You can only drive in the UK for 12 months with a full, VALID driving licence issued by a non-EU country. After that you must apply for a provisional licence and take a UK driving test before you can drive legally From that I would suggest that as you have no VALID licence, you cannot drive in the UK without having firstly had a provisional licence and taken a driving test. Be aware though that an application asks the specific question 'Have you been disqualified in any other country' and there is a fine of up to £2500 if you make a false declaration - it would also almost certainly invalidate any insurance policy as well The answer to your question therefore would be that you cannot currently drive in the UK as you have no valid licence - either a UK one or one issued by another country. You would be committing an offence if you do drive, and you would not have insurance cover. Best wait until the ban has been served and then on renewal of the Latvian licence you can drive for up to 12 months before having to apply for a UK issued one. You would also have to declare the ban in Latvia when applying for insurance

Seconded - completely ignore. If police were not called at the time then there is no chance of anything further happening. RLP will write a series of letters threatening possible (civil, not criminal) court action and when they are not getting any further they will get a debt-collector-for-hire to write another scary letter. NOTE - a debt collector WILL NOT call at your house, all you will receive is a trail of letters before the debt collector hands the case back to RLP who will then 'recommend' that their client considers court action. THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN - Primark will have filed the case once you left the store and no further action will be taken There is no point appealing - all that will do is signal to RLP that they have a live one and that it is worth following up in the hope of getting some sort of payment. Similarly the CCTV - pointless in getting hold of it as you don't need it There is absolutely nothing more that will happen over this bar the letters. Don't fall for their pseudo legal language or threats of eternal damnation should you not contribute to their Christmas fund!

The employer will probably either not have correctly stored copies of your documents originally (or may not have recorded the date on which the check was made), or they are renewing records following a GDPR audit. There is no legal obligation for an employer to check and retain proof of right to work, but if they do so, then there would be a defence should it later be discovered that an employee was working without the necessary rights to work. They are probably looking to tighten up policies so that your data is retained correctly and with your consent and understanding of why these documents are held on file, and they have the necessary details on file stating that checks were made of the original documents and relevant dates when those checks were conducted

A couple of things to consider It seems from your OP that you were approached for permission and this was refused? If this is true, then is there anything in your contract (or company employee handbook) which covers any sort of requirement for photographs to be taken and used for a particular purpose? Assuming that there is no such contractual obligation, and that permission was refused to have photos taken then your employer is on thin ice. There are privacy considerations and rights afforded by the DPA (and possibly the HRA) especially as the report would be available to people outside of the immediate organisation and probably to a far wider audience. There could have been all sorts of reasons why you did not wish for your image to be known outside of your office and your employer is completely wrong to take action against you for refusing The words 'punishment' and 'discipline' however are emotive and very hard to prove. Had you been formally disciplined then it would be much easier to deal with since it is highly unlikely that there would be a clause in the employer's disciplinary procedures which would allow them to do so - other than the all encompassing 'failure to carry out a reasonable instruction' which would be almost impossible to make it stick. Expressing annoyance and giving you extra work would be very difficult to define as a retributional act unless there is evidence to support this - maybe an email or statements from others would be required Probably the best way of dealing with this would be as a matter of bullying and harassment - a formal grievance in the first instance outlining that you had good reasons to refuse permission to have photos taken, and that in in the manner you were spoken to and in forcing you to take on extra work you consider this to be an act of bullying and harassment as it caused distress and anxiety and was not the result of poor performance but an act of temper on the part of the manager concerned. So much the better if the others that you mention are also willing to add their names to the complaint

If you hover over the word 'Donate' in your post, there is a link for donations. Alternatively follow the link in either mine or DX's signature - many thanks and well done! As DX asked, could you give a brief summary of what the debt was and the history as this will help others to better match their circumstances to yours?

The lovely Katie phoned me this morning to ask about the accident which I had been involved in. It does actually sound like the same person in the clip. I am normally quite polite but having had so many of these calls I was rather abrupt today. I normally just ask them to confirm my name or the registration number of the vehicle I was driving and that is enough for them to put the phone down. If you ask where their information came from they make some vague comment about the 'Motor Accident Department' I think they quite literally phone numbers either at random or which are on a generic list created for some other purpose EDIT - having now done a little reading it seems that I might be arguing with a bot programmed to respond to yes/no answers. Who knew huh?

