Ebay, non delivery from suppliers

Wrong, wrong, wrong

Good ol' Usenet - people talking bollocks...

I suggest you talk to the Post Office and ask them

--
Veggie Dave
UKRMHRC#2 BOTAFOF#08
IQ 18 FILMS http://www.iq18films.com
Extreme Racing http://www.veggie-dave.co.uk
Toxic Shock Syndrome Gets More Girls Than Me

 

I've just posted a couple of items so I queried the amount of
compensation for first class. As said elsewhere it's now up to £30 but
there's a get out - the amount paid if any is at the discretion of the
post office.

 

Veggie Dave says...

It's up to the defendant to prove an NIP wasn't sent, which is
absolutely impossible. They have you over a barrel on this one.

--
Lozzo
Track pixie
GSX-R1000 K1
I haven't lost my mind, it's
backed up to a floppy disc
that's around here somewhere.

 

Ah bollocks.

What about this: the 'help sheet' that has arrived with the NIP this morning
for the alleged speeding I did in fathers car, states they will only give me
a copy of the calibration certificate, once I attend court and plead not
guilty - is this right, or can I demand to be provided with it before I
enter a plea, given it is an integral part of the evidence they'd be wanting
to give against me?

I'd not normally question these sort of things - if I've done it, I'll stand
up and be counted, but I'm not so sure that I did on this occasion.

 

Lawyer for that one I'd suggest, relying on information here may be
prejudicial to keeping your licence. Although if you can't honestly
say if you were driving or not at the time then surely asking for any
and all evidence is a right.

See this is where I have some genuine concerns myself. There have been
occasions where we've had 4 cars here, and four people with full
licences insured to drive all the cars. Often, unless a particular
vehicle is needed[1] then the one that's not blocked in will be used.

If a NIP drops on the mat for the registered keeper asking them to
name the driver on date a couple of weeks in the past it's going to be
tricky without the photo[2]. It's quite possible that one car has been
driven by all four drivers on the same day.

[1] towing, large capacity etc
[2] or long trips where you switch drivers who has a clue after the
vent which person drove which part.

 

JackH says...

I was brought up to believe that in the UK we are all innocent until
proven guilty. Nowadays it seems that when it comes to traffic offences
at least, we are all guilty and it is up to us to prove otherwise, if we
can overcome the hurdles that the numerous Safety Camera Partnerships
place in our way. It fucking sucks.

I'm of the same mind, but if they set down rules of engagement, then I
expect them to fight within those rules. If they don't send me an NIP
within 14 days, then I'm fucked if I'm paying the fine regardless of
whether I was speeding or not. Laws are there to protect the public as
well as prosecute them.

--
Lozzo
Track pixie
GSX-R1000 K1
I haven't lost my mind, it's
backed up to a floppy disc
that's around here somewhere.

 

In the absence of other evidence, they may well do. I'm pretty sure
that they will not regard that as an overriding principle though.

They won't. They will consider all of the available evidence, and make
a
judgement on the basis of it.

 

Simian says...

Dingly ding dong. The prosecution have got it so tightly sewn up that as
soon as that NIP lands on your mat, you may as well just write a cheque.
they are almost impossible to fight, even when you are in the
right.....unless you're a (former) MP or a traffic copper.

--
Lozzo
Track pixie
GSX-R1000 K1
I haven't lost my mind, it's
backed up to a floppy disc
that's around here somewhere.

 

No you don't. They routinely send out NIPs without photos and people
routinely plead guilty (pay up and accept 3 points) without asking to
see the evidence. If we do it it's called demanding money with menaces,
when they do it it's "the law".

*Everybody* should insist on seeing their evidence, even if they know
they're guilty.

<goes off for a walk to calm down>

 

Or as is standard practice for A.N.Other (not me) member of this
group, ignore it and see what happens. So far they seem to have got
away with them all, which should be a bit of a clue as to which jammy
git I'm referring to.

