Jump to content

Tony P

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    999
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

166 Excellent

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. My very uninformed view is that, although in post #1 you/your Son consider the first is a "fair cop", both police and motorist must have followed procedures correctly, which appears not to be the case. Assuming it is the same police authority/office, they appear to have been procedurally incorrect somewhere. That is not good policing but more importantly, they should not prevail in such circumstances. Establishing procedural impropriety usually ends a case straight off. In these circumstances, not being someone to meekly "roll over and think of England" I would fight the situation to ensure everything had been correct before admitting anything - rather as suggested in post #4. However, as others have said, your Son MUST respond to the NIPs within time. I suggest he returns both forms together, with a covering letter (I don't know how these things work) admitting to being the Driver at the time(s) but disputing the locations due to conflicting claims of the police, without admitting to being at either location. It may save him a fine/points but more importantly, also as a Father, I'm sure he has already learned his lesson - but so should the police learn to get things correct.
  2. Not wishing to be the party pooper, but does not that intention makes him a trader and not a private seller? All traders have a first, even if it becomes their last.
  3. Thanks, MitM. Speed Awareness Course now offered (and promptly booked!). Having checked, his timed short term insurance had expired about 40 minutes before the camera offence! Although not yet in the clear on this, his concerns regarding that complication seems to have passed. Thanks.
  4. ADMINS, please move if appropriate. Not sure if this should be asked under ‘Insurance’ or ‘Speeding and Motoring Offences’. My Son occasionally uses his Mother’s car to drive from the south coast to the north of England and back. His Mother’s insurance is for her only driving so he separately insures himself driving it for a fixed time period (timed from payment). Returning this time, he got held up in a 3 hour traffic delay on the A1 that caused him to still be en-route after the insurance time limit had passed, although nearly at the end of the journey. His Mother has now received a NIP for the speeding, requesting driver details. The NIP states 46mph in a 40 limit. This was near to the end of the journey but after the time his own insurance had expired. My Son fully accepts the speed and, being eligible, would do a Speed Awareness Course, if offered. Now the question….. Although the car would have been listed in the MIB database under his Mother’s policy, would/do they check for my Son (same surname) when the NIP form is returned naming him as driver - or do they later ask him for insurance details? We are not thinking of lying but asking for some peace of mind in the interim period.
  5. Maybe post up here his proposed mitigation statement. Others with experience in these matters may have suggestions for improving it to hopefully obtain a better outcome.
  6. Oops. Just looked. Please ignore after the first 4 paragraphs of my post above. No idea where the others came from and can't edit the post now.
  7. On Google image of July 2022, there are significant spaces without markings at both ends of the continuous bay on the southern side. At the eastern end from the junction with Cambridge Gardens there is about 15 feet between the end of DYL from the junction and the start of the marked bay (occupied by a small red car). At the western end from the junction with Canterbury Road there is a longer, probably 25 feet, similarly unmarked section from the end of DYL from the junction (which is not visible under road works) and the start of the marked bay (just left of the abandoned mattress). A different view from 14 Canterbury Road shows a white car extending out of the end of the marked bay and a blue car completely outside, in the unmarked section.
  8. Homer67 Not so. https://www.gov.uk/sorn-statutory-off-road-notification About 2/3rd way down, the last item 'After you make a SORN' and sub-Heading 'When you can drive your vehicle'. It says "You can only drive a vehicle with a SORN on a public road to go to or from a pre-booked MOT or other testing appointment." In the event of an ANPR "automatic fine" they should be referred to the MOT testing station to confirm the appointment had been made. It might be that such information is already automatically in the database that they check before firing off any fines.
  9. I considered this a few years ago when bringing back my UK registered car from a spell outside the EU. There is no requirement that the MOT is booked near to the point of entry to UK, the place of registration, the place of SORN (which is not disclosed) or anywhere else. It just has to be pre-booked and the car only used for going to and from the testing station appointment. I read somewhere (but can't remember where) that it had even been determined acceptable to break the journey for refreshment and rest (overnight) - as long as it was still reasonably en-route.
