The Road Traffic Act 1988, S143 defines driving without insurance as follows: "It is an offence to use (or permit to be used) a motor vehicle on a road or public place when there is not in force in relation to the use of the vehicle such a policy of insurance is respect of third party risks as complies with the Road Traffic Act". This definition was drafted to be wide and therefore encompass both the owner of the car and the driver/temporary driver. It also encompases people who do not drive the vehicle, because the word "use" can include parked or stationary vehicles or those left for repair on a road or public place. Having no motor vehicle insurance is an absolute offence, which means that you cannot defend the offence on the basis that you had no knowledge as to the lack of insurance. To prove the offence, the prosecution have to show "use", which would include parked cars on a road/public place. It is not limited to actual driving.

If you take your car into town and park of course its insured. Your insurance certificate has the details of your car on it. If you take someone elses car and you are insured to drive it using the " you can drive any other vehicle not owned by you or hired to you under hire purchase agreement" Clause in your fully comp Insurance then once you stop driving it ie park it in a shopping centre. It is no longer insured using the above clause. It follows on then that if there is no other policy of insurance in repect of the vehicle it is uninsured. regards people v cars which is insured. Its a combination of the two The person holds the policy but only to drive certain vehicles which are named on the policy. interestingly the DVLA database holds details of vehicles insured not persons. if you take your scanario: In a street of 10 people who all have a car outside their house. only one person in the street would have to be insured fully comp and they could claim that all the vehicles were insured to be on the Road using their policy of insurance, which would be clearly ridiculous. If we go back to the O/P incident. His partner has moved the car on to a Road uing the clause in their own policy stating they can drive any vehicle not owned or hired to them. Having then parked it and left it on a road the liability then falls to the owner of the car, his son, to make sure its insured, as it wasnt insured he was convicted of using the vehicle without insurance. Allthough in the OP case it was an unfortunate set of circumstances and as the OP states his son was being responsible in making the vehicle road worthy I would advise caution before appealing and certainly take legal advice as he may find the court has technically made the correct judgement

Im aware that when a vehicle is parked under certain circumstances it can still be deemed as being driven and under the control of the driver, without going into great detail it talks about temporary stops during a journey. ie. you set off for the shops and on the way you stop outside a post box, parked and get out to post a letter then you would still be considered driving especially as regard reporting of accidents etc. If you had completed your jouney and left the car parked in the town centre, you could no longer be considered driving. As regards insurance and unattended vehicles I think the offence is using a vehicle whilst uninsured and not driving, unless it falls into the catagory above. My opinion only from dealing with alot of these sort of issues years ago.

Batty. What did your solicitor say !. I would be very careful regarding an appeal and certainly take good legal advice. Re your partners fully comp Insurance. Had the car, whilst been parked outside your house, been involved in some sort of accident, Do you think your partners insurance would have entertained any claim from a 3rd party and accepted liability. I very much doubt it. If that was the case any friend / relative / passer by with a fully comp Insurance could claim responsibilty and there wouldnt be the need to Insure any car that was only parked on a road, been fixed / sold / etc etc. In my rather dated experience of the Insurance world. Your partners insurance would probably only cover your sons car if she was driving it. If she parked it in the town centre and left it it would not be covered by a valid policy of insurance which means that allthough the law dosnt say the other vehicle must be insured the practicality of it means it does. If you think about it logically it does make common sense. I am the father of four grown up children all of which have had their moments so I know what your going thru

Have a look at this case from the NPAS website http://www.parking-appeals.gov.uk/about/cases/MC00227%20Hepworth%20Allowed%20flimsy%20P%20&%20D%20ticket%20-%20identity%20removed.doc

Theres no actual appropriation of property as the transfer of money is purely an electronic process therefor falls outside of the theft Act.

Some of you losing the plot Give nailz a break for goodness sake. Whats the harm in making a bit of mischief when the occasion arises. If it was the other way round he would have to be filling in forms in triplicate, waiting for a month for the money to clear and then have to apologise and grovel to get it back and probably have to pay 35.00 to wit. Its not often you get the chance to make them grovel a bit some of you need to lighten up.