 

MikeH says...

Getting that evidence costs you a fiver.

--
Lozzo
Track pixie
GSX-R1000 K1
I haven't lost my mind, it's
backed up to a floppy disc
that's around here somewhere.

 

I don't dispute your experience, although I find it odd. A month ago, I
was chasing up a non-delivered DVD, and the PO would not deal with me,
because I was not the sender, and therefore they had no contract with
me. At which point I did some research, and found that legally this
appeared to be correct, although in practical terms, the Royal Mail
often seem to ignore the law entirely. I have read details of several
small claims against them for failure to compensate the sender for
non-delivery, where they instructed a barrister, yet didn't have a leg
to stand on.

Like most large organisations, the droid on the ground will often do
what they think that they can get away with, not what a judge thinks
that they should do.

 

No. I fought it and won, but you need proper traffic-law representation.
The cameras are usually *not* accurate and even when they are they can
give misleading readings depending on the operator.
I've used one - I recorded a lorry trailer doing 12mph the first time I
tried it. No cab - just a stationary trailer. Now add that 12mph to a
lorry doing 29 in a 30.
With a bit more practice a suitably motivated operator could add even
more speed to a reading.

 

This is their operating principle. It doesn't make it legally correct,
and wouldn't necessarily stand up in court if you challenged it.

The question is - who wants to go to court over it?

 

What a *divine* little system they've created.

I'd really love to know what the *true* figures for public opinion on
speed cameras are. I can't help thinking the majority of people
loathe them but the naive side of me is convinced something would be
done about it if that were really the case. The flip side to this is
that the country is full of hapless retards who believe whatever spin
the government tell them... ah, hang on a minute!

 

I didn't know they charged for that.

They just ignored my request, which is why I went to court to ask the
magistrate why I hadn't been given any evidence.

 

serf says...

I did challenge it and I lost.

Full story here:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.rec.motorcycles/browse_frm/thread/da
9881103f3d23af/e2539c0500e716ec?
lnk=st&q=my+day+in+court+author:lozzo&rnum=1&hl=en#e2539c0500e716ec

--
Lozzo
Track pixie
GSX-R1000 K1
I haven't lost my mind, it's
backed up to a floppy disc
that's around here somewhere.

 

Ok... the bit I'm disputing, is not that I was there. I know for a fact I
was where they say I was, and I can remember the cunting van in question -
parked up in a layby on the opposite side of the A456, as I headed away from
Kidderminster as part of our 'taking the scenic route' down to our holiday
destination in South Wales (1).

What I am disputing, is the reading - they're saying I was doing 38 in a 30.

I know damn well that I wasn't, but bar me getting off on a technicality, I
have no evidence I can offer up other than my word, which as we all know, is
worth sweet FA in a court of, ahem, 'law' against theirs, and their
'evidence', hence my desire to get them to give up the calibration
certificate.

I don't realistically have a hope in hell in getting them to drop it, on
the strength of said 'word is my bond'.

As I have said above, I will stand up and be counted when I'm bang to
rights... but unless the old mans car is significantly under reading speedo
wise (1), they're talking out of their festering arses, and I've read enough
reports of dodgy readings being proven when people have independently tested
some of the equipment used by said gestapo, to make me want to tell them to
**** off... or at least in a more polite, legal system accepted way.

 

Same here.

Never mind... don't shout that about too loudly, else someone high up enough
might read it, and have you locked up for a while without charge, for
'incitement'.

You think?

Not when it comes to anything that involves 'free money' for the powers that
be, so it would seem.

 

Heh. I have found reference to a 2003 posting in uk.legal, which
suggests that the Post Ofice should be acting in a rather different
fashion to either of our experiences:

Unfortunately, this link is no longer live, and the only documents that
I could find related to consultations and proposals for the new
PostComm standards.

(I'm still firmly convinced that however Royal Mail muck around with
this one, the sender has a contract with them for delivery and the
addressee doesn't.)