We all make mistakes. Every single one of us. People who say this tend to be terrible drivers. By the way, did you know that one could enter a defence of necessity. You get these scare stories about people who have been booked. There was one though where it wasn't even necessary for the guy to move for the EV to get through..! What driving offences? The speeding is being challenged. The red light offence may not have even come to the attention of the police. If you are going to say that people are guilty of offences before they have even been convicted or dealt with in anyway by the police then you may as well call me a bank robber for contemplating a heist at my local HSBC. Jason King - I wish we were all driving gods like you. Maybe the world would be a better place. It seems though that we will never live up to your standards of never making a mistake ever...

True. I have never heard of them doing this before though. The chances are that the OP could take crem's advice and get away with it. However, he would have to do so knowing that there is the chance (no matter how small it may be) that they may still wish to pursue the insurance matter. If they do this and it is found out also that the OP lied about the speeding offence in order to try and cover up the insurance issue he could be liable for other offences.

Sailor Sam: When Caddy said "I didn't say that I allowed 3 friends drive the car" I believe this was in answer to my question asking him what info he had given to the police. It was not in contradiction to anything he has told us though. Caddy-Dave: That is correct - give the 3 names and see what response you get back. As for the whole insurance and taking without consent issue - I see little point in getting too bogged down in that at this moment. There is not much you can do about it at any rate other than checking the hire agreement (I appreciate you have said that you will do this) and seeing what it says with regard to other drivers.

Humane traps are really of no use. The fact that the rodent is released back into the wild is counter-productive for a start. It must also be considered that it is illegal to release some rodents back into the wild. Poisons are inhumane. The best option is the good old fashioned mouse trap. Or a .22 and a steady hand...

There is no degree of reasonable diligence where the person is not the keeper of the vehicle (s.172(4)). The OP is merely required to provide "any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver." In my opinion, the OP is in a rather awkward situation - He must provide an accurate list of all drivers. Doing so, however, could in turn lead him into more trouble...

'Ethical Dept Recovery Services Ltd' I think they allow the staff to come up with their own names...

Caddy-dave: In your correspondence with the police, did you : 1) State that you were not the driver? 2) State that you allowed three friends to drive the car? If not, then the suggestion to pay up immediately has merit. However, the fact that you have written already asking for the photo for identification purposes may well arouse some suspicion. I have a feeling that the police, being aware that this is a hire car, may already be suspecting that something is up.

You must provide the Police with the possible names. It is an offence not to. You will need to check the other drivers insurance certificates, ensure there is no limitation on the drive other vehicles clause. You will also have to send copies of to the police with the names - as per their request. As for the taking without consent, its probably worth worrying about that when the time comes - if it does. But it may be worth checking the hire agreement at any rate to see what it says about other people using the car.

Hi there and welcome. So you hired a car and let other people drive it? S.172(2)b says that: If you fail to give this information, you are guilty of an offence. If the hire agreement did not allow the use of the vehicle by the other people than you may be in further bother - potentially. As for insurance, it is an offence to permit a person to use a vehicle if they are not covered by a policy of insurance. So if you allowed these other people to use the car without insurance than that's another offence. So the question is: Did the hire agreement allow the other people to drive the car?

I can't see the point in that. It is clear that this is not his area. He might be just the guy you need if you get in trouble with the old bill or want to set up a trust fund for your kids!

I have done similar. It can be confusing where there are two sets of lights which are not in sequence with each other. Are you sure that there was a camera at the junction? Maybe looking on google will show it? I think the street view images are quite recent(ish)...

I think you may have misunderstood what I meant, so I will rephrase it. To be successful, the OP must show to the court that the car was not removed because the constable believed it to be abandoned but was only removed in order to carry out forensic tests. If it is not the case that the car was removed merely for forensics, than the OP would have to (as I said above) show that it would not appear to the relevant constable that your car was abandoned (and if it did so appear, this appearance was unreasonable.) I suspect (and I stress that this is just me making an assumption) that the police will respond with something along the lines of: "The car was found abandoned and was recovered in accordance with X Act and taken to XYZ Garage where it was forensically tested..." I am not saying that it is impossible for the OP to claim. I am just saying that it may be difficult and involve a bit more investigation. This would lead the OP to ask himself - is it worth it?

