What is the legal basis or standing of Transport for London (TfL) charging a driver&#39;s award for returning items lost in taxis? Is it lawful to charge someone more than postage and storage fees for example, in order to reunite them with their lawful property? Is it even legal to charge them storage fees? If so then what is the legal basis for this?
Yes - they can charge a reasonable amount to cover collection, cataloguing, safekeeping and restoration of property. Crucially they aren't specific to just the costs related to an individual item, but rather the estimated income is weighed against the estimated costs of all lost property handling in that year. The legal basis for this comes from the London Transport Act 1982, subsequently amended various times (e.g. by The Transport for London (Consequential Provisions) Order 2003) but the original gives the gist in Part V, Section 19 : The Executive shall have power to fix the charges to be paid to them from time to time for the safe keeping and redelivery of lost property and the charges shall be of such amounts or at such rates as the Executive shall think fit: Provided that - (a) the total of the charges fixed under this subsection and estimated to be received in any year shall not exceed by an unreasonable proportion the cost to the Executive in that year of making provision for the safe keeping and redelivery of lost property ; Since you specifically mentioned the driver award this is further explained in TfL's Lost Property Fees documentation: Cab-driver award Items found in licensed cabs are subject to an additional award, which is given in full to the driver. This award takes into account the value of the item and the time taken and loss of fare in delivering the item to a police station or the Lost Property Office. Which is fairly sensible, cab drivers are only earning when their carrying fares. By taking steps to mean that they aren't out-of-pocket for turning in the lost items TfL is aiming to increase the number that get handed in rather than simply discarded, or in the case of valuable items simply kept. Which is in keeping with the goals of &quot;safe keeping and redelivery&quot; described in the Act. The legal basis for this award is in the London Cab Order 1934, Part VIII: (2) If any property found in a cab and deposited at a police station by the cab-driver be claimed within three months from the last day of the month in which the property is received at the Metropolitan Police Lost Property Office, and the claimant proves to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Police that he is entitled thereto, the property shall be delivered to him on payment to the Commissioner of Police of (a) a fee in respect of the cost of collecting, keeping in safe custody, and restoring lost property ; b) an award to the cab-driver by whom the property was deposited; and (c) such additional sum (if any) as may be payable as hereinafter provided.
It is almost certainly legal for the sitter to keep the money. She was ready to provide the service, and it is not her fault she couldn't (and she may have turned down other opportunities because she had this one). I think your fiance's claim would be against the firm providing the security service (they are the ones that frustrated the contract). I foresee the following problems: What are her losses? She was prepared to pay $315 (which she has paid), and the dog has been looked after. Where is the loss? (She may be able to argue that it was worth $315 to her, not to have to owe her mother a favour. I don't know if that will fly.) The contract with the security firm almost certainly waives liability for this sort of thing. She would have to convince the court that the contract terms were unreasonable/unconscionable (or whatever the term is in the local jurisdiction). There are two obvious options here: a) see if there is legal cover on her household insurance (or her pet insurance); b) forget it (it's only $175 all told).
As has already been said, as far as the vehicle registration, the officer likely already knows who the vehicle is registered to and whether it's expired or not before he walks up to your car, or at the least, he can easily find that information out. The proof of insurance is a different matter. The officer will need to see it to know if you have insurance or not. To him, it doesn't matter what the reason is that you don't provide it to him. Left it at home, misplaced it, lost it, destroyed it, or just refuse to provide it because you feel you have the right to refuse. He can't "force" you to provide it (unless he is able to search your car and happens to find it there). He can only issue you a ticket for not providing it. But your attitude could play a part in what happens next. Being upfront and letting the officer know you have left your documents at home could help your situation. In my experience... one time that this sort of thing happened to me, the officer agreed to hold my drivers license and allowed me to bring the documents to the police station and retrieve my license. Another time, in a parking related matter, I was issued a ticket, but I was allowed to bring the required documents to the police station where they then "invalidated" (cancelled) the ticket. Of course this won't always work, and is not at all likely to work if you are far from home. Keep in mind, (as far as I know, in most states) the real infraction is that you "don't have insurance"... that you failed to provide proof when asked, is secondary. In many cases (likely nearly all cases), if you show up in court and provide documents that your insurance is current, and was current at the time the ticket was issued, the judge (or the prosecutor) will likely dismiss the case with no penalties. But, what the officer has written down on the ticket about your attitude and what you told him at the time, may have an effect on how this all plays out.
Here's the thing: if the plaintiff/appellant/claimant are the same legal entity as the defendant/respondent, it's plain to see that one of them must lose. For instance, consider a case where two trains operated by the same corporation collide. Assuming that the drivers both performed their duties, the company is vicariously liable &ndash; such a case is frivolous and is likely to be thrown out for that reason. It's just a waste of time and money. Or your second example: If the woman was driving the city vehicle and crashed it in the course of her duties, it is the city that will be the defendant in the proceedings, not the woman. So essentially: while it's difficult to prove that something has never happened, these are good reasons to expect it would not happen.
YES in germany §23 StVO (1a) Wer ein Fahrzeug führt, darf ein elektronisches Gerät, das der Kommunikation, Information oder Organisation dient oder zu dienen bestimmt ist, nur benutzen, wenn hierfür das Gerät weder aufgenommen noch gehalten wird und [...] (1a) Whoever is driving a vehicle may only use an electrical device that is serving communication, information, or organization or destined to be used for this if... 1. they don't pick the device up or hold it and [...] That is plenty clear: holding the device is banned in any way, and implies using it under German legal precedent.
We are tying to determine what an acceptable compensation would be It mostly depends on whether the acts and representations by the broker caused you to pay in excess and/or have made it more expensive for you to restore your previous insurance plan. The gaps in your description prevent us from identifying whether your claim(s) against the broker is (are) meritorious from other standpoints. The broker's advice to buy additional insurance suggests that since 2018 you must have paid more than you used to. In that case, you would be entitled to recover from the broker the excess over the premium paid for the insurance you actually had after the old policy got replaced. In England the statute of limitations for claims of breach of contract is six years. This implies that delaying legal action for another year will reduce the amount to which you are entitle to recover. If insurance similar to the old, &quot;excellent&quot; policy now costs you more than it would had the broker never replaced it, you might be entitled to that difference as well. That is because the broker advised you something and she did the opposite, thereby unjustifiably worsening your position.
Is this legal? Yes Or does it mean that employee will be in breach of his/her contract? Yes You are assuming that if the evidence is allowed to be presented then that automatically means that keeping it for that purpose is not a breach of the contract. This is not necessarily so; it can be both at the same time. That said, it is unlikely that an employer would attempt to sanction an employee for this as the courts would (rightly) see it as an attempt to pervert the course of justice. As in most things in the law it is possible for all parties in a matter to be on the wrong side of it. If you want to come to the tribunal with "clean hands" then the best thing to do is make a record (not a copy) of the relevant documents and return then to the employer. Before going to the tribunal get your solicitor to subpoena the documents that you want - they will have to produce them and you have them without breaking your contract.
Sorry to hear about this. It is possible that your friend’s Facebook account was hacked and the hacker scammed you. It is unlikely that you can get your money back. If the taxi fare cost $80, then $30 wouldn’t have got them home. Unless you paid the taxi company direct, whoever you corresponded with had access to electronic banking of some sort. One would imagine that someone with $500 at home probably has access to $80 electronically themselves. It is a pretty bad day when getting scammed by a stranger is the optimistic case, but I post this answer in the hope that it’s not your friend who scammed you. Before writing off the friendship, you might want to phone or visit your friend to check whether their Facebook account was hacked.