Had this issue with a local second hand dealer and my son. He had just the car my son was looking for - a bit overpriced I thought but with the assurance of buying from a dealer. No credit card payment available, basically cash only. Wouldn't release the car straight away as the blower was only putting out cold air and he needed to get the heater matrix flushed (yeah I know now lol). I ended up having to put the matrix hoses back on properly as all the water disappeared, then fitted a new valve in the cooling system as that too was leaking, but as they were fairly minor things we let it go but the eater never really warmed up properly and there was an awful lot of gunk in the system and by this time we had had it for a couple of months. Anyway - 3 months later the timing chain let go and when we went to scrap it, one website came up with the fact that a scrap enquiry had already been recorded for the car - pretty certain that instead of scrapping it the dealer gave a few quid more and patched it up for sale. Expensive lesson learned!

Not removing the post from Facebook but basking in the adulation of 'friends' will not help the case either....

When will people learn that NOTHING negative written about work or colleagues on social media is 'safe'. It matters not whether the name of the organisation or those that work there are mentioned. Your 'friends' will know where you work. They will have an opinion of that workplace and it's employees based on what you have written. They may pass on those opinions to others in a wider audience and those opinions 'could' bring the company into disrepute Anger against those who may have wronged you may well be justified, but Facebook is not the right place for threatening retribution (in fact nowhere would be appropriate for what you have said and how you have said it) and even from what you have posted here, it is not too great a stretch for any employer to make an allegation stick for bullying, harassment and bringing the company into disrepute.

Whilst to a point I agree with the 'ignore RLP' comments, this has to be with the same note of caution mentioned earlier - do not ignore anything which might follow which looks like a properly constructed letter before claim . Whilst RLP are, at base level, absolute chancers with no interest other than to line their own pockets, in theory at least, they might well persuade the employer to issue proceedings, and providing that the employer can substantiate the amount being claimed, successfully convince a judge to issue judgment. In the majority of cases where RLP blow hot air about their client's entitlement to damages for the disruption caused to their business, a figure plucked out of thin air makes it very unlikely that they would be successful in a properly defended case - and indeed RLP were badly burned in the 2012 Oxford case where a judge agreed that such amounts could not be recovered. With employee theft however things 'can' be rather different, especially since your partner admitted to theft valued at £15k and the employer believed it to be closer to £22k. Clearly with £££ signs in their eyes, RLP will naturally be starting with the higher amount and would hope to negotiate this down if there were strong evidence to suggest that your partner's guilt was genuinely closer to the lower figure. With employee theft it is also easier to evaluate costs of investigation as much of it will involve personnel who may be brought in and paid for that specific purpose - unlike security guards in a retail store who hare paid regardless of whether they have to investigate theft during their shift or not. I have known it happen, with some fairly hefty costs involved, although was not privy to whether RLP were involved or not What I can't fully understand (nor should I particularly but the question has to be asked) from this post or the one which you made on this subject elsewhere several months ago, is 'what happened to the stolen goods'? I note that some value was recovered and returned to the employer, but if £15k was stolen, either in money or goods, what happened to it and why could it not be returned when the theft was detected? If the money was returned to the employer, then there could be no claim, other than possibly for genuine out of pocket costs for investigation I suppose therefore that it is a matter of holding out and seeing what happens next. RLP on it's own initiative cannot instigate Court action, only the employer can so it might be a matter of whether they 'would' rather than whether they 'can'. They might opt not to do so, but they might follow through, either by instructing RLP's in-house solicitor, or by instructing their retained legal consultants, which all big organisations tend to have - although why then would RLP be involved in the first place? You can certainly expect RLP to not drop this easily, not least as they read these forums and have been known to then write to people advising against taking advise from people on the internet who know nothing and even quoting particular posts. Certainly DO NOT pay RLP a penny. If you must deal with anybody, let it be the employer directly. Are they really demanding that RLP recover this amount, or have they washed their hands of it and are allowing RLP to make demands and get you to pay something and then get a percentage of whatever you do end up parting with? I see that you originally intended to speak to your solicitor about this several months ago but couldn't? Have you done so since and if so what was their advice?

