I would think that a charge is lawful. The only legislation that I can think of on the matter relates to local authorities and says that they have a power to provide public toilets but does not make their provision obligatory. Further, the legislation allows a reasonable charge to be levied for their use. I am not sure if the situation is different for private premises - I would not have thought so because it does not appear as if access to public toilets is a right as such.

Why should there be need to advise against it? The OP was aware that the plate was illegal and the officer was correct when he said that the OP "did not care about 'flauting' the law." If one decides to deliberately alter their numberplate so that it does not meet regulations, they do so at their own risk and should only blame themselves if they get caught.

No caution necessary. As the Inspector said, unless the officer issues a FPN, the OP may receive a summons for the offence - which would ultimately cost the OP more even if the fine is not increased.

Hi All, My father was sorting through some letters and came across one which had been sent on the 17th Feb 2011. It is from a company calling itself Milton Keynes Rapid Recoveries and states that they are acting for Shop Direct Finance Company Limited in an action regarding an alleged debt. It is not clear who the letter is addressed to - there is no initial so it could be for my father or me... The letter does not give any detail - it simply says there is an outstanding balance and that they should be contacted to arrange payment. There is no time scale and no information as to what this outstanding balance relates to. Neither my father nor I have had any dealings with these companies... Any ideas? Has anyone had a similar experience?

Yes, this it true. There is an offence of permitting the use of a vehicle without insurance.

Exactly. From what I can see, there is no basis for a claim here at all.

Yes - if the OP wins he will likely get them. Still not sure what the cause of action for a counter claim is though.

Probably is. RTA 1988 applies.

I am a bit confused by the talk of making a counter claim. What is the cause of action which is allowing the OP to make a counter-claim and what damages will he be demanding? Surely this is a case where the OP will just be defending?

The relevant law is regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002. What specific parts of the ECHR do you think are breached?

A rather odd claim. I think the actual figure is that around 15% of our laws are the result of the EP.

My post quoted steveod's remarks concerning disabled bays. Since Steveods original post was removed, my post also had to go. The points I covered in my post were that: It is fairly clear that the bill relates to charges resulting from a breach of the terms and conditions. Vicarious liability could relate to contract. In any event, it is an example of a third party being held responsible for another's tort. Trespass is rooted in common law. A claim under the UTCCRs would be interesting. Somewhat related to the above point, most conditions that I have seen in "parking contracts" are rather uncontroversial...

The bill states that charges or fees under the relevant contract may be enforced against the driver. The bill does not exclude any particular charges. Reading this in conjunction with the explanatory notes, it is clear that the intention of this section will be to enable PPCs to recover charges which are issued as a result of a breach of contract etc. The notes then go on to describe the current law and then go further - stating how the new law would aid in the recovery of charges. This is common place for some companies. I am sure it is not too much trouble. Most contract law is common law. This being a statute would automatically override those rules. The bill expressly states that the RK will be liable in cases where the name and address of the driver are unknown. The doctrine of vicarious liability instantly springs to mind.

Don't try and over complicate it. Simply acknowledge that you have received their letter alleging that damage was caused by you bla bla bla. Then state that you deny liability and why (i.e. because the fridge was moved carefully in a way which did not cause it damage.) You will also want to address the claim that liability was admitted and a days labour given free - again, just state the facts. Does your husband have any insurance at all? It may be worth approaching a solicitor.

The legislation specifically states that the RK is liable for any parking charges. It does not need to be shown that the RK was party to a contract - if the RK's car was on private land and incurred a parking charge, the RK is ultimately responsible. It does mention parking charge, but you have given a false interpretation of the explanatory notes. They state that a parking charge is a fee or charge that is required of the driver contrary to the contract terms relating to use of the land. This would include any fees or charges levied where there is a breach of the terms and conditions. It is actually called a "notice to the driver." Proving that such notice has been served would be easy - a picture of the ticket on the car for example. There is no need for the legislation to compel the RK to provide details of the driver - the RK is responsible for the charge so it does not matter who the driver was. As you state, this is not a crime. You would be liable because you are the RK. There are other examples where people can be held liable for torts which they have not personally committed. I am not sure if you are correct on the time limits there. Regardless, in this case it does not matter - it does not matter if you cannot remember who parked the car. The RK is liable! I don't think there is a lot of information really...

