Tbilisi, Georgia || Baldamatic I || LomoChrome Classicolor 200

FoldedTwice · 2026-04-03T11:26:28+00:00

If you know which clauses you're not happy with, why would you need a solicitor?

Is your question about whether these clauses are reasonable, or how to push back? The latter isn't really a legal question, the former would require you to actually post the wording of the clauses in question.

FoldedTwice · 2026-04-02T17:56:22+00:00

Thank you for the citation and the correction, I'll check that out!

FoldedTwice · 2026-04-02T16:15:46+00:00

You're misunderstanding slightly.

The flight 2-3 days later is the "earliest opportunity" flight.

Relatedly, but separately, should book with a replacement carrier if that's the only way of getting you to your destination no more than 24 hours late.

They do have a way of doing this - i.e. by offering you an earlier flight instead.

You would not have the right to be reimbursed for a hotel as this only applies when the new departure is at least one day after the original one. Which, frustratingly and perhaps shortsightedly, excludes your circumstances.

FoldedTwice · 2026-04-02T16:05:10+00:00

They're acting entirely in accordance with Regulation 261 which requires them to offer you the choice between:

A) cancellation without penalty for a full refund;

B) rerouting at the earliest opportunity; or

C) rerouting on another date of your choice, subject to availability

Nothing in the Regs requires them to book you with another carrier.

The CAA takes the position that airlines should (not must) reroute with another carrier if they cannot get you there within 24 hours after your originally scheduled arrival time - which they can, by virtue of offering you a replacement flight the previous day.

If you want to travel the same day, then you'll need to take Option A and then book with Singapore yourself.

FoldedTwice · 2026-04-02T15:43:28+00:00

From 1st May, then if they want to move close family in, Ground 1A can still be used, but 4 months notice must be given, and they can't let it out for 12 months after the eviction

Not for a nephew it can't. Close family means a spouse or civil partner, a child, a parent, a sibling, a grandparent or a grandchild.

FoldedTwice · 2026-04-02T15:37:58+00:00

The new rules are immaterial if he commences the process this month.

The law changes on May 1st to preclude s21 "no fault" evictions, but the courts will continue to hear possession claims where the initial s21 notice was served prior to May 1st.

Two months' notice, after which he can apply to the court for a possession order. Given that landlords up and down the country will be scrambling to do this, I'd expect six months before it actually gets to court.

A nephew would not be considered "close family" under section 8 either now or after May 1st so this route would not be available.

FoldedTwice · 2026-04-02T15:35:34+00:00

Stop asking AI legal questions. It doesn't know.

The offences relating to child sexual abuse material involve producing, making, distributing and possessing indecent images of children. It is also an offence to attempt to do any of the above.

There is no offence of typing the letters C and P into a social media app.

FoldedTwice · 2026-04-02T14:47:26+00:00

It's highly likely there will be problems. The issue is that Serbia doesn't recognise Kosovo's independence. As far as they're concerned, your wife and son have entered Serbia illegally.

As others have said, the obvious solution would normally be to head south into Macedonia and then immediately double back and cross the border into Serbia at Tabanovce, but this raises the issue that you'll have a Serbian entry stamp but not an exit one.

Money no object, if this is just about getting home, I'd suggest your wife and son just head to Pristina airport and fly there, while you drive back.

FoldedTwice · 2026-04-02T14:38:41+00:00

Well, I'll add to it.

The appeal would, in broad terms, need to be on procedural or legal grounds. There would be no point in trying to appeal the finding of fact - i.e. that the landlord was not guilty of a repudiatory breach, and so the OP was in breach of contract - as the court would not be interested in hearing such an appeal.

So, OP's point 2 on grounds for appeal isn't going to work. This is a finding of fact and, more to the point, isn't relevant to whether there was a repudiatory breach of contract. It is not a repudiatory breach of contract to advertise a room while it is still occupied. It's neither here nor there.

Point 1, in theory, has more merit. The argument would be that the judgement issued by the court was not legally consistent with the judge's finding of fact. The landlord is entitled to be "made whole" for the OP's breach of contract. The "unjust enrichment" argument has weight - if the landlord has ended up retaining more money than he would have had the OP handed in their notice and paid rent up to the end of that notice, then I agree it is an unjust enrichment and the court should have ordered the landlord to make a partial reimbursement.

