Resident Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

9 Neutral

About Mossycat

  • Rank
  1. From a non Police point of view I'm surprised at the action taken, my arena is Civil law so I'll wait with interest to see what the Police staff suggest Good luck Mossy
  2. There are two aspects to this;- Criminal - I'm not qualified to give you any advice regarding what offences may or may noy have been committed so I'll leave that to the members of the Police that visit the forum. Civil - If and I say IF your mum did do some damage to a third party vehicle then quite clearly she is liable, you will probably find that it is a condition of your mums insurance policy that she reports all accidents within a reasonable period of time, and almost certainly that she passes all correspondence on from a third party without replying to it. If you don't do that you may well find that the insurance company could refuse to grant indemnity (ie they won't deal with the case). This would be classed as an LVI (Low Velocity Impact), ie the speed of the vehicles at moment of impact wasn't very high so the damage you would expect would be minimal (even allowing for the fact that modern cars have bumpers that are designed to crumple to absorb the energy) and insurer use assessors/engineers to inspect vehicles to check that damage claimed is consistent with accident circumstances. I appreciate that you may noy have wanted to involve your insurers (fear of a rise in premiums etc), but from what you have said it does look like the third party is trying to take advantage of the situation and get you to pay an extortionate amount of money (read that as they are trying to pull a fast one). Any person involved in an accident has a duty to mitigate their losses and this certainly applies to the third party, from what you have described in your post it is quite clear that they are not, so again passing this onto your insurers would be the best course of action. As others have suggested I would also suggest that you get your mum to fill in an accident report form and send that in to them together with any correspondence from the third party (quotes, letters etc) and let them deal with it. If they make a payment to the other person then your mum has the option of paying back to her insurers what they paid out and thus retaining any no claims discount that she may have had. It's also worth mentioning that the third party may well try and seek to add other items of claim in (loss of use, hire car whilst repairs are carried out etc), which if you try and deal with this yourself could well come back to bite you, whereas letting your insurer sort it out on your behalf (which is why you have insurance) is probably the best thing you can do. Additionally, whilst the third party may well try to pull a fast one on you, you may well find they are not so keen once your insurers get involved and the claim may well shrink in amount or even go away all together. Mossycat
  3. facebook

