Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
        • Like
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Falsely accused of fly tipping **RESOLVED**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 681 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Recently my wife took some rubbish to the local recycling centre including a bag of household waste which she placed inside the waste bin.

 

Since then the council have accused her of fly-tipping and have produced a photograph of our bag of rubbish but on the ground next to the clothes bank - not where she put it - along with a whole pile of other rubbish which is not ours.

 

They have now said that she needs to be interviewed under caution, the site has CCTV and we've asked them to review this as it will prove that she put the bag into the bin but they will only speak to us via email at this point and keep avoiding the question of CCTV.

 

Apart from the obvious stress engaging a solicitor is likely to cost more than the £120 reduced-rate fixed-penalty they've offered, but paying it would be admitting guilt when she's innocent and risking a criminal record.

 

Any advice?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you. I'm hoping it will go one of two ways: either they have CCTV footage in which case it will prove that she put the bag into the bin and hopefully explain how it came to be outside it, or they don't have CCTV at all. In the latter case I'm hoping that as the photo is the only evidence they have it won't be enough for a conviction.

 

Am I correct in thinking that the burden of proof lies with the council, and that they need to be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she fly tipped?

 

Honestly it would be less stressful if she was guilty because we could just pay the £120 and be done with it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can scan / photo the letter later on. It's basically worded that prosecution can be avoided by paying the fixed penalty, I suspect they're hoping that people will do that rather than having to take them to court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick follow-up: we have taken legal advice and they have confirmed that the onus is on the council to prove that my wife committed the offence they're accusing her of and that the photograph of the bag is circumstantial and proves nothing as anyone could have moved it there.

 

She's attending an interview next week where the council will be obliged to fully disclose what evidence they have. Hopefully they have CCTV footage in which case she'll be exonerated. If not and all they have is the photo I doubt they'll be able to take it any further. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorted.

 

My wife has been called today by the manager of the enforcement team, he said that something hadn't felt quite right and that he had contacted Tivoli (the waste contractors on site) and had asked them if they had removed rubbish from the waste bin to look for addresses.

 

Tivoli would neither confirm nor deny this, so the council is conducting an investigation which will result in disciplinary action against Tivoli if this is found to be the case.

 

The council have confirmed that no further action will be taken against my wife as they believe that she did nothing wrong, and that she does not need to attend the interview.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Falsely accused of fly tipping **RESOLVED**
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...