Welcome to the LOC OPEN LEGAL ADVICE FORUM.

Here you can post random questions that you "individually" have ... and want answered from a "police" point of perspective.

Please do not post questions at random, for the sheer hell of it, as I will only answer genuine questions.

This topic can be used by anyone wanting to ask a question, and will save an individual thread being opened/created for every new "legal" question.

This thread can then also be used as a database for members to browse through, and answer and questions that may have been previously asked.

Please note, that all answers are for INFORMATION only, - do not take any legal action against the information I give, please read the LOC Legal Advice Forum Disclaimer here:

[url="http://www.lexusownersclub.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=16945"]http://www.lexusownersclub.co.uk/forum/ind...showtopic=16945[/url]

before posting !

Regards,

with regards to seatbelts who gets fined for not wearing a seatbelt for instance if a passanger was not wearing a seatbelt would the driver get any penalties or would it strictly be the party not wearing the seatbelt (kids excluded of course)

[quote name='legendswraith' date='May 10 2005, 03:44 PM']with regards to seatbelts who gets fined for not wearing a seatbelt for instance if a passanger was not wearing a seatbelt would the driver get any penalties or would it strictly be the party not wearing the seatbelt (kids excluded of course)
[right][snapback]241614[/snapback][/right][/quote]
[b]I have covered this here :

[url="http://www.lexusownersclub.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=18043"]http://www.lexusownersclub.co.uk/forum/ind...showtopic=18043[/url]

Regards,[/b]

[quote name='ScarFace' date='May 10 2005, 03:46 PM']I have covered this here :
[url="http://www.lexusownersclub.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=18043"]http://www.lexusownersclub.co.uk/forum/ind...showtopic=18043[/url]

Regards,[/quote]

thats answered it then cheers

It's been a long time since I wore a big hat, so remind me on this one:

Bought the missus a car on Monday, MOT but no tax. I'm still waiting for the insurance certificate to arrive, so I am unable to tax the car in the meantime.

When the insurance cert. does arrive, can I still tax the car even if the V5 is still in the name of the previous keeper?

[quote name='Mr Morse' date='May 10 2005, 06:09 PM']It's been a long time since I wore a big hat, so remind me on this one:

Bought the missus a car on Monday, MOT but no tax. I'm still waiting for the insurance certificate to arrive, so I am unable to tax the car in the meantime.

When the insurance cert. does arrive, can I still tax the car even if the V5 is still in the name of the previous keeper?
[right][snapback]241719[/snapback][/right][/quote]
[b]Take the bottom slip with you ........... that will have the new owners details on mate [/b]

Overtaking/undertaking on motorways.

Scenario 1: I'm in the left lane tootling along at 70 (ahem), plonker in the distance is in the middle lane doing 65 on an otherwise empty motorway - do I really have to pull out all the way to the right hand lane to overtake or am I breaking the law by staying in my completely clear left lane and effectively undertaking the idiot?

Scenario 2: I'm in the right hand lane on a busy motorway in a line of traffic doing 70 ish. The middle lane is empty for several hundred yards ahead so I pull into the middle lane and realise I'm actually now going slightly faster than the cars still in the right who are caught up in the 'domino' effect. Eventually I do catch up with traffic in the middle lane and so indicate right and normally am allowed back in to the right hand lane, having passed a good 20 or more cars - have I technically broken the law by undertaking?

[b]Overtaking/undertaking on motorways.[/b]

[quote name='MyronAub' date='May 12 2005, 12:14 AM']Scenario 1: I'm in the left lane tootling along at 70 (ahem), plonker in the distance is in the middle lane doing 65 on an otherwise empty motorway - do I really have to pull out all the way to the right hand lane to overtake or am I breaking the law by staying in my completely clear left lane and effectively undertaking the idiot?[/quote]
[b]No, so long as you stay at 70mph, you are not breaking the law.
The 'plonker' in the middle lane shouldn't be there.[/b]