The fact that everything is written down in an invoice is a bit of a red herring. It is established law that where a contract is formed, it may be declared void should one party be aware of a mistake made by the other party: Hartog v Colin and Shields [1939] 3 ALL ER 566 There has been case law since then which deals with when someone should be considered to have known about a mistake. However in the present case, it is clear that the OP was aware that the car dealer had made a mistake. As for invoice - as I said, this is a bit of a red herring. However, even though there is now a written 'agreement' this can still be altered if there is a mistake: Thomas Bates Son v Wyndhams Ltd [1981] 1 W.L.R. 505 where it was held that "where one party is mistaken as to the incorporation of the agreement in the document, and the other knows of the mistake, and does not draw it to the attention of the first party, it suffices that it would be inequitable to allow the second party to insist on the binding force of the document either because this would benefit him or because it would be detrimental to the mistaken party." (Chitty) I really do think that the OP should think about this. If he needs more time, file the acknowledgement of service form - which will give another 14 days to get a second opinion if he so wishes.

SailorSam I think your example is slightly different - in your case, all the parties agreed a price (the price of the car minus an employee discount). Once the employee was dismissed, the company tried to claim that he was not subject to the discount scheme. In the present case, there has not really been any "meeting of the minds" or "consensus ad idem". The car sale seems to have been agreed on the basis of one price (the higher price). However, through some mistake, the car was actually sold at a lower price. The dealer never intended to sell at that price, it was a mistake.

This is essentially a case of your word against theirs. It is clear from the letter that it is their case that your husband moved the fridge in such as way that caused it damage. They are inducing the fact that your husband offered a free days labour as evidence of him admitting liability. Your husband's case is that he did move the fridge, but caused no further damage to it. Your husband claims that he was told that the fridge was already damaged and that he offered reduced labour costs as a gesture of goodwill - to diffuse the situation and also because there was the possibility of further work. The claimants have the upper hand here - they have a damaged fridge and the fact that your husband admits to moving it and offered a goodwill gesture. All your husband has in his defence is a denial and no evidence. What should you do now? If you ignore them, they could issue proceedings. Once this happens, you are on your way to court with the prospect of the judge being rather annoyed that you ignored the pre action letter of claim! Of course, if you do ignore them, there is a chance that they will forget it and move on.... it depends if you want to take this risk. I would suggest acknowledging the letter. You will obviously deny the claim, so in your letter state why you deny the claim - what facts do you not agree with and why? It is not worth lying as saying that you never touched the fridge, but you could state why moving the fridge was necessary and that it was done in a careful manner. I also note that they have given a time limit of 7 days - contrary to the recommendations of the pre-action protocols (which suggest a limit of 14 days.) I would not bother chasing this point up though, unless you had difficulty in replying within the 7 days they have given.

I would have to concur with the Solicitor.

I wouldn't bother phoning. Write to the fines and fees office of the magistrates court. You should tell them your difficulties and include some statement of your budget. You do not always have to attend a hearing at the court.

Blimey - ought to be careful Al - some of them are from the "Pre-Court Division" !!

This explains a lot... I agree with Martin here. While claims may be settled with more caution, the insurance companies have obligations to their client. They cannot escape these by false accusations of fraud etc.

The OP can "put the prosecution to proof" - something which occurs when the defendant admits to their representative that they are guilty, but they do not wish to plead so. The result is a case whereby no defence as such is put forward, rather the defendant will merely challenge prosecution evidence in the hope that the crown cannot prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. However in a case like this, it is a slightly different ball game and is therefore a risky strategy.

Tiller1, You are not supposed to sit back and allow the directions to be ignored by the other party. You should contact the other party (by letter) reminding the other party of the directions that should be complied with. The letter should contain a a time limit for this to be done (7-14 days) and a reminder that should he fail to comply with the court's directions, you will consider applying to the court for an order (either to force compliance, for sanctions to be imposed on the party or both.)

What on earth are you talking about?