Jump to content

B & T

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About B & T

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Am I alone in wondering why this alleged offence was not dealt with by the Council jobsworth 'on the day'? After all, the alleged offender was standing on the footpath at the time. OP - the title of your thread appears to be somewhat misleading as the allegation of littering as described in your post was not made from a vehicle.
  2. .....not forgetting an appeal for the refund of the paid PCN AND the towing charge in the event that the vehicle is towed away.
  3. Below are extracts from the Nottingham City Council website relating to dropped-kerbs which may be of interest. Other Councils may/may not have a similar service in place.   .........citizens will also be able to contact Parking Services for help if a vehicle is blocking a dropped crossing prevent them getting on / or off their own property. If a vehicle is blocking my drive what do I do? 1) If your driveway or home is blocked by a vehicle parked over a dropped crossing, please call Parking Services hotline on: (0115) 915 6655 to complain. 2) Parking Services will need to see
  4. It appears that I have transgressed as a post I included on this thread a couple of days ago has been deleted, and as such I have no problem in tendering my apology. I trust that it is in order form me to post the following links to a couple of threads on the MSE site which may be of interest to contributors and readers of this one. http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=3105798   http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=3104360
  5. I'm sure tomtubby did not intend to frighten you & will clarify his post at #8. Newlyn are actually bailiffs, but in this case are attempting to act as debt collection agents (no more powers than you or I). Bailiffs would only become involved if the matter went to small claims (it won't), you lost & then you refused/failed to comply with the courts judgement within 28 days. None of this is going to happen.
  6. lordy27 - relax because absolutely nothing but nothing is going to become of this. About 3 yrs ago I was in exactly the same position as yourself with this self-same pair of cattle management operatives & I'm still waiting for them to progress on their empty meaningless threats to make my world cave-in. To the best of my knowledge there is no record of them ever having taken anyone to 'small claims' over a private parking issue. They simply 'don't do' court (they would lose a properly defended case anyhow), relying instead on the vulnerable & uninformed to buckle under the pre
  7. Here we go again.........................
  8. May I ask you to clarify you statements and to quote the relevant legislation/lawful authority upon which they are based.
  9. Glad you've sorted it, although I must add that being (wrongly) suspected of involvement in what appears to be a non-stop RTA is not quite the same as being suspected of a 'dishonesty' offence. The manner in which the police have handled this matter is, IMO, highly questionable & unsatisfactory on many levels. You are clearly angered at the situation, therefore you may consider it appropriate to make a formal complaint. At the very least I would demand that the police send you a notice formally cancelling the S.172 requirement.
  10. I really don't think so!!! This would be a gross abuse of authority and the legislation. Besides, why not utilise the old fashioned methods of investigation with such crimes and suspects, maintain the element of surprise and knock on a few doors during the early hours; or has policing really changed that much?
  11. I agree with Pat, this is a highly unusual requirement under s.172 and if it does relate to an alleged offence requiring the service of an NIP, which has to be served within 14 days of that alleged offence, the deadline has obviously passed and no further action can be taken against the alleged offender. Again, as Pat points out, if it relates to an accident, an NIP is not usually required. Either way, my advice is to reply to the letter (recorded delivery) keeping a copy, pointing out that the requirement is missing essential requisite information as to the nature of the alleged off
  12. Ok, a Scandinavian mythological supernatural being it appears to be then.
  13. Apologies to the OP if it is not, but my gut reaction and impression to this case is that it smacks of a set-up.
  • Create New...