The above amendment to the Theft Act is not relevant in this case. keeping a wrongful credit is only applicable if the orignal money kept was obtained dishonestly / by theft / by deception. It was introduced to deal with people who for intance obtain a motgage fraudulently and then then transfer the money to a third party who then either keeps it or moves it on. Money transfers under the original Theft Act were not considered property so this amendment was introduced to close that loop hole. Heres an extract from the internet on the subject It is made clear that a credit is only "wrongful" if it derives from a dishonest source i.e. stolen goods, blackmail, theft or the new section 15A offence. In the latter case, a credit side of a money transfer is regarded as "wrongful" if that transfer is obtained in circumstances amounting to the new offence under section 15A. So someone who, through a bank error, is credited an amount to an account, realises the mistake and does nothing about it will not be guilty of the new section 24A offence. Such conduct would not amount to an offence under the Theft legislation unless the taking of advantage of another's mistake in these circumstances can amount to theft contrary to section 1 of the 1968 Act. Clearly, if D knowingly pockets excess change in a supermarket handed to her because of an assistant's error, then that can amount to theft from the supermarket due to section 5(4) of the 1968 Act; but here the property, the excess change, "belongs to" the supermarket. In the case of the credit transfer, however, Preddy makes it clear that the property does not "belong to" the person, V, from whose account the amount is debited but instead belongs in essence to the bank who operates that account; so it would seem that there is no section 1 theft offence as against V, the customer.

Having been refunded the charges since may 2004 I wrote to Barclaycard requesting statements pre May 2004. They claimed that they are correct and the IC is wrong but supplied them in any case. They also stated that they wouldnt communicate anymore with me regarding this matter. nice of them. Ive worked out they owe another 120.00. IAP will be going out Monday

A colleague of mine in exactly the same position was soppossed to be at court next monday with Lloyds and when he checked his balance yesterday the money had been crdited to his account without any communication from lloyds or their solicitors. I suggest you keep an eye on your account

My daughter had a similar thing last year. I did some research and found out that by keeping it you commit no criminal offence. Their only recourse is via the civil courts. If they try to take it back you can appeal to the ombudsman who can apparently ajudicate. buy some premium bonds and if they ask for it back cash them in and pay them. You may win the jackpot in the mean time

No need He had a nice surprise when he went to the cash point yesterday. Lloyds appear to have settled without telling him

Any one at Peterborough CC on Monday the 12th Feb for directions hearing particularly with Lloyds. A relative of mines there and may need some support

I was issued a pcn a while back and asked for advice on this forum, as the ticket didnt have a date of issue, didnt state colour of vehicle and didnt have a signiture from the traffic attendant. I was advised to appeal and i used used the above letter ( with a few minor changes) to appeal the ticket. Today i recieved a letter from TRETHOWANS solicitors saying that i should pay the £80 within 14 days or court proceedings will be issued against me. Along with a warning that i will have to pay interest, court fees and costs. There is no referance to the letter which i sent them. What do i do now ? Dude You have confussed me completely. If you have received a PCN issued under the 1991 RTA by a council or its representatives ( NCP) then there is a set down way to appeal which is clearly outlined on the ticket and this forum. If it is a PCN issued by a private company then there is lots of advice on this forum regarding how to deal with it but in summary dont pay it and set the company to prove that you parked it there. If it is a Parking ticket issued by a Police officer of Traffic warden under the 1984 RTA it is different again and you need to do some research. Im not sure why you have sent a letter seeking restitution on a PCN that you appear not to have paid. I am also unsure as to why you have received a solicitors letter threatening court action unless this is a ticket issued for parking on private land. You need to clarify these few points and if possible scan the ticket on here so that you can receive the correct advice

Why dont you ask to see the Traffic regulation order that refers to this area. I did the same with a PCN and found it to be completely wrong in almost all aspects. They are generally available online if not a FIA request to the council will get them for you.