[quote name='MyronAub' date='May 12 2005, 12:14 AM']Scenario 2: I'm in the right hand lane on a busy motorway in a line of traffic doing 70 ish. The middle lane is empty for several hundred yards ahead so I pull into the middle lane and realise I'm actually now going slightly faster than the cars still in the right who are caught up in the 'domino' effect. Eventually I do catch up with traffic in the middle lane and so indicate right and normally am allowed back in to the right hand lane, having passed a good 20 or more cars - have I technically broken the law by undertaking?[/quote]
[b]You are what is called "jumping lanes" - various offences can be listed here,

1) undertaking
2) driving without due care
3) inconsiderate driving

Depends on the individual circumstances ... and your affect on other motorists.[/b]

[quote name='ScarFace' date='May 12 2005, 06:35 AM'][b]Overtaking/undertaking on motorways.[/b]

[quote name='MyronAub' date='May 12 2005, 12:14 AM']Scenario 1: I'm in the left lane tootling along at 70 (ahem), plonker in the distance is in the middle lane doing 65 on an otherwise empty motorway - do I really have to pull out all the way to the right hand lane to overtake or am I breaking the law by staying in my completely clear left lane and effectively undertaking the idiot?[/quote]
[b]No, so long as you stay at 70mph, you are not breaking the law.
The 'plonker' in the middle lane shouldn't be there.[/b]

[quote name='MyronAub' date='May 12 2005, 12:14 AM']Scenario 2: I'm in the right hand lane on a busy motorway in a line of traffic doing 70 ish. The middle lane is empty for several hundred yards ahead so I pull into the middle lane and realise I'm actually now going slightly faster than the cars still in the right who are caught up in the 'domino' effect. Eventually I do catch up with traffic in the middle lane and so indicate right and normally am allowed back in to the right hand lane, having passed a good 20 or more cars - have I technically broken the law by undertaking?[/quote]
[b]You are what is called "jumping lanes" - various offences can be listed here,

1) undertaking
2) driving without due care
3) inconsiderate driving

Depends on the individual circumstances ... and your affect on other motorists.[/b]
[right][snapback]242311[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

What is the "undertaking" offence? I have never heard of that one

[quote name='Mr Morse' date='May 12 2005, 08:21 AM']What is the "undertaking" offence? I have never heard of that one 
[right][snapback]242317[/snapback][/right][/quote]

Undertaking is when you go past someone from their left (or your right)

Mr SF......when a officer rights something in that little black book of theirs what happens, is it entered into the PNC

[quote name='ScarFace' date='May 12 2005, 05:35 AM'][quote name='MyronAub' date='May 12 2005, 12:14 AM']do I really have to pull out all the way to the right hand lane to overtake[/quote]
[b]No, so long as you stay at 70mph, you are not breaking the law.
The 'plonker' in the middle lane shouldn't be there.[/b]
[/quote]

Well I never knew that - that's good news and a pretty sensible interpretation of the law really.

[quote name='ScarFace' date='May 12 2005, 05:35 AM'][quote name='MyronAub' date='May 12 2005, 12:14 AM']The middle lane is empty for several hundred yards ahead so I pull into the middle lane[/quote]
[b]You are what is called "jumping lanes" - various offences can be listed here,

1) undertaking
2) driving without due care
3) inconsiderate driving
[/b]
[right][snapback]242311[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Now this doesn't make sense to me (and I know you're just quoting the rules - you didn't make them ) but isn't there a conflicting part of the highway code that says you should move to an inside lane once it's clear?

I'd never heard of an offence of 'inconsiderate driving' before, could this be applied to the drivers staying in the right lane doing 75 when my Lex comes roaring up behind them and they won't move out of the way?

[quote name='SHAHZ' date='May 12 2005, 08:39 AM']Mr SF......when a officer rights something in that little black book of theirs what happens, is it entered into the PNC
[right][snapback]242320[/snapback][/right][/quote]
No, it's just kept there for there own information.
[/B]For you information to be updated on the PNC, - PNCB forms need to be completed.