As stated above if you were told to expect a 'fine' then this was incorrect but you WILL receive a demand for payment towards 'security costs' which can be safely ignored however much they write to you and threaten legal action (civil court, NOT criminal). RLP who normally act in such cases with Boots do not have the legal authority to take you to court - only Boots could do that and they simply won't do that so RLP's demands can and must be ignored completely. What will happen is that RLP will make a case to say that you are liable for a contribution towards security costs through your actions and that there are legal precedents for this and that ultimately their client could sue you. After a series of letters (which may include warnings about taking advice from nasty armchair lawyers on the internet) they may refer it to their tame debt collector company who will also write to you but ultimately both will stop writing and refer it back to their client to consider legal action. Which will never happen and you will not hear from them again Yes they will try to include your partner on the basis that one of you may crack and make the contribution to their holiday fund that they are after. Same advice to both of you - maintain a thick skin and ignore them The store will also NOT refer this to the police - so that too was incorrect. They had the option to do that at the time but chose not to and it is now too late to do so. There will be no knock at the door, no mention on your criminal record or credit file and nobody other than Boots or RLP will know anything more As DX says - do some reading around this forum and not one person has ever returned to say that anything further happened other than letters In saying this we DO NOT condone shoplifting at all - far from it. The correct action for a retailer is to deal with theft or suspected theft through proper channels, not to get a commercial organisation to make baseless threats in order to gain a profit. Please stop stealing NOW - next time you may not be so lucky and find yourself with a criminal record which will cause untold problems in the future

All will be fine - from the way you have described it the police wouldn't even have been checking speeds but would be focussed on getting to whatever incident they were heading for

Unfortunate - as prior to 2014 they had failed to register on the money laundering register as an estate agent and which rendered contracts formed prior to 2012 potentially illegal. Have you researched other cases? There seem to be quite a few and there is a lot of information on the CEBTA website - http://www.cebta.org.uk That seems to have been set up specifically by and for disgruntled RTA clients

Oh man that ZZPS letter is a gem! It might just as well have been written in crayon by a four year old. They refer to the Beavis case with no context or reason why it is relevant - just that 'we say so' and that 'somebody' has added a clearly unlawful £70 'administration fee' to the PCN amount The letter from the PPC also tells you that they can pass liability to the driver but with no mention of the relevant authority Might be an idea to grab some photos of signage if you are local Parking isn't my forte - but I have no doubt that somebody will soon advise your next steps. Fortunately it does not look as though this organisation 'does' court, but you may need to put them on notice that should they be silly enough then they will end up out of pocket, but don't do anything unless and until a wiser one than I tells you what to do!

They are EXTREMELY litigious DX, taking multiple clients to Court for exactly this, and I daresay that the OP, although the claim could be defeated, would rather avoid the stress and work involved in defending the claim!

What was the date of the original contract?

Thanks - for ease of reading:- 1. Date of Infringement - 4th May 2018 2. Date on the NTK - 11th May 2018 3. Date Received - Unknown as not signed for. 4. Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? No 5. Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes, via onsite camera. Photos available online via their website (in addition to the one in the PCN) 6. Have you appealed? No 7. Who is the parking company? One Parking Solutions Ltd 8. Where exactly? Broadwater Street West P&D, Worthing BN14 9DE The letter informs how to appealing to themselves and “if OPS deem your appeal unsuccessful, you will be informed on how to appeal POPLA”. They have BPA and BPA Operator Approved logos at the bottom of the PCN. OK - one of the parking experts will no doubt be along shortly, but even I can see holes in this, not least that they cannot identify who the driver was (so make sure that you do not do so!) so their NTK would not seem to be PoFA compliant Can you post up a PDF of the letter, with all identifying marks, codes etc redacted?

