Sign in to follow this  
MrADeveci

Legal Forum

Recommended Posts

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 :blush:

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 :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

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 :blush:

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 :D

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

No, give or take a few miles for your speedo calibration .... you were probably only doing 29mph ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, give or take a few miles for your speedo calibration .... you were probably only doing 29mph  ;)

I hope so :whistling:

Thanks mate :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

No, she was jsut telling you that it's a 30mph hour zone ......... so "slow down!" :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :rolleyes:

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ............. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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  :D

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 :question:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/354.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Edited by Monster-Mat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 .............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this