[quote name='MyronAub' date='May 12 2005, 09:46 AM']I'd never heard of an offence of 'inconsiderate driving' before, could this be applied to the drivers staying in the right lane doing 75 when my Lex comes roaring up behind them and they won't move out of the way?  [/quote]
[b]
Actually, no - if you drive up behind someone and cause them to have to move out of the way - you are actually cimmiting an offence of "driving without due care and attention" - as to cause this offence, you need to either a) cause another to alter speed b)cause another to alter direction , which in effect ... is what you are doing.[/b]

[quote name='ScarFace' date='May 12 2005, 01:52 PM'][quote name='SHAHZ' date='May 12 2005, 08:39 AM']Mr SF......when a officer rights something in that little black book of theirs what happens, is it entered into the PNC
[right][snapback]242320[/snapback][/right][/quote]
No, it's just kept there for there own information.
[/B]For you information to be updated on the PNC, - PNCB forms need to be completed.

[right][snapback]242409[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

thanks

[quote name='ScarFace' date='May 12 2005, 12:52 PM']Actually, no - if you drive up behind someone and cause them to have to move out of the way - you are actually cimmiting an offence of "driving without due care and attention" - as to cause this offence, you need to either a) cause another to alter speed b)cause another to alter direction , which in effect ... is what you are doing.
[right][snapback]242409[/snapback][/right][/quote]

Although I'm often tempted to do this, I'm actually normally a very patient guy and I'll keep my distance for many miles before flashing the guy in front awake so that they hopefully remember we drive on the left in this country.

Presumably if he's in the right lane when he shouldn't be and I get close to make him move then we're both committing an offence - however is there not an argument that I'm a victim of entrapment?

[i]Entrapment: An agent provocateur is a person who entices another to commit an offence they would not otherwise have committed.[/i]

I'm genuinely interested in these apparent gray areas while motoring. Is this an interesting one or case closed?

[quote name='MyronAub' date='May 19 2005, 10:18 PM']Presumably if he's in the right lane when he shouldn't be and I get close to make him move then we're both committing an offence - however is there not an argument that I'm a victim of entrapment?

[i]Entrapment: An agent provocateur is a person who entices another to commit an offence they would not otherwise have committed.[/i]
[right][snapback]245591[/snapback][/right][/quote]

I've always thought of entrapment as something an LEO did?

so - if it was a copper (plain cothes, in an unmarked car - obviously) - then maybe it could be entrapment.

but if it was John Q. Public - then it wouldnt be.

[quote]Scenario 2: I'm in the right hand lane on a busy motorway in a line of traffic doing 70 ish. The middle lane is empty for several hundred yards ahead so I pull into the middle lane and realise I'm actually now going slightly faster than the cars still in the right who are caught up in the 'domino' effect. Eventually I do catch up with traffic in the middle lane and so indicate right and normally am allowed back in to the right hand lane, having passed a good 20 or more cars - have I technically broken the law by undertaking?[/quote]

This happens to me on the A1 every day.

I cruise along in the left hand at 60-65, the "fast" lane gets so full of cars trying to procede quicker, but it slows down more, then the "slow" lane ends up overtaking the "fast" lane thru no fault of ours!!

I would protest against breaking the law if I was nicked for this as I have remained at a constant speed.

I have a question. I was out today and drifted over the 30mph speed limit to nearly 40mph. A police woman had one of those hand speed thing and waved at me to slow down. Will I get a ticket? If so how much will the fine be? I have been driving only 2 months now and am devestated and very worried that I will be banned. I have no other tickets as I always go the limit until I drifted today. Also when will the ticket come? I would much appreciate replies.

[quote name='daisychain' date='Jun 13 2005, 08:13 PM']I have a question. I was out today and drifted over the 30mph speed limit to nearly 40mph. A police woman had one of those hand speed thing and waved at me to slow down. Will I get a ticket? If so how much will the fine be? I have been driving only 2 months now and am devestated and very worried that I will be banned. I have no other tickets as I always go the limit until I drifted today. Also when will the ticket come? I would much appreciate replies.
[right][snapback]253168[/snapback][/right][/quote]

would have thought you got a friendly warning if its a handheld one they normally pull you in and give you a producer thats my experience of them anyway

If it was just a wave of a hand .... then take it as a slap on the wrist.

