Oddfellow
-
Posts
312 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by Oddfellow
-
OP, I don't understand your line "It's my car reg, so it's mine". If you are implying that you are the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, what the **** has it got to do with your boss, the company, or anyone else?
-
Not knowing that a PCN had been issued, or indeed that a judgment had been made in default, is not a defence. It's a reason why you are applying for a set-aside as you hadn't had the papers, but in order to get it set aside, you will have to demonstrate to the court that your defence has a "reasonable prospect of success" when it comes around to the time of the hearing again. Admittedly you can't formulate a defence without the full facts of the alleged claim, which is why you need to find out what you are supposed to have done. But simply complaining to the court that they followed the correct civil procedures in the face of the evidence presented to them is equivalent to flushing your 255 quid down the toilet.
-
You give the impression that you haven't submitted to the court a witness statement or any other information that you intend to rely on in your defence. Is this the case? You are required to do this no later than 14 days in advance of the hearing, so you do need to do something to prey on the good nature of the Court . You can't just turn up on the day and present a load of stuff that the Claimant's side (or indeed the judge) hasn't seen before. For my money, the only thing you can really do is to request (or beg for) an adjournment to a later date, providing evidence of your incapacity which has prevented you from preparing and submitting your defence on time. Others may take a different view ...
-
Who on earth is advising these people? It is staggering! It's time some judge or other issued an order for them to take such signs down and to stop trying to obtain money by deception, which is what it is!
-
Bear in mind that the size of the signage will be set by their planning consent (which they don't have) ... AFAIK there are no size constraints below which consent for an advertisement is not required, but that may be what ParkingEye tried to rely on in the Mansfield case (I'm not familiar). Size of sign will also dictate whether the Ts & Cs they rely on to form a contract with you are in a font size that is illegible!
-
To the best of my knowledge, that is the process, yes. Others may be able to confirm. Incidentally, HTH is modern-day short-hand for "Hope this helps", not my username. Sorry for using jargon.
-
There's actually no evidence of any offence having been committed, is there?
-
Assuming what you said in post 61 is correct, yes. But it is still a hearing before a judge, and in order to get it set aside, you WILL need to be able to demonstrate that, had you been at the original hearing where the judgment was made, your case would have had a "reasonable prospect of success". That will reset things back to where they were before the original hearing, and you can then start to present your case according to their timeline. The judge MAY consider that their case is so flimsy and your defence so strong that it gets struck out, but that is unlikely unless they choose not to follow the process. HTH
-
Whoever you got at the council, they are talking out of their nether regions. Signage such as this is classified as an advertisement, and as such falls under the Town & Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007. There is a good "Guide for Advertisers" available at gov dot uk if you want to feel informed. Some plonker round my way thought he could get some money from a major housebuilder by putting a large sign in his front garden to indicate where a new housing development was being built. The planning authority enforcement team were alerted to its presence (cough), and it mysteriously vanished! Fine on their site, but not his!
-
On my policy schedule from Admiral, it says the following:- "Have you or any driver been involved in any motoring offences in the last five years, including fixed penalties, convictions, driver awareness course or have any pending prosecution other than those listed?" And "It is an offence under the Road Traffic Act to make a false statement or withhold any information to gain the issue of a Motor Insurance Certificate. Any incorrect information could lead to us declaring your policy void and/or declining any claim" Thoughts?
-
So is the offence a breach of the PP Order, rather than a breach of contract?
-
Oh that's interesting Renegade. Why do insurers tell you something that is untrue then? Any excuse to invalidate your insurance or not pay out, by the sound of it! Is this documented anywhere in legislation?
-
Is there not a defence where you genuinely cannot remember, and it could reasonably have been either of you? They cannot deliberately prosecute the wrong party, so may not be able to do either of you!! Surfer is right that a speed awareness course is likely for 35 in a 30, but probably only for you (your wife having been done previously). Bear in mind that you are still obliged to tell your insurer (IF they ask) that you have been on a speed awareness course, so it still might put your premium up a bit.
-
Are AS Parking acting for the council on a piece of land which is on Schedule 1 of the Parking Places Order? Which would make it a Penalty Charge Notice for non-relevant land, and POFA would not apply. Have we seen a copy of all NTDs, NTKs, letters, etc, as it is very unclear.
-
Can I just ask how long ago this incident occurred? Assuming it was quite recent, unless it is on a piece of road used very frequently at all times of day and night by both you and your wife in the same vehicle, I'm quite surprised that you can't even make a guess as to who was driving on that date and time. The photos are not intended to identify who was driving, merely that the offence has been committed. As you will both be insured on the same vehicle, I doubt it would make much difference in the overall premium , but if your wife still has 3pts current, she might be regarded as the higher risk ...
-
.... but while a pain in the backside, easy to challenge, as nearly every vehicle has a distinguishing feature, even if the cloners DO go to the effort of matching the plates to an identical model and colour.
-
Re-read what EB wrote in #31
-
If you use a search engine to look for Cornwall County Council (Off-street Parking Places) Order, you'll be able to download a copy. It assumes that the driver is the owner (which is defined in the Traffic Management Act 2004 as the registered keeper) unless demonstrated to the contrary. Interestingly, while the Order allows the Council to issue a Penalty Charge Notice to the person in charge of the vehicle, or the person "who appears to the Council to be the Owner", it doesn't make provision for how they acquire this information. As EB has said, they are not allowed to use any powers under POFA as it is not relevant land. I don't know if any other legislation covers this point, or gives you a loophole to exploit; the experts will be able to advise. Another couple of restrictions imposed by the Order are that you are not allowed to use any part of the vehicle for sleeping or eating. If they were to enforce that, I can see the tourist trade in Port Isaac going down the toilet! Oh, and no ball games in the car park. Is there anything in law to say that if a clause within an Act, Regulation or Order is not enforced, it lapses??? Wonder how many parents have had PCNs for their kiddies having a kick-about?! HTH
-
Parking Eye Problem - Hampstead Free Hospital
Oddfellow replied to lookinforinfo's topic in Private Land Parking Enforcement
If you didn't return your V5C to notify DVLA of a change of address of the registered keeper for your vehicle, then not only were they correct in providing your previous address to PE, but you have also broken the law in not telling DVLA, and may end up with a fine (up to £1000) if you try to pin the blame on them! -
I read the NTK yesterday, which is how I saw the time stamp on the (alleged) entry and exit photos , but I did notice that the text of the letter contained reference to your number plate, and reported to site admin (solely to protect your anonymity while contributing to an open-access forum), who have taken it down. You need to scribble that bit out, then repost. Sorry!
-
Interesting that the council were sending out approval letters referring to the 1992 Control of Ads Regs, when the current set is 2007!
-
Yeah, understood. I have not got the faintest idea how you keep up with all the cases you provide advice on. I also found it astonishing in the debt case I was involved in (as the defendant's partner) that the DJ had absolute recall of all the facts of the case, even though he had only had a few minutes in a packed schedule to prepare! Mind you, I also respected him for setting aside the case (previously found in default), which the claimant later withdrew, even though we were defending ourselves against a corporate barrister from London!!
-
EB: If that is aimed at me, I am merely commenting on the facts of Rover's earlier posts, which put his entry and exit in excess of the 3 hour limit.
-
Sorry, looks like the parking time WAS exceeded. ANPR pics were 3h27m10s apart, thus overstaying by 27m10s. Defence reliant on any cock-ups with NTK wording and signage, by the look of it.
-
Is it a PCN or a Notice to Keeper? If it ISN'T the latter, you cannot quote POFA at them until you get the NTK.
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS