What authority does the RSPCA have to "interview" people?! Silly organisation. As for the cat - I hate them myself but would never throw one in a bin.

If they try and remove you, you could try explaining that they must be referring to your twin brother... "He has been a bad one from the start" you could say.

I'm a little confused - You state that the accused has denied involvement in the offence and has failed to appear for certain matters including sentencing. This suggests that they have been found guilty after a trial and we are now in the sentencing stage. However where you state that the accused has now plead guilty has lost me... Would I be correct in assuming that the accused plead not guilty but was found guilty at trial and is now holding his/her hands up to the offence?

What would an insurance company know about PPCs? The friend is probably right though... PPCs hardly ever loose a case. In the same way that my Nan has never lost a case, because she has never taken anyone to court!

Your next step would be to try your best to ascertain who was driving. You need to try your best to get this info. If you cannot, then send the police a list of possible drivers. They will take it from there - They may take no further action or charge you for not complying with the 172 request. If they take the latter action, you would have to show that you: Beware - if you are found guilty of this offence, the penalty is higher.

How about not using the words "fine" or "ticket" at all? Something like: After seeing the parking "ticket", most people will first be shocked/annoyed. After a short while, their attention will turn to trying to avoid paying the charge. Their curiosity and the flier will do the rest.

Ignore everything I said. I managed to miss the bit where you said that he had passed his test! Apologies

Not too sure what your picture is trying to prove? Dragon keeper was asking a reasonable question - how would you go about getting your money back after having the car 'wrongfully' seized?

RE: Remotness There is a rule, known as the rule in Hadley v Baxendale. The main rule is: Alderson B goes on to say: So, we can see there are in effect two limbs: 1) Damages the parties could foresee arising naturally from a breach. So, in a holiday case - the party in breach of contract may foresee some disruption and some loss of enjoyment. 2) Damages which would not normally be in the contemplation of the parties, but to which they were made aware of. To explain this a bit better - here are the facts of Hadley v Baxendale (1854): The claimants were mill owners. A vital part of the mill had broke and the mill owners contracted with the defendant courier to transport the broken part to be repaired and then return it. The defendant courier was negligent in their delivery and the part was delayed. The mill was shut for longer than expected increasing the amount of lost profits. It was held that the courier could not be held liable for the full extent of the lost profits. They did not know of the importance of the component they were replacing. It was reasonable of the courier to assume there was a spare available while the original was being repaired. In essence, had the mill owners told the courier of the importance of this part, it is possible the claimant would have been able to recover all losses. Applying this to your case - the insurers must know that failing to keep their side of the contract would cause disruption. However, it may be deemed that the level of distress or loss of enjoyment you may be compensated for will depend on how aware the insurers were of the significance of the trip.

No, If he has a provisional license, he can only drive while accompanied by a full license holder, aged 21 or over who has held the license for 3 years or over. Also, he would have to satisfy the insurance requirements and display L plates. He would not be allowed to drive on Motorways.

Ok, I think it is getting confused. Hector is writing on behalf of his friend. The friend's car was being driven by a colleague. The friend had a policy of insurance, but due to a mistake by kwik fit, the policy was not in effect. The friend's colleague, the driver, assumed his drive other car clause covered him. This was incorrect. The colleague was fined and got the points.

Further, I believe that S143(3) only applies to employees driving works vehicles. Otherwise, it is an absolute offence.

I think you may have misunderstood the situation. Hector's friend's friend thought he was covered by a drive other car policy. As it turns out, he was not.

Hmmm, Not keen on the time limit on editing posts... I can't amend the typo in my post

Type what you have to say, then highlight it. At the top of the text box are a few options - click the picture of an 'A' with a dark like under it. Then select your colour. The text will appear like this: [ COLOR=red] Hellooooooooooooooooooo[/color] except there will be no space between the first bracket and the 'C' When you press submit, your text will be a lovely shade of red... or whatever colour you choose

I would contact the store and depending on the response I get back, contact head office. Others may prefer to be more direct and go straight to head office. The shop should have a postal address, it may even have an email address.

Why did you pay that?! As for the ban, I would assume that it would be at the discretion of the store management.

The claimant's conduct seems a bit unreasonable. The CPR's state that where possible, parties should exchange information and attempt to come to an agreement before turning to the courts. Is there any chance that your friend has missed any correspondence from the claimant?

Depending on the facts, a thoroughly researched and well put together case should prove successful. A lot of the PI Qauntum reports show figures of around £500+ for loss of enjoyment from cancelled skiing holidays after accidents etc. Whether that sum of money is worth the hassle is up to the claimant. I'm guessing that the OP wishes to chase their insurance Co for the money - for not keeping their side of the bargain.

Loss of enjoyment is a valid head of damage. The difficult part will be putting a value on it. There is a publication called Kemp and Kemp. It is a rather large collection of books and notoriously difficult to digest, however it is a great tool for reading up on damages and working out what sort of figure to aim for. Without knowing more, it is hard to comment further.

Slightly off topic, but when I was at secondary School, there was the option to take Law as a GCSE. I was already interested in law, but learning a bit more spurred me on to taking A level law, then a degree etc.

This has happened to people I know. They were lucky and managed to contact their insurer who told the police that they were covered. That is one of the three conditions where a constable may seize a car. A vehicle may be seized where: A) The officer requests to see a driving license, the driver fails to produce one and the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the driver is unlicensed. Or; B) The officer requests to see proof of insurance, the driver fails to convince the officer that there is a policy of insurance in effect. Or; C) Where someone fails to stop and the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person was driving in contravention of S87(1) Subsection 6(b) states that: As for over reliance on the MIB... I totally agree.

From what I can see, the regulations state that a car will be released: They go on to state that a a person elected by the RK who has insurance may also collect the car etc. However I do not see anything about being able to get the bill sent to you... That's all very well if you happen to have a friend near by, who has a DOC clause with his insurance and by luck happens to carry his insurance details around. I doubt the police will be patient enough while you ring around looking for a friend that fits this description. Besides, the police may feel that should they allow you to get someone to pick the car up, as soon as your out of vision, you'll immediately jump into the drivers seat and continue the journey! I'll agree that these are examples where there could be reasonable grounds. But where did this list come from? Your opinion or law?

I would be interested in the facts, especially any precedent which states that reasonable time must be given to produce proof of insurance and the amount of evidence required to amount to a reasonable suspicion. The law seems relatively clear, stating that proof that one is insured to drive the vehicle must be given immediately or else the car would be seized.