What are you disputing? If you've recieved a NIP and a s172 request to identify the driver then you have to respond - otherwise you are probably committing a more serious offence than the alleged speeding... Unless you have already been charged with the offence of speeding (your opening post is missing all relevant detail) you aren't entitled to see any evidence yet, and any photos the police may have supplied so far may only be there to help you identify the driver. (Hence why they may have supplied images from the front of the car.) If you haven't yet been charged you might find that they rely on other images to prosecute you. Unless you are 100% confident that you are not guilty of the alleged speeding, it's probably best not to play silly buggers about whether the images are from in front or from behind...

I can only agree with what @Ethel Street has said in #2 and #4. If you are dealing with issues about the ownership of a house you really need to seek professional paid for legal advice and not attempt some sort of DIY job. If you already have a solicitor acting for you, why on earth are you asking for advice on an anonymous forum? You're paying them to advise you. (I appreciate that this thread isn't specifically asking about ownership but about registering some sort of objection at the Land Registry, but it amounts to the same thing...) Like @Ethel Street I'm not a lawyer, but I do know a little bit... When you say that your mum "left her share of the home" to you and your sister, are you sure that she had a share to leave you in the first place? She would only have had a share in the house if she and your step-dad owned it together as tenants in common, in which case she could leave her share to whoever she liked (eg you and your sister). But many homes in the UK are owned by husband and wife as joint tenants, in which case when one spouse dies their "share" automatically goes to the surviving spouse, and can't be left to anyone else. So do you know if your mum and step-dad owned the house jointly or as tenants in common? You really need proper legal advice.

So what you are saying is that Amazon's own tracking information - while you still had access to it - would be consistent with the items never being delivered to the hub in the first place, and that the items appear to have been identified as being damaged and seem to have been returned to Amazon with no involvement at all from you? Assuming the alternative - ie that the items had been correctly delivered to the hub - how would you have collected them? How would you have identified yourself? Could a third party have impersonated you or intercepted the items?

But I thought that your amazon account - you showed a screenshot earlier which said of the items - and I quote directly - that "It can't be delivered". To me "It can't be delivered" means it would never have been delivered to the hub, but above you seem to be saying that somebody at the hub actually received them. I think it would be helpful if you could explain to us what facts you know for sure, and what "facts" you are only speculating about... For example, do you know if the items ever reached the delivery hub - or do you have no idea at all what happened?

I don't think* the OP is suggesting that anybody at the hub has done anything. I think* he's suggesting that the items never even reached the hub because they were marked by the courier as damaged and not deliverable, and supposedly returned to Amazon by the courier** before they even reached the hub... * I say "think" because the OP's story is so muddled, confusing and difficult to follow that I don't really know what he's saying. And that's after 40 posts on a second thread on this matter... ** Whether the OP is accusing the courier of something is equally unclear...

"more than one account"? How many would that be then? How would you know what other people have received? Presumably the answer to this question is "No. They were all returned to Amazon"?

If your "friend" and his dad don't stop messing about trying to avoid a piddling speeding fine they might both end up like these two... Chris Huhne and Vicky Pryce jailed for eight months WWW.BBC.CO.UK Former cabinet minister Chris Huhne and his ex-wife Vicky Pryce are each jailed for eight months for perverting the course of justice over a driving...

@FTMDave - you need to remember that RailwayUz have up to 45(?) days to challenge the bank's decision to award you a chargeback. Of course they may not know or may not understand that...

Unfortunately this forum won't let me send or receive PMs...

So this WAS a business transaction and you are not a consumer? If you are "in business" I'd suggest you seek legal advice - depending on the value of the loss, of course. Otherwise you need to examine the T&Cs of both your agreement with your agent and his agreement with the warehouse... [Edit - just for illustration, this is the definition of "consumer" in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk) “Consumer” means an individual acting for purposes that are wholly or mainly outside that individual’s trade, business, craft or profession ]

Perhaps you ought to check what the T&Cs of your agreement with your import agent say? And ask your agent what he arranged on your behalf with the warehouse? Depending on whether you're a business and on the value of the stock, you might want to seek paid for professional legal advice. If you are a business you are basically free to agree to whatever contractual terms you like, and you are expected to be capable of looking after your own interests. You don't have the benefit of consumer law to protect you.

Not in a union then? Does your employer have a HR dept?

So you don't have a contract with the warehouse? Your intermediary does?

Well that might put a slightly different complexion on it... (?) So your contractor hasn't received any payment yet. Has he contacted you regarding payment? I don't know, but I'm not sure you can make a s75 claim if your card company hasn't paid the contractor yet. My understanding - which may be wrong - is that s75 depends on the card company being the creditor in the debtor - creditor - supplier chain. If the card company haven't paid the contractor yet I'm not sure if you have a s75 claim because I'm not sure JAJA are a creditor in these circumstances(?). I'm wondering if you may have jumped the gun by asking JAJA to hold the payment... Did you ask them to hold it or what? I think what would normally happen is that you would have made a credit card payment to the contractor, you would then have tried to recover it from him, and if that failed you would pursue a s75 claim against your card provider. Or you might have sued them jointly from the get go. But that hasn't happened here. Also, what about BankFodder's question about the cost of making good? Normally you'd be suing the contractor and then making a s75 claim if he didn't pay up. What I'm really not certain about here is what level of involvement JAJA have if they haven't paid the contractor at all and might not be a creditor(?). See what @BankFodder suggests as I'm a bit puzzled in this situation