  10. Sorry to go on, and at length! I disagree but will prolong the topic as I strongly feel, and wish to emphasise, action against C P Plus Ltd, trading as Group Nexus, would fail due to no direct cause of action and could result in a costs order against the OP. Group Nexus is not a legal entity but a brand name of CP Plus Ltd (as #25 FTMDave) but there is a company GroupNexus Ltd within the group, a dormant company - probably formed just to reserve the name (see #19 stu007) as well as purporting to be a registered trade mark (see their website). Therefore any proposed action against 'GroupNexus Ltd' should be against "CP Plus Ltd trading as Group Nexus". Highview Parking Ltd is a separate legal entity, distinct from its owners. It is 'owned' within a group of 12 companies. It is a subsidiary company of CP Plus Ltd through two intermediate companies (with other parent companies above). Each company is a legal entity separate from the other(s), albeit under common control, Registered Office addresses and possibly common Officers (I've not bothered looking). Even if sharing addresses, officers, policies, etc I still think the OP's proposed action against other than Highview Parking Ltd would fail (and expose him to a costs claim) as the other companies were not involved and no cause of action, unless one or more permitted the obtaining of data, knowing it would be misused, through a collective KADOE licence - and here I am out of my depth! To settle another point (#27 brassnecked), CP Plus Ltd acquired Highview Parking Ltd and 'Ranger' in 2015. For any numbers geeks (Site Admin, please delete if an inappropriate distraction) - More than 75% of Highview Parking Ltd's shares are controlled by Ranger (Holdings) Ltd - actually 92.82% controlled within the group (Companies House) More than 75% of Ranger (Holdings) Ltd's shares are controlled by Ranger Plus Ltd - actually 92.82% controlled within the group (CoHo) More than 75% of Ranger Plus Ltd's shares are controlled by CP Plus Ltd - actually 97.71% controlled within the group (CoHo) More than 75% of CP Plus Ltd's shares are controlled by CP Plus (Trading) Ltd - actually 97.71% controlled within the group (CoHo). More than 75% of CP Plus (Trading) Ltd's shares are controlled by Trade Topco Ltd - 100% controlled within the group (CoHo) Trade Topco Ltd's shares are controlled from within a Trust or Trusts. Ultimate control is E A Green, S I Langdon and other related parties acting in concert (CoHo).
  11. I may be incorrect. I don't think the owner of shares of a company, who is not a Director, can be actioned against or responsible for the activities of that company. A company is a separate legal identity, ring fenced from its owner(s). In which case an action against Nexus Group would fail - and open up the possibility of a claim for their costs.
  12. Generally, that's the principle. A supplier of goods does not have to charge VAT if HE mails goods abroad (or to outside the EU, if he is in the EU). VAT charged to you for services (not necessarily car servicing but 'doing something') is not reclaimable. Tax Free Personal Export Shopping schemes (now defunct in UK) can apply for goods personally exported by non-residents (or non-EU residents if purchased in EU) but this ceases to apply if the item is incorporated into something else - which it has been by being fitted to your car. Also, the item would have to have been produced and verified by the EU customs at the point of departure from EU - which in this case has already happened. Read the T&Cs closely. It might be that VAT is recoverable in full by the insurer (warranty company) as their Input Tax and therefore not part of the 'loss' that has the limit. I believe that is how claims were often dealt with within UK by UK insurers. Much as I would like it for you, I'm not hopeful.
  13. It comes down to, did you have a binding agreement (even verbal, although proving it may be difficult) and did it refer to and rely on the financing they 'arranged'?
  14. VAT 'tax free' schemes only apply to goods, not Services. Unlike goods that can be physically exported, services are provided in the country concerned and once provided are done. VAT paid should be part of any claim you can make to the Warranty company or breakdown insurer.
  15. You think the "Local Council" (of other authority depending on the status of the road) had a responsibility to take winter weather precautions for your protection. Before gaining my support, can you confirm that you did similarly by equipping your car with 'winter' tyres? Most people 'south of the border' do not bother. In many countries/regions (including where I live) they are obligatory in winter months irrespective of daily weather conditions. They work, even on black ice, but adapting driving style is still required.
×
×
  • Create New...