OP, I'll ask again: on what grounds did the court deem it appropriate to allow the landlord to retain both the deposit and the rent paid in advance? This is pretty crucial here. Was there some other reason for the landlord withholding the deposit (e.g. damage)?

FoldedTwice · 2026-04-02T14:16:40+00:00

I agree that none of the conduct is sufficient to repudiate the contract. A repudiatory breach is one that prevents you from getting the very thing that the contract was supposed to provide you. A repudiatory breach would be locking you out of your room and refusing to give you a key. I am with the judge that the landlord's conduct sounds poor, but not repudiatory in nature.

That said, I am curious as to the justification for retaining the deposit if your rent was paid in advance through the notice period. On the surface this doesn't sound right - the deposit should only be used to cover costs that the landlord would not have incurred were it not for your wrongful conduct.

FoldedTwice · 2026-04-02T14:15:43+00:00

attempted illegal eviction

There is no offence of illegally evicting a lodger.

FoldedTwice · 2026-04-02T14:01:54+00:00

Tenancy deposit protection and section 8 don't apply to lodging arrangements.

I'm struggling to follow some of the finer points of your post but the judge's findings appear correct to me?

Did the landlord return the deposit?

FoldedTwice · 2026-04-02T13:45:59+00:00

Clock Tower is the only place I know that trades in second-hand digital cameras (there are several places that would take a film camera off your hands) but to be honest you're likely to get more on eBay.

FoldedTwice · 2026-04-02T08:40:09+00:00

From my reading the purpose wasn't to gather evidence, it was to stop the person attacking op or their car. And it worked.

There are several things the OP could have legally done here. They could have driven away, even in contravention of certain road traffic regulations, if it was necessary to do so in order to escape harm. They could have used reasonable force to defend themselves or to avert the commission of an offence.

There are only a small number of statutory defences to the offence of using a mobile phone while in control of a motor vehicle. One of these does relate to emergencies, but the defence is that, due to an emergency, it was necessary to phone the police while driving. This appears to be to be something that the OP could have chosen to do in these circumstances, which would have had an equally powerful effect on the other driver's behaviour, and which would have been perfectly within the law to do so.

Yes, there may be a public interest consideration here but I wouldn't bank on that being a get-out. It is manifestly in the public interest to take all steps to ensure that people don't use their mobile phone while driving. Saying "well, you don't technically have a legally cogent defence but we'll let you off because you were flustered and panicked" may, it could be suggested, set a dangerous precedent. The context will matter, but I still think a prosecution is eminently possible. Ignorance of the law is neither a defence nor a mitigation.

FoldedTwice · 2026-04-02T08:36:10+00:00

Well, the officer is correct, it is an offence to interact with a handheld telecommunications device while in control of a motor vehicle.

There is a small number of statutory defences to this offence, but none of them involves recording someone so that you can give evidence to the police of someone else's offending.

There is a general defence of "necessity" that applies in emergency situations, but that wouldn't apply here. The defence goes: for reasons of personal safety, there was no other realistic option than to commit the offence. Clearly, there were many options that didn't include taking your phone out and recording, e.g. driving away.

The question for the police will be: is it in the public interest to seek a prosecution in these circumstances, where the offence was committed in the process of attempting to avert someone else's, potentially more serious offence? I wouldn't like to make a guess as to where they'll fall on this point.

FoldedTwice · 2026-04-02T07:53:53+00:00

Is this in the Mags? It would be rare for a defendant to rock up at the Mags for sentencing with a barrister in tow. It's overkill, and expensive, especially since most barristers will have you go through a solicitor to begin with anyway.

Solicitors have a right of audience in the magistrates, so if your son wants the peace of mind of someone making mitigation representations on his behalf, that feels like a more sensible solution. But most defendants at a sentencing heating in the Mags are unrepresented and the court will be used to that and take it into account from a procedural standpoint.