Sorry - but how has it reached "statement" stage? Originally you said your friend "was asked by police" about something or someone. Has she actually made a witness statement for use in court, or has she been asked to make one? If she's making a formal statement to the police that might be used in court proceedings, it can relate to anything that she directly knows (eg that she saw or heard) about the matter that is before the court. Although that doesn't necessarily mean it will be admissible in court. If your friend makes (or has made) a witness statement that ends up being used in court, I'd have thought her identity would become known when it was given in evidence. I don't know that for a fact but I can't imagine you can give a formal court statement anonymously. Has your friend followed previous advice to try to speak to a social worker or to a police family liaison officer in order to air her concerns and seek reassurance? And perhaps ask for protection? (I understand that you can't go into detail on a public forum - and I don't want to know anyway - but without knowing the background to this it's very difficult to give useful advice. Good luck to you and your friend)

I would say that in the case of JL* and Richer Sounds their TV guarantees/warranties generally offer better protection than CRA. (As I would suggest is the case here...) * Although I understand JL are looking at changing their guarantee terms and they may not be so generous in the future.

I thought you'd paid 50% (£2150?) on your credit card as a deposit? Isn't that what you're claiming back from JAJA? It doesn't answer why you aren't first taking action against the contractor...

Make a complaint | Independent Office for Police Conduct I'd also make a complaint to your local Police and Crime Commissioner. (They won't interfere in police "operational" matters but you could complain that the police appear to be operating a policy of ignoring what are clearly criminal offences on the spurious grounds that they are "domestic" differences.)

I suspect the bodycams are there for the legal protection of your employer just as much as for your protection and safety. I don't know what job you do but I can envisage some jobs (eg bouncer, security staff) where your employer - and you - might heve to rely on uninterrupted footage for legal defence reasons. (eg you are a bouncer and you and your employer are being sued because you allegedly assaulted someone.). Obviously there are good reasons for switching it off (see @whitelist's post) but if your employer requires you to wear a bodycam then I think it would be a good idea to clarify exactly what your employer requires and exaxtly when you can and cannot turn it off. (And if you are in a union - which I hope you are - ask for their input too).

My point was that s75 specifically makes "the creditor" liable in what is referred to as the "debtor - creditor - supplier" chain. You are the debtor. Your contractor is the supplier. I'm not sure whether the creditor is JAJA or Visa or Mastercard. If it isn't JAJA they might have to comply with whatever instructions they have from Visa/Mastercard in respect of paying out on s75 claims. Usually you just make a claim against your bank and - if successful - they pay up. Because I've never heard of JAJA and I don't know under what authority they issue credit cards I'm just saying I don't know who the creditor is. It might be a complication - or it might not... Just as I haven't heard of JAJA they appear not to have heard of s75. I think you may need to spell it out to them in words of one syllable that your claim is for breach of contract in that your contractor deliberately didn't follow the agreed contract specification and installed something that - in effect - you did not contract to buy. Nothing to do with industry standards or building regs. They simply departed from the agreed specification without your agreement. Have you asked for the claim to be escalated to somebody who might know what they are doing? As I posted earlier, see what else @BankFodder suggests. They're better than me at untangling these sort of disputes.

Thanks. Never heard of them. Wonder if they know what a s75 claim is? (Which is borne out by their earlier statement that they would prosecute the trader! )

Sorry! To clarify further, if the gift does fail because the dead beneficiary had no children, then yes, it goes back into the residual estate to be distributed as per the will. So the OP might get something out of that depending on what the will says It can get complicated...

Very true. I think from #6 the OP is going to investigate further.

Yes. To clarify my earlier post: where a testator leaves a gift to a child or remoter descendant, then if that beneficiary pre-deceases the testator the gift does not fail, but goes to any surviving issue of the deceased benficiary - unless the will specifically states otherwise. Wills Act 1837 (legislation.gov.uk) So in the OP's case I don't think she will benefit if her husband dies before her MiL, but his children and grandchildren etc will - if he has any. People really need paid for legal advice from a solicitor (not a will writing firm) unless their wishes are unbelieveably simple. And most people's are not. The problem the OP has is that this is not her (or her husband's) will...

I've never heard of JAJA. I presume they're a bank - although perhaps not what I would term a "proper" bank. Just to check - what you paid with was definitely a credit card and not a debit card or a charge card? I suspect the problem might be that they don't know their "JAJA" from their elbow. As far as I'm aware, what they said about "JAJA have advised [us] that for them (JAJA) to have a valid claim we must provide a written expert report at our cost" is meaningless. If you are making a s75 claim you are claiming against JAJA - whether they (JAJA) have a claim against the contrcator is irrelevant. So long as you have a claim against the trader you have a claim against JAJA. It's up to JAJA whether they accept the evidence you've already provided. They don't have to prove to anybody that JAJA have a claim Are you certain that they understand you are making a s75 claim and not a chargeback? I suspect you may end up having to sue them and your contractor jointly - if you are confident that the evidence you have already provided to them supports your claim and if you think it's worth it. (Sounds like it probably is worth it - but up to you). See what @BankFodder advises. They're good at this sort of problem.