Not sure about the date of notice / issue. I was under the opinion that date of notice was sufficient provided there was also a date of contravention which there appears to be. Its probably a good idea to have a good read of justice jacksons judgement on this. Als bar V Wandsworth is also another good read. These can all be found if you use google search. I personally think you have a good chance on the basis that they have abused the process by re issuing before the others have even been to NPAS. The problem with NPAS is they are not a court and make some inconsistant decisions. Just have to take your chance.

Re the flimsy ticket. The NPAS case is in this link. If you use this defence I think you are going to have to convince NPAS that you purchased the ticket and it was so flimsy it fell off. may be difficult X 4 but its another possibility. http://www.parking-appeals.gov.uk/about/cases/MC00227%20Hepworth%20Allowed%20flimsy%20P%20&%20D%20ticket%20-%20identity%20removed.doc

Blimey They arnt taking defeat very well are they. If I was in your position I think I would. 1. Complain to NPAS about them re issuing NTO whilst the matter is still in dispute 2. appeal against the new NTO on any techinicality you can find and on the basis that they are abusing the process 3. Make official complaint against the parking manager to the CE of council. 4. Consider the local gvnt. ombudsman. They have been pretty useless when Ive complained but they do stick their noses in and cause a bit of nuisance. 5. If the re-issue NTOs do get to appeal there is one or two cases where an NTO issued late 6 months or so is likely to prejudice the motorist allthough in your case the fact that your fighting the originals probably puts the spanner in that a bit but its worth a go. 6. Have you asked for the Trafiic orders just to make sure they comply All in all I think youve got some milage left in this yet and you havnt got a lot to loose really.

Dude Are you sure this is a PCN issued under the 1991 RTA should have it on the top of the PCN.

Having the wrong colour is different from having no colour on the PCN. My point is there is a difference between what is legally required ie in the 1991 RTA and what is guidance from the DOT. The two dates was considered necessary by judge Jackson to make the PCN complient with the law. If the PCN only has one date you will win If you go to ajudication and the only fault is there is no colour shown or its unsigned you will in all probability loose. This is of course only my opinion but its based on a fair bit of research and personal experience

Be a bit careful here folks. There is a difference between what must by law be on the PCN and what the DOT state should be on it. The RTA 1991 states (3) A penalty charge notice must state— (a) the grounds on which the parking attendant believes that a penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle; (b) the amount of the penalty charge which is payable; © that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice; (d) that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion; (e) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, a notice to owner may be served by the London authority on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle; (f) the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be sent. The absence of things like the colour of the car, signature of TW do not mean it dosnt comply. The guidance issued by the DOT to councils on how to design a PCN advised them that things such as colour should be included but it is only guidance and dosnt render the ticket automatically void.

The issue of private parking fines is discussed at length on threads in this forum and on Pepipoo forum which is similar to this but more about cars than bank charges. In summary A private parking fine is little more than a contract between the person who parked it their and the enforcement company. They will claim by parking their the driver has agreed to pay the £100 The only route open to them to enforce the fine is thru the civil courts against the driver not the registered owner. This would only realistically be succesful if they could prove who the driver was and that the driver accepted the contract. I am know expert on this but there appears to be a universal reluctance for any of these companies to take this route as I imagine they think they would loose. This of course does not stop them threatening all sorts but from the posts on this and other sites it appears to be empty threats. this begs the question. If you own a parking space ie. in front of your shop how do you ensure that no one parks on it ? Im not sure about that. Have a look at the Pepipoo website you will get the answers there.

This fee is for filling out the Allocation Questionaire which you have no doubt got. Dont forget to look in the template library for information to put in the AQ. It has been recently updated This will be returned to you when you win but as I understand the only way the courts waive the fee is if you are in receipt of income support etc etc. Probably best to speak to the court see if your situation qualifies for a waive of the fee.

The same thing happened to my son about 1 year ago and he never heard a thing.

If the ticket has the wrong registration on it just ignore it. The chances are you will never here another word. If they do try and enforce it they would be laughed out of the ajudicators room.