You would have been stopped, and issued a ticket other wise.

[quote name='legendswraith' date='Jun 13 2005, 08:18 PM'][quote name='daisychain' date='Jun 13 2005, 08:13 PM']I have a question. I was out today and drifted over the 30mph speed limit to nearly 40mph. A police woman had one of those hand speed thing and waved at me to slow down. Will I get a ticket? If so how much will the fine be? I have been driving only 2 months now and am devestated and very worried that I will be banned. I have no other tickets as I always go the limit until I drifted today. Also when will the ticket come? I would much appreciate replies.
[right][snapback]253168[/snapback][/right][/quote]

would have thought you got a friendly warning if its a handheld one they normally pull you in and give you a producer thats my experience of them anyway
[right][snapback]253171[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I agree with the above it sounds like you were give advice by the policewoman. If you were doing 40mph you could have received a £60 fine and 3 penalty points. This wouldn't have disqualified you from driving. A new licence holder has to accumulate 6 points before the courts can suspend your licence and enforce an extended driving test. For this to happen, you must have to first appear in court. So relax and pls drive carefully in the future...............and we'll have no excuses of...I was testing my car out officer, if you don't mind

"Do you know what you have started" as you know i ride a motorbike, and i was told by an instructor that it "leagle" to ride along "chevrons" on the outside of stationary traffic so long as the traffic is not moving more than 10mph, is this true

[quote name='wheels-inmotion.co.uk' date='Jun 13 2005, 08:59 PM']"Do you know what you have started"   as you know i ride a motorbike, and i was told by an instructor that it "leagle" to ride along "chevrons" on the outside of stationary traffic so long as the traffic is not moving more than 10mph, is this true
[right][snapback]253183[/snapback][/right][/quote]
What does the highway code say?

Only enter the chevrons if in Emergency.

So in other words ....... no

[quote name='ScarFace' date='Jun 13 2005, 08:57 PM'][quote name='wheels-inmotion.co.uk' date='Jun 13 2005, 08:59 PM']"Do you know what you have started"   as you know i ride a motorbike, and i was told by an instructor that it "leagle" to ride along "chevrons" on the outside of stationary traffic so long as the traffic is not moving more than 10mph, is this true
[right][snapback]253183[/snapback][/right][/quote]
What does the highway code say?

Only enter the chevrons if in Emergency.

So in other words ....... no
[right][snapback]253196[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Every morning i dribble along the outside 10mph see a "you" and back in, but i did wounder since i have seen a few bikes "dribble" right up to the back of the police car and the "copper" hand out of window wave the bike on?

[quote name='daisychain' date='Jun 13 2005, 08:13 PM']I have a question. I was out today and drifted over the 30mph speed limit to nearly 40mph. A police woman had one of those hand speed thing and waved at me to slow down. Will I get a ticket? If so how much will the fine be? I have been driving only 2 months now and am devestated and very worried that I will be banned. I have no other tickets as I always go the limit until I drifted today. Also when will the ticket come? I would much appreciate replies.
[right][snapback]253168[/snapback][/right][/quote]


I had a similar thing the other week. I pulled off at the lights, up to about 35ish then straight off the accelerator again as i saw the camera van parked in front of me. It was litteraly pulling off then stopped accelerating.

How long will it be untill i find out if i've been done or not?

Damn that supercharger

[quote name='ad77' date='Jun 13 2005, 10:13 PM']I had a similar thing the other week. I pulled off at the lights, up to about 35ish then straight off the accelerator again as i saw the camera van parked in front of me. It was litteraly pulling off then stopped accelerating.

How long will it be untill i find out if i've been done or not?

Damn that supercharger [/quote]
14 (working days) till you recieve a NIP (notice of intended prosecution) ........... then they have 6 months to proceed.

Although the law has just changed slightly, ........... but that shouldn't concern you

[quote name='ScarFace' date='Jun 13 2005, 10:24 PM'][quote name='ad77' date='Jun 13 2005, 10:13 PM']I had a similar thing the other week. I pulled off at the lights, up to about 35ish then straight off the accelerator again as i saw the camera van parked in front of me. It was litteraly pulling off then stopped accelerating.