    No, I'm Spartacus, and so is my brother
  4. facebook

    Stand up and shouts I'm TobyHolland too
  5. Further to my earlier reply, it was an organised 'under 18' event, anyone over 16 was welcome, ID checks were made and whilst alcohol may or may not have been sold to under 18's (or bought by over 18's for their under-age mates) Person A was stone cold sober and would have passed any test (I tend to believe him on that because I've never known him drink). Whilst to anyone with hindsight (or more life experience than a 17 year old) approaching the aggressor again was a prettu stupid thing to do Person A's intentions were genuine, he really didn't know why B had assaulted him and he wanted to know why or if it was a case of mistaken identity or something else. I cannot condone or agree with what he did but I can understand it. Huge thanks to SimonT and marralass for your advice. Mossycat
  6. Person A doesn't drink, he usually gets the job of designated driver because of this and doesn't mind. The nightclub does run under 18 nights but I think on this particular night it was a normal night and they 'sneaked in' (ie paid but were not 18 and not asked for ID). From all accounts Person B was pretty much well fuelled up on alcohol. When the headbutt landed A's immediate reaction was to throw a few punches in self defence, I can't argue against that, and it certainly stopped B from following up. Thanks for the heads up on the caution, that's appreciated Mossycat That's useful to know, thank you. Mossycat
  7. We've got that kind of in place, so far nobody has been round so it's all a bit chinese whispers from friends of either Person A or Person B, but the general feeling is that Person B has made a statement so they are kind of expecting a knock. Is it likely to go straight to an interview under caution or would there be an interview not under caution which would allow them time to complete their enquiries and then decide if further action is warranted?? Thanks in advance Mossycat
  8. Yeah I totally agree, problem is that Person A is 17 years of age and doesn't have the benefit of maturity and with hindsight would in all likelihood not repeat that. Person A cannot afford any kind of criminal record for the job career they want to pursue, hence why I've posed the question here about any mitigation that anyone could think of. If it helps, there are quite a few people who have made complaints about Person B assaulting/attacking/starting fights. And whilst that in no way excuses or condones what Person A did I'm looking for any straws that they could clutch. Cheers Mossycat
  9. A friend of mine might be in a bit of bother, so any advice would be welcomed. Person A is in a nightclub, Person B approaches a few people in the club and tries to provoke fights (Person B does have a history of this and is known to the Police). Person B then picks on Person A and headbutts him, Person A retalliates with a flurry of punches, both get ejected. Some 30 minutes later Person A sees Person B on the street and goes to ask him why he headbutted him. At this point Person B again becomes aggressive (in manner and body language only, ie he DOES NOT physically assault Person A), so as a pre-emptive strike/attempt to avoid futher physical injury Person A throws a single punch and walks away. Person B ends up in hospital (as a result of this single punch). Person A has no criminal record and is now more than a little concerned about what may or may not happen. Does Person A have anything at all in his favour or is there anything he could say that could mitigate his actions if he does get a visit? Thanks in advance Mossycat
  10. Yeah I've kind of picked that up from the replies, prior to making my original posting I was aware that it would be a civil matter, but since HMV (or any other shop in that position) is in administration then any civil action would be a waste of time and money. I was just curious as to whether or not taking goods and leaving the vouchers and a name and address would attract police involvement and possible action, which it seems it would, so that's that option ruled out as a possible alternative. I'm not a Police, so whilst I'm pretty well up on the Civil Litigation side of things I just wanted to know what (if anything) you guys would have done if you were the attending officers. Cheers Mossycat
  11. If vouchers were not involved then I would completely agree with you that the shop does not have to sell. The defining case would probably be something like Fisher V Bell from (I think) the early 60's which ruled that items displayed in a shop are not offered for sale they are an 'invitation to treat' which if accepted does not give rise to a contract, so if you put up the money and they say no we are not selling to you then you have no recourse. But that only existed up until they took your money in the first place eg for the vouchers and does not now apply to what you try to use them for. Suppose HMV hadn't gone into administration, your argument would then hold that it would be legal for HMV not to now honour the vouchers they sold you, any takers as to what that would be called? But HMV did go into administration, but they are not exercising the rights you suggest ie that they don't want or have to sell you the goods, they are just refusing to accept a promisory note (voucher) that was made by someone who cannot honour that promise (HMV's bank account). Mossycat
  12. Oooh good one. OK a car on HP (as opposed to a normal loan) then yes you have committed an offence because on HP you do not own the car until you make the very last payment, so if you sell it the contract for the sale of the car would be 'viod ab initio' (legal term meaning void at inception), the person who buys the car has a very real risk of having it taken off of them and thn coming after you for their money back. However, on a day today basis this happens quite a lot (providing no-one in the sale chain does an HPI check) and as long as the HP Company continue to get their payments on time then they either don't know or don't care. Had it been a loan then no you wouldn't have committed an offence because a loan is personal to you and not attached to any one material object. The difference here (and don't get me wrong I completely agree with you that it is wrong that the money is ringfenced and the vouchers not honoured) is that the manufacturers/suppliers supplied the stock to be sold, ie for just that reason and to facilitate that they provided agreements such as XX days before payment due or payment on sale of goods. Mossycat
  13. Surprisingly I now find myself defending HMV. Whilst HMV were trading, ie just before Xmas and in the early part of 2013 they were facing difficult times (and have and did acknowledge this fact), so they had two choices, cease trading or trade their way out of it. They decided to try and trade their way out, and Xmas is a busy time for retailers so they continued selling gift vouchers, that's money in and goes to assist them in trading their way out. If they refused to sell gift vouchers it would have two major consequences;- 1) Lead to public speculation they were going bust and the rumour mill in circumstances like that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy 2) Result in less sales because people who buy gift vouchers do so because they don't know exactly which CD or DVD the recipient really wants Both of these would have a detrimental affect on the Company, the staff and the creditors, so I can fully understand and see why they would continue to trade and sell vouchers. But then the bank decides not to extend anymore credit and the administrators are appointed. From that moment on HMV management were no longer in charge and the decision to refuse to honour vouchers was taken, that had to be the case because HMV didn't own the stock it was displaying for sale and the owners of that stock want paying for it (they won't get the money from the vouchers because that's in HMV accounts and they were in huge debt). So I don't see that the directors of HMV did anything wrong in trying their best to keep HMV open as a going and viable business, indeed the reverse of your suggestion would actually be more accurate and that is that they face possible litigation for failing to take all possible steps to save the business. By continuing to sell vouchers they neither defrauded nor deceived anyone (ignorance is no defence so if the people who bought the vouchers were not aware of how worthless they might become then that is NOT the fault of HMV directors), even more so because of the Comet failure last year and Jessops the day or so before, (anyone holding vouchers did have a window in which to use them and should have taken it). What is needed is greater public awareness of how worthless vouchers could possibly be and also a change to the law to protect consumers so that monies paid for vouchers is ringfenced in a specific holding account (a sort of no-mans land) so that if the Company fails then the vouchers are still accepted because that money is sitting in a ringfenced account and is taken out when a voucher is presented. Mossycat
  14. I can totally relate to that explanation, (great analogy btw). Luckily I don't have any of the vouchers, because I honestly don't know what I would have done if I had, but I was just curious as to whether or not it would attract Police involvement and end up with a criminal record. Cheers Mossycat
  15. That's exactly the crux of the situation. HMV and Jessops were provided with stock to display by the manufacturers, so they didn't ever own anything that they were selling, usually stock-in plans last for a fixed amount of days before they have to actually pay for it or stock could be on a sale or return basis. So any money that was paid to HMV for a voucher was money that went into an HMV account and not directly to the manufacturer (because at that time you haven't decided what you will buy so they don't know which manufacturer they need to pay). Then HMV go into administration with debts of X million so the money in their account (usually a huge negative amount) is where your voucher money is resting. The administrators get appointed so any stock that is sold for needs to be paid for because it still belongs to the manufacturers and they haven't had the money from the sale of your voucher, so unless you now pay them they refuse to let you take anything. So at this point your only recourse is to sue HMV, but they have no money and any assets they already has a queue of people and your place in that queue as an unsecured creditor is right at the back. All of that I understand, but what wanted to know was what, if anything the poice would do if someone did what I described in my original post. Because as I see it, if the police can't or won't take action and advise that it's a civil matter (because the voucher holder left their name and address) then the only risk is that the administrators-acting-on-bahalf-of then sue the voucher holder for the value of the goods. They of course would win because you haven't paid them, and you in turn are left to sue HMV, which is where you were before you took the goods and still had the vouchers. Now I know that a voucher holder isn't looking at a criminal record or any police action then I think I would take a punt and do it, best case scenario is they don't sue me and I get my goods, worse case scenario is I have to pay for them again and possibly County Court costs, but that's the price of the gamble. The defining factor for me was would the voucher holder end up with a criminal record, and from what I've read here (thanks everyone who posted) it doesn't look like they would. And yes, Ernest you are right, the money paid for vouchers etc should be 'ringfenced' in a holding account, but it never is hence why we always hear about vouchers not been honoured. Mossycat