Can you please copy and fill this out with your own answers? https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?462118-Have-you-received-a-Parking-Ticket-(1-Viewing)-nbsp All of the emotional stuff is largely irrelevant so just stick to the facts - you went to park, the parking spaces were occupied by pallets, therefore you were unable to park in a marked bay and was not actually 'parked' as such? Have they provided photographs of you in the area? Would they support your assertion that the pallets were occupying spaces? Did you not notice anybody taking phoitos - did they issue a ticket on site or only via the post?

Just remove all of the emotional aspects of your post - you were caught shoplifting, the police were not called, you were advised that you would receive a charge in the post So - your next actions will be to ignore everything that you receive (if you receive anything having given the wrong door number) even if they threaten court action to make you pay. They won't, and never do. This is an outside company acting in Primark's name. The police cannot become involved afterwards, and it cannot affect your job prospects or anything else. The incident is not a matter of public record nor will anybody other than yourself and Primark (or their civil recovery agent) ever know anything about it. So far as Primark are concerned it is done with and if they wanted to punish you they had the option of involving the police - which they chose not to do But please do not do this again - otherwise next time you might find that the store DOES call the police and then things get much harder to deal with!

I tried with a vape pen and completely failed. I convinced myself I was doing OK by just substituting the odd cigarette with a few puffs on the vape, but was probably still smoking as many ciggies as ever and abandoned the vape within a couple of weeks That was until my wife resolved to give up with a proper vape - in her case an Arc Mini from Totally Wicked. Cost about £40 with the first bottle of 'juice' and she has not even wanted a cigarette since - and that was many months ago. So impressed was I that I bought the same and since I first used it I am proud to say that I have not touched - or even been tempted to have - a cigarette. Not once in about 5 months have I even missed cigarettes even standing with cigarette smokers outside work the smell doesn't bother me. Probably use about 2 bottles of liquid a week and instead of the £4.99 Totally Wicked ones I now tend to get some funky flavoured ones from Poundland or other shops OK I am still smoking (vaping) but spending less than 5% of what I was and I am only taking in the Nicotine and not the nasty stuff. If you are going to do it that way, it has to be all or nothing - don't even try to cut down the cigarettes and substitute with a vape. It won't work!

Also, and not wishing to add petrol to the fire, what happens if the TP insurer has a CMC handling the claim? Courtesy car, out of pocket expenses, personal injury (either genuine or encouraged to develop one by the CMC?) I guess that whilst MIB might pick up the cost of the damage but so far as I am aware they wouldn't settle a PI claim? Could there potentially be action taken to recover directly against the OP?

Once insurers become aware one of a claim first things that happens is a three way conference call between yourself, the insurer and DVLA to verify your details and status of your licence. Unless you can get this resolved without insurers I fear that you might come unstuck at an early stage

They will say that - it is their business model and is worth an awful lot of money. They also sue a lot of their clients for exactly the same reason hoping that they will get an undefended case and a payout, but they have also been spanked several times with a properly defended action. Strictly speaking they are correct - there is an agreement containing Clause 14 which does say that in the event of cancellation a fee will be payable, even after the 12 months has elapsed , but there is also clearly a condition stating that the agreement lasts for 12 months. This would surely have to be an unfair term as where else can a contract bind you to terms even after any agreement has ceased. That contract is littered with ambiguity. I saw somewhere that they also tried to sue a client who believed that the contract had expired and sold his business and they came after him for their commission and fees. Nasty organisation by the looks of it!

It is a local bylaw - and apparently a very popular one as most right minded people see it in a similar way to dog cr*p being left in public places - it is a pretty disgusting practice for most people. I believe the bylaw covers spitting in public, so whether on the street or not would probably be irrelevant There wouldn't have to be a board there to warn against it so long as the bylaws are published 'somewhere'. There is also the point that there are some things that any reasonable person would find unacceptable I don't believe you can appeal as such, but you could probably opt not to pay and have the case heard in court? They would probably say though that you should have used a handkerchief/tissue/your hand/swallowed it rather than spit, even into a bush Sorry, not a lot of help in avoiding the penalty. Others may know different