How long will it be untill i find out if i've been done or not?

Damn that supercharger [/quote]
14 (working days) till you recieve a NIP (notice of intended prosecution) ........... then they have 6 months to proceed.

Although the law has just changed slightly, ........... but that shouldn't concern you
[right][snapback]253213[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


So if i've not heard by then, i'm ok? Would the officer do someone for speeding by literaly going up to 35 when pulling off at the lights then straight back down again?

[quote name='ad77' date='Jun 13 2005, 10:26 PM']So if i've not heard by then, i'm ok? Would the officer do someone for speeding by literaly going up to 35 when pulling off at the lights then straight back down again?[/quote]
No, give or take a few miles for your speedo calibration .... you were probably only doing 29mph

[quote name='ScarFace' date='Jun 13 2005, 10:28 PM']No, give or take a few miles for your speedo calibration .... you were probably only doing 29mph 
[right][snapback]253219[/snapback][/right][/quote]


I hope so

Thanks mate

So, you are saying I probably wont get a ticket. The woman was waving with three fingers miming "30" and she had one of those hand held ones so I was thinking I will probably get a ticket because that is how tickets are given now, isn't it?

[quote name='daisychain' date='Jun 14 2005, 05:26 PM']So, you are saying I probably wont get a ticket.  The woman was waving with three fingers miming "30" and she had one of those hand held ones so I was thinking I will probably get a ticket because that is how tickets are given now, isn't it?
[right][snapback]253465[/snapback][/right][/quote]
No, she was jsut telling you that it's a 30mph hour zone ......... so "slow down!"

Scarface, there has been some "banter" about the tyres on Mr X's car as we know, but now "Bazza" has shown the pics displaying the extent of the wear i would like to ask you this.
Those are some of the worst i have ever seen "vers" mileage, in your time in the Police would you aggree.
If you "stoped" this car on the road i would assume the law would deal with is in the manner requierd by the law "Kin well ard" but knowing how the owner "tried" to resolve an unknown problem "would" this be taken into concideration, or would Mr X just be dealt with contempt in veiw of the "severe" wear.

Unfortunatley, he would be dealt with just like anyone else ...........

The problem is, people are forever giving excuses, so who do you believe ?

Hi,
I dont know where this lies within the law?

Kids,maybe 10 or older pulling all the dog muck out of the dog mess bin and throwing it all around,making a mess in general.Are they breaking the law?
Ive been out and had a word with them,so they cleared off but left the mess they made

Cheers scareface if you can lighten how that is with the laws.

Yes, they are causing harrassment, alarm or distress.

An offence under section 5 of the public order act ............ however, a police constable needs to be present for any arrest powers to be apparent.

Hope that helps .............

Thanks for letting me know where it stands within the law for future reference

Cheers chips.

[quote name='ScarFace' date='Jun 13 2005, 10:24 PM']14 (working days) till you recieve a NIP (notice of intended prosecution) ........... then they have 6 months to proceed.

Although the law has just changed slightly, ........... but that shouldn't concern you 
[right][snapback]253213[/snapback][/right][/quote]


Is this 6 months from the date of the conditional offer of fixed penalty or the date 28 days after in which you have to take up the offer??...also what is the change mate

Ahmet....what does KTA (reason/power) & ALP (Outcome) stand for??

Where have you seen that mate ?

You have PM mate

Mr SF - Have query about Gatso. Was pulling out to join the North Circular road (Brent - Ikea) at 40mph road. Gatso flashed even though I was travelling at 40mph and before the car had reached the horizontal banded lines.

What is the outcome of such a situation. Thank you

I'm assuming the speed there s 40mph ?

Was there any road works, was it a temp camera .... or was it a perm one ?

Sometimes the cameras can be "faulty" and will flash even though you are going through it at the correct speed limit.

I'd say, if you were driving at the correct speed, don't worry about it.

The speed was 40mph and it was a fixed camera.

I drive that road everyday to and fro from work for the past year - basically, there is not much leeway or ability to spee don the North circular as it is mainly 40mph in most parts and 50mph in various streches...