I'm not being funny BD, but I think you were the one that made a point of resurrecting old threads to highlight instances where you believe G&M to have been abrasive. I would call that "Attacking gratuitously off topic" - something you accuse G&M of doing to you! The members who were at the receiving end of what you consider to be "aggressive" behaviour would have had the opportunity to report any postings. It is not necessary for other members to go along trying to resurrect threads and expose rudeness that happened months/ years ago. Honestly - its like watching a forum based episode of Waking the Dead! It is obvious that G&M is not going to be on your Christmas card list. While this news may come as a blow to Green and Mean, I think it is high time that you stop constantly 'picking' on him and learn to just ignore him if he annoys you so much. Personally, I like his direct approach - but that's just me

Well, the OP must prove that the car was recovered merely for the purposes of it being forensically tested rather than because it appeared to be abandoned after the theft. As I said in my post above, doing so may be challenging.

I am not sure if this issue is still ongoing? The following case is important: Clarke v Ryley and Another [2001] All ER (D) 368 (Jun) The Court of Appeal found that Section 99 would apply to stolen cars: You will notice the part in bold is very similar to Buzby's argument. However, one may still have a claim. Longmore LJ said: So, to be successful, you would have to show that it would not appear to the relevant constable that your car was abandoned. How do you do this? Well, I haven't a clue - it would depend on the facts. In the above case, the vehicle was stolen. It was reported stolen and the following day it was found by the police. The car was collected by a recovery firm. The facts seem reasonably similar to the OPs. The Court Of Appeal dismissed the case. So following that precedent, I would say that the OP doesn't have a chance.

Removal and Disposal of Vehicles Regulations 1986.pdf Here they are if the OP still needs them.

The thing to remember is that it is very misleading to say that Muslims attacked America on 9/11. Saying so is tantamount to saying that there is currently a Christian occupying force in Afghanistan and therefore all Christians are evil. The truth is, that on 9/11, some misguided men killed many innocent people. They were indiscriminate; it was an attack on American soil but against people from a wide range of nationalities and faiths. The attacks were indeed carried out by Muslims - but they were not representatives of the faith. They represented a radicalised section who interpret the Koran in a way that supports their views. Just like the Bible can be interpreted in many ways. As far as I am concerned, all religions are as bad as each other. Pastor Jones demonstrated this by showing how tolerant his Christian beliefs are by threatening to burn the Koran... As for the whole Mosque near ground zero thing - I think the world has more pressing issues right now. There is a great big Mosque just a few blocks away from ground zero, I've been there.

Stupid BBC.

I don't see how. I can't see anything wrong with making an invite to go to an office to discuss the matter. So long as they do not use force or fraud to detain the person, no offence is committed.

I'm sorry, I am completely wrong - which should teach me not to try and multi-task ever again. As for 30(1)a - I understand it, just got a bit lost when you referred to it as 301A!

Sorry - I see that you mean 30(1)a

Section 28 of PACE only applies to arrest by a constable. I am not sure what you mean when you say 301A ?!

There is no such thing as an arrestable offence any more.

Warrant cards do not seem to be universal. My Friends card is a lot different to the one pictured above. The common features would be some sort of police badge (with the EIIR symbol etc)

Any action regarding the neighbours would probably involve some form of confrontation (so to speak) with your neighbours. The reason is that you will be wanting to exclude them from your land (I know its not "yours" per se, but you own an estate in it). Land/boundary disputes are not recommended - try and settle this informally, which may mean having to make some compromises. There is a forum called GardenLaw (I think) which is good for stuff like this.