Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - andy_foster

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 81
1
i know the ranges of Course v Points. I fully read the obvious " READ THIS FIRST"   it was the same on PiPEPO that wasn't my reason of posting.

My bad, I skimmed your OP and presumably read your "probably" as a question, rather than an "all things being equal".

Maybe the poster could elaborate on his point that collaboration certificates are not legally required then?

However...

He could. He appears not to have done so. You asked for free legal advice. He gave you accurate legal advice. He appears to be acting under the misapprehension that the purpose of the forum is to provide accurate and meaningful advice in response to the questions asked, rather than to justify his reasoning, or engage in some kind of debate either to enable him to persuade you that he is correct or enable you the opportunity to show him that he is correct. Leave it with me, I'll be having words with him.

2
Learner motorcyclists already have to complete Compulsory Basic Training before they can otherwise* ride on the road. This requirement is intended to mitigate the issue that learner riders do not have a supervisor sat immediately to their left, so they have to complete a basic training course to ensure a minimum level of competence in a sterile environment (a coned off car-park) before being assessed riding back to the training centre, and given a chit enabling them to ride on the road generally.

The Germans have a solution to some as yet unspecified problem. Being German it is probably very efficient. And expensive. Are supervised learner car drivers with little to no driving experience a significant problem? The obvious solution to the issue of learner car drivers starting off with little to no driving experience is to require them to display L plates and to be supervised by a qualified driver aged over 21 with at least 3 years driving experience sat in the front passenger seat, and able to grab the wheel, or otherwise take over the driving if it becomes necessary.

The solution of "more training" across the board, before the learner is allowed an opportunity to demonstrate whether he has reached the required level of competence would mostly only be a solution to a shortage of driving examiners/test appointments if the government itself had not reached any discernable level of competence.

*The CBT includes an element of road riding.

3
We are here to provide advice, not to debate the advice with you.

42 in a 30 limit is the top end of the guidelines for an SAC (as explained in the cunningly hidden "READ THIS FIRST" sticky at the top of this forum).

4
Speeding and other criminal offences / Re: Car in front, not me!???
« on: April 21, 2026, 06:06:01 pm »
So, based on the photos, I can confidently state that you need to have a word with yourself.

5
No

6
The criteria for "last known address" is broadly whether the sender had reason to doubt that the address provided was still current, and then the practicalities of tracking down the current address.

On the face of it, it seems perverse that a notice sent to somewhere you haven't lived at for 2 years can be considered your "last known address" (presumably you haven't provided the identity thieves with an updated address...), but that is where the reasonably practicable defence comes in.


7
The nomination from the RK arguably has no evidential value.

A notice is deemed served when it is delivered to the addressee's "last known address", so on the face of it, even though the nomination was fraudulent, you were obliged to provide any information that was in your power to give and that might lead to the identification of the driver (which would have been that you had no knowledge of or connection with the vehicle in question - and arguably the fact that you have been the victim of identity theft, etc.).

Not receiving or being aware of the notice is not in and of itself a complete defence. In Whiteside, Mr Whiteside who was the owner and RK of the vehicle in question was staying away from his home address for some time, and the court found, on the facts of that case, that it would have been reasonably practicable to ensure that any such notices were brought to his attention, either by having someone else open them and relay the contents to him, or forward them to where he was staying at the time.

I would suggest (if a particularly mendacious prosecutor were to suggest that a similar obligation would have applied to you), that putting measures in place to ensure that notices concerning vehicles that you had no connection to and which were generated as the result of fraudulent nominations would wall massively what might be considered to be reasonable.

8
All cases are fact specific. Your account contains about as many facts as an answer in PMQs.
If others have been able to defend against allegations, it will almost certainly be due to the facts in their case.

9
You keep saying "your covered", does the email say that or does it say "you're covered" two different meanings. Yes I know I'm being pedantic but it makes a lot of difference in legal matters.

"Your covered.(sic" is not a cromulent sentence. It has no meaning. If you must be pedantic, it helps to be correct.

10
From what I can gather from your timeline, you contacted Saga prior to the stated renewal date to reduce the cover level , which prompted  the "You're covered" email. I strongly suspect, having had insurance and observed the discrepancies between what they say and the facts* the "You're covered"
email is almost certainly system generated when a new cover commences - in this case your reduced cover, presumably for the remainder of the policy. I do not read it as indicating that the renewal, due to occur about 3 weeks later, had already been actioned.

I would say that you are generally entitled to take what they say at face value, rather that applying a cynical translation to mean something entirely different than what it says, but I, personally, would be minded to treat that as a side issue and not conflate it with the auto-renewal term, which on the face of it appears to extend the duration of the insurance contract indefinitely in 12 month chunks, subject to cancellation with notice from either party.


*A favourite being when, after cancelling the autorenewal that I never asked for of agreed to because I had found and accepted a cheaper quote, the policy expired, receiving a warning email to inform me that I was uninsured - which was a big fat lie, I was insured, just not with them.

11
If no cover was actually in force at the time, does a retrospective acceptance of cover provide a defence (i.e. the accused cannot be convicted regardless) or just provide an excuse for the prosecution to withdraw the charge on the grounds of the public interest test no longer being met? There is a difference.

*If* there was no cover in place at the material time, then the intended insurer saying that as no incident occurred they would be happy to nominally retrospectively indemnify against a non-existent liability, would not change the fact that cover was not in place at the material time.

However, I would argue that insurance is a contract, and therefore a matter of construction, not a matter for one party to unilaterally deny. If the parties have "agreed" that the policy will automatically renew, on the face of it that is executory consideration from both parties and a binding contractual term, subject to any cancellation clauses.

If the Financial Services Ombudsman were to order the insurer to retrospectively provide the cover it stated it would, then I would suggest that would be the equivalent of ab initio - meaning that cover was in place at the material time, for all practical purposes the same as if a court of law found that as a matter of construction the policy was in place. I would further suggest that as a matter of public policy, for the universal scam of default auto-renewal to be workable, the party imposing the clause cannot simply wash their hands of their own failure.

12
If you want us to give up our free time to try to help you, I suggest that you provide some background/context to the case, rather than simply, "here's a link to the letter, kindly do the needful".

13
One case, one thread!
I'm gonna go ahead and call bullsh*t on the FPN.
Perhaps you would like to give us a clue as to what specific offence this notice refers to?

14
Speeding and other criminal offences / Re: Slip error
« on: April 16, 2026, 11:12:46 am »
Laser speedmeters (Lidar) typical work by measuring the distance to the object through ~40 pulses over ~1/3 second. The distance(s) measured are the beam length from time of flight halved. 4 initial pulses will set the window for expected reflected pulses and the remainder (including the last of the 4 initial pulses) will be used to calculate the speed. Inconsistency will throw up an error.

"Slip" can be achieved by sliding the end of the beam along a smooth surface, such as the side of a lorry. If the device is clamped into position, slip would create a negative error - the lorry would be moving, but the length of the beam could remain constant. If the device is panned to track the vehicle, and the beam moves from the rear to the front of a length of smooth surface during that 1/3 second, it could add up to ~7mph per metre of slip (3m/s).

15
Non-motoring legal advice / Re: bt openreach damaging property
« on: April 15, 2026, 11:33:24 pm »
If you were Openretch's customer (in respect of the claim), then I would suggest that the stonewalling intended  to make you give up both the will to live and the will to pursue the claim would constitute an aggressive trading practice (and their communications a misleading trading practice) contrary to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 81