To be safe, I drove at 35mph back from work today...

Hi scarface
I am not sure if you can help but here goes
The scenario is, travelling in the right hand lane of a dual carriageway, negotiating a roundabout with the intentions of carrying along the dual carriageway in the right hand lane. A vehicle enters the roundabout in the left hand lane and decides to turn right without any indication, straight into the side of my car.
The set-up of the roundabout is as follows, 6 o’clock entrance with a 12 o’clock exit, and exits at the 9 and 3 o’clock positions.
I have write confirmation from the other driver, which confirms what I have stated.

But I am told that I have to accept 50/50 settlement because of a previous case, I challenged the decision but have just received a letter stating that both cases are the same, “both RTA involved a vehicle turning right from the left hand lane and colliding into another in the right hand lane who wanted to take that exit” and this is from my own solicitors
The case being used is at the following link.
[url="http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/354.html"]http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/354.html[/url]

not sure on this one, the problem in the uk is that the highway code is just that its a code.

therefore the highway code teaches us best method of driving, however if a car is entering in from the left entry onto the round a bout then procedes to cut across to go right round the round a bout, that in my eyes puts the other driver at fault, as the driver has failed to stop at the entrance to the round a bout to ensure it was clear from the right,

on a round a bout your have priority from the right.

id give your solicitor a kick up the *****

i read most of the transcript, in there it states though that the defndant lost, becuase of admiting missing a turn coming off the round a bout, you wasnt.

read the transcripts again, and it actually bolsters your case, if you was intending on going straight across the round a bout.

its basically clear cut to me if thats the case, as i said the other driver failed to notice you on the round a bout and cut on without slowing, or stopping

Thanks monster-mat for your reply

It is strange how things kind of come to you when you read things rather than just saying them.

The solicitor’s version of the case does not mention any of the arguments in the case, nor the statement made by the appeal judge.
They also said I was negligent of rule 163 of the Highway Code, regarding vehicles being incorrectly positioned.

Once I have established the vehicle in the left hand lane was not going to turn right,as described by the appeal judge, which they maintained up to the collision, then surely I cannot be held responsible for not realising they may be incorrectly positioned.

Which leaves the courts decision, am I reading it right when I say the motorcyclist admits her part in causing the RTA. If so would my solicitor’s have to provide a better reason other than, well she was

Numb,

As Mat has explained that your situation seems perfectly clear ........... however, in the UK we also have law based on stated cases.

Now, having not read the link completly ........... if it relates to the same incident that you have been involved in, and a judge ruling has been made, then the stated case becomes law !

Hope you get things sorted either way .............

hi scarface, thanks for the reply

this is a letter which will be posted in the morning, it will give you some idea of what i am up against. They are implying that the law case is reason to find all RTA’s involving a vehicle using the right hand lane 50/50 regardless of circumstances


Your firm state “The Grace v Tanner case law is in respect of an accident where the circumstances are remarkably similar to yours of 8 December 2003. Both cases involve a vehicle attempting to drive right round a roundabout in the left hand lane, both involve said vehicle coming into collision with another vehicle attempting to leave the roundabout from the right hand lane”

Lord Justice Schiemann accepts that, “Mrs Tanner must have seen the exit which was in truth the A23 exit, but because it came between 10 and 11 o'clock rather than 12 o'clock, she concluded, erroneously, that it was not hers, and so she kept going with a view to entering what she supposed would be a 12 o'clock exit.”
Mr X and his client have confirmed that they intended to take the right hand exit whilst travelling in the left hand lane, and in doing so were incorrectly positioned.

Lord Justice Schiemann clearly made a point of addressing what is and what is not indicated, when a vehicle takes up position in the left hand lane. “I add words of my own simply because we are disagreeing with the judge's conclusion. The defendant had taken up position in the left-hand lane of a dual carriageway which would certainly have given the clear impression to any vehicles observing her that, whatever else she was going to do, she was not going to turn to her right.”
with the words of Lord Justice Schiemann, what did I do wrong.

