANPR technology which would flag up a motor vehicle which passes by which has an outstanding parking penalty attached to it. - How can the police pull over a vehicle which a private bailiff company acting on behalf of a penalty charge has told them to? Surely under s.163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 a constable only has the power to stop a vehicle if there is reasonable suspicion a road traffic offence has or is taking place. To do so on behalf of a private bailiff would be considered misuse of police powers? - I noticed the bailiffs basically black mailed the people into paying, with comments such as "if you do not pay we'll be seizing your car", in fact, one bailiff starts to rummage around the boot of someones car. Surely a bailiff acting on behalf of a parking fine can not enter into your private property (vehicle) without your permission, and under what law or powers would a bailiff stop you from leaving a public place should you not wish to deal with them on the road side? How could they seize your vehicle in a public place? Thanks.

Hope you get banned from driving for a lengthy period of time, not to mention having to take your theory test and extended driving test before being given a new license. Why should I, and most other motorists abide by the law and speed limits when a select few people believe they can go out and drive how it suits them. To have as many seeding convictions as yourself clearly shows you have no respect towards driving safely, and in accordance to the law. Harsh it may be, but that's my opinion. I can't see any chance that you can avoid being banned this time around. Hopefully the ban from driving gives you a new outlook, and hopefully you'll appreciate having a driving license is earned and not a right.