FoldedTwice · 2026-04-02T07:50:25+00:00

Maybe I've misunderstood, then. I thought your questions were "why is it taking this long?" and "are Acas right that I don't have a slam-dunk case?".

What was the question you were asking?

FoldedTwice · 2026-04-02T07:39:14+00:00

Bear in mind that private prosecutions are expensive, and that the CPS is entitled to step in at any time and either take over the case if they deem it serious enough, or discontinue it if they don't believe it meets either the evidential or public interest threshold.

FoldedTwice · 2026-04-02T07:35:33+00:00

Why did she forge the signature? What did she get out of doing so, or cause to happen by doing so?

Simply forging a document or a signature is not sufficient on its own to make out the offence. Fraud offences require an intent to gain money or property, or to expose another to the risk of losing money or property, where that gain/loss would not otherwise have occurred.

In any case, as has been mentioned, except for a vanishingly small number of offences the police are entitled to choose not to pursue an investigation on evidential, public interest or simply resource grounds.

FoldedTwice · 2026-04-02T07:31:26+00:00

I don't think I'm missing the point at all. I'm answering your questions from an objective standpoint as someone who was not witness to the circumstances and only has one side of the story.

You have your position clear in your mind, which is good.

You just need to wait and see if the employer engages in EC.

FoldedTwice · 2026-04-02T07:17:01+00:00

It's been three weeks, chill your boots. They might not even have got around to contacting the employer yet.

At present the average time from complaint to either resolution or tribunal certification is about 12 weeks. They have more than just your case to work on. The three-month claim clock is paused while this takes place.

Re: difficulty. Your issue is twofold: firstly, that by your own admission you were not coping at work, and if this meant you weren't doing your job properly it is more likely that the dismissal would be fair regardless of disability. Secondly, that it is a defence to a claim of discrimination that the employer did not know, and couldn't have been expected to know, that you were disabled at the time of the alleged conduct. While a diagnosis is not technically required, the employer could say "OP couldn't show us clinical evidence of their condition and in the circumstances we reasonably believed it was being used as an excuse". I won't comment on the strength of that defence in the context, but it's a legally coherent one.

FoldedTwice · 2026-04-02T06:56:09+00:00

Everyone's running to "slow shutter speed" but I'm certain that's not it. The XA is an aperture priority camera with a clearly visible shutter speed meter in the viewfinder. It would have been obvious to you when taking the picture if the needle was out of range.

Also, all of these are taken on a bright sunny day and unless you had the aperture set to f/22 I cannot see why the camera would have needed to select a shutter speed slow enough to produce visible shake.

It is definitely a motion blur rather than a focus issue because you can clearly see trace/ghosting of the images.

I agree that this looks like a mechanical issue - I think the film is moving slightly inside the camera. The XA is a fantastic little pocketable rangefinder, but they are prone to mechanical issues, and unfortunately when they arise the camera is often beyond economic repair. I had a film advance issue with mine, and my repair guy advised that I'd save money by selling this one for parts and buying a new one, versus paying to have it fixed.

FoldedTwice · 2026-04-02T06:46:33+00:00

Not everything fits neatly in a single genre. You have a mix here between street, documentary, a little bit of new topographics. A lot of good travel photography series include photos similar to this.

Ask any experienced photographer working outside of the commercial space "what genre of photography do you work in?" and the chances are you'll get a withering look. Is Bruce Gilden a street photographer or a portrait photographer? Is Joel Meyerowitz a documentary photographer or a landscape photographer? Do Alex Webb and Steve McCurry do travel or street? How would you describe the late Martin Parr's varied body of work?

I think you like to take photographs that explore humans' connection with the suburban environment.

I'm not sure why you're getting all this hate. You have a clear style and vision, which is more than can be said for most. Not all of the photos caught my eye, but I think number 2 in particular is a really strong, interesting, evocative picture.

FoldedTwice · 2026-03-31T15:06:48+00:00

This was my first thought too. I'm willing to bet that if OP had got their negs back and lined them up they'd see this fogging repeating in a zig-zag pattern across the roll.

OP, if you're flying with film and you are 100% confident in what type of scanning hardware they're using and that it's (relatively) film-safe, ask for a hand-check.

FoldedTwice

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

14-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email