Received a reply to the above letter today

It states “Grace v Tanner was a case where one of the parties appealed against the original findings of the judge who had presided over the first hearing. The party who appealed – the ‘Appellant’ – was the party who was occupying the right hand lane of the roundabout, not the party who was in the wrong lane. The initial findings of the court were to completely dismiss the claims, thereby holding the party in the right hand lane of the roundabout wholly at fault.

The appeal focused mainly on the party in the incorrect lane and whether or not the original judge’s findings were correct. The conclusion of the appeal case was that both parties were negligent to an equal degree and liability should be split 50/50. Lord Justice Schiemann sums up by saying that in his judgment both parties made unintended errors of judgment. He states he agrees with the original judge’s findings against the appellant so therefore does not go into a great deal of detail regarding the negligence displayed by the party in the right hand lane of the roundabout. In summary the original findings were that this party was wrong to assume that the vehicle was going to turn off the roundabout and obviously gave no thought to the possibility that the party was incorrectly positioned."

Just an update for all,

Following numerous letters of complaint to the solicitors who were supposed to represent me. They now want to know how they can put things right for me, but I really needed to spell things out to them. A copy of my final letter of complaint is below, just in case any of the members find themselves in the same predicament, as I was informed that the case law is used regularly by other solicitors.



Regarding some of your replies to my complaint, you first state that the documentation I originally received was the case law Grace v Tanner, your firm was also aware that I was unhappy with the conclusion, yet It wasn’t until I found the actual case that you informed me that the case you supplied was a summary.
You now claim that my insurers specifically instructed your firm to make my claim a 50/50 settlement, and then you provided the case law. In your correspondence dated 15th July 2004 you state, “We have contacted your insurers and explained the accident circumstances in full and the position that the third party insurers are holding. Your insurers have advised that they are in agreement with our advices in accepting the 50/50 settlement offer and should this is rejected they are not willing to fund proceedings in the small claims court”

Apart from the above contradictions, why on earth did you feel the need to take my case to the small claims court?


You will note in the case “Unfortunately the motorcyclist, wishing to continue down the A23 and rightly assuming that the car also wished to do that but not realising that the driver of the car did not realise that the dual carriageway between 10 and 11 o'clock was in truth the A23,”
What other possible reason was there to make such an assumption other than the position and movements of Tanner’s vehicle, as described by Lord Justice Sheimann?

I have previously pointed out the following “The defendant had taken up position in the left-hand lane of a dual carriageway which would certainly have given the clear impression to any vehicles observing her that, whatever else she was going to do, she was not going to turn to her right.”
When Certainly = undoubtedly / definitely, Clear = free from doubt and Impression = an effect, feeling, or image retained as a consequence of experience. Then it is fare to say that I would be legally correct to definitely have the feeling of no doubt, that the 3rd parties vehicle was not going to turn right.

Lord Justice Scheimann goes on to describe, “she failed to appreciate the potential danger she presented to traffic which was or which might have been coming off the dual carriageway and using the roundabout, and which would have been lulled into the belief, from the position and movements of her car, that she, too, would be continuing down the dual carriageway”
When lulled = to deceive into trustfulness. Then it is fare to say that the 3rd parties driver was indicating the trust that he also was going to take the A192 exit, which was at the 12 o’clock positioned
Which exit did Tanner maintain, throughout the case, she wanted to take?


Regarding your firm using this case to find me negligent of rule 163 of the Highways Code and vehicles being incorrectly positioned. Lord Justice Scheimann explains that I would be free from doubt and was deceived into trustfulness.
Your firm has insisted that there is doubt and you have ignored the fact that I was deceived into trustfulness by the 3rd parties driver. Your firm has also shown no respect to the Health and Safety at Work Act even though it can be proven that the 3rd parties driver made a dangerous manoeuvre.

You will also note in the case the words by Lord Justice Scheimann “I add words of my own simply because we are disagreeing with the judge's conclusion”

Your firm put me in this predicament so I feel it is the responsibility of your firm to contact my insurers and put this right. Failure to acknowledge and act on the words of Lord Justice Scheimann will leave me no choice but to take my complaint elsewhere.