18 minutes ago, 1manteam said:

Thank you both.

 

the rk loaned the car to my claims management company who provided it to me. They received the pcn with the rk having notified Camden originally. It has now fed down the chain to me, as attached.

OK.  So you originally started this thread because you wanted to know if the PCN you had seen a copy of was out of time and therefore invalid.  Right?

That would depend on whether that PCN had been the first one issued in the chain and on whether it had been issued to the RK or not.

I read it that you are now confirming that the PCN that you saw a copy of was not the PCN issued to the RK and was not the first PCN in the chain?  If that's the case then it doesn't matter if it was issued by Camden more than 28 days after the contravention.

Do you happen to know if the very first PCN in the chain was issued to the RK in time?  It almost certainly would have been but might be worth double-checking if you can.

12 hours ago, dx100uk said:

so who is the registered keeper?

 

dx

 

But I thought you were certain that you knew who the RK was?

Two weeks ago you scathingly rubbished me when I pointed out (correctly as it turns out) that it would be a mistake just to assume, as you had: (1) that the car hire company and not somebody else was the RK; (2) that the PCN that went to the car hire company must have been the first one; and (3) that that PCN must have been out of time.

At least Michael Browne had the good grace to accept that I could well be correct and didn't just dismiss me out of hand without proper consideration:

On 10/02/2023 at 22:13, Michael Browne said:

You're right, that is a possibility

On 11/02/2023 at 10:23, Michael Browne said:

What manxman is saying is that the claims management company might lease the vehicle and that the RK is a finance company and they would have received the original pcn...

 

Whereas your comments were:

On 11/02/2023 at 12:51, dx100uk said:

 

... I'd also doubt a financial institution funding hire/courtesy car to a company would be a registered keeper ...

 

and

On 11/02/2023 at 13:44, dx100uk said:

Well that's what happens when you join any thread, you 'think' and 'assume' this or that,  no matter where you go, you always introduce speculation and additional confusion or doubt .

 

It took me many years to learn not to do that here. I had to learn the golden rule, if you don't know the answer...don't post!!

 

Dx

I suggest you go back to the classroom and re-learn the golden rule....

I was expecting worse actually...

At least it adds up to the amount simeon is claiming (£16577.12) plus at least it gives an indication of where the differences are between simeon's claim and the defence/expert witness report - even if it might not be quite in the form the court wants

It might have helped if there'd been an additional column for reference giving the exhibit numbers of the estimates and quotes simeon was relying on to justify the amount of claim for each item.  That would have helped the court see where the differences arise - maybe.  But it could have been worse...

I'm still very concerned looking at this that there is an element of betterment in the claim and that the builder might be right when he argues that certain heads of claim were not included in the original contract - but of course we can't be sure because I don't think simeon has shown us the actual contract agreed to by the builder.

Also things like item 15 where simeon claims for damage to "all fire doors" but the expert report says there are no fire doors.  What's happening there?  How can one party claim damage to something that an independent expert says doesn't exist?

Also I see no evidence that simeon has done what he was told to do.  Go back to the people who supplied quotes and estimates and ask them why their figures (and therefore his claim) differ so much from the expert's report.  Or go back to his structural engineer and ask his view.

And on the underpinning/piling issue, I'm wondering whether simeon should be addressing his complaint to his structural engineer rather than the builder.  The builder acts on the engineer's report and gives simeon a quote for underpinning which is what the engineer has specified.  Is it the builder's fault if the job required piling and not underpinning?

Where I do agree with simeon (although he's not made anything of it in this schedule) is that where the expert has agreed that some remedial work is required, the expert has provided unrealistically low cost estimates to get the work done.  I wish I could get tradesmen to work at the rates suggested by the expert's estimated costs.

Anyway - I can't see the outcome of this case resting on this schedule alone.

27 minutes ago, simeon1964 said:

Manxman in E. welcome back. How you are well and ready for me? and you are not going to slag me off this time......need all the help

I've just looked back over my last few posts on this thread at the beginning of the year.

What I've consistently done is try to draw your attention to weaknesses and deficiencies in your case that I think you need to address in order to be able to persuade a judge that you deserve to win your case.  As just a couple of examples of these weaknesses I specifically drew your attention to (1) your failure to provide the contents of the contract you say you had with the builder (despite repeated requests to do so) and (2) your insistence* that underpinning and piling are the same thing. 

I see those posts have generally been thanked or agreed with by other posters including honeybee, BazzaS and FTMDave - presumably because they thought I was telling you something that you needed to hear, and not because I was "slagging you off".

You then fall off the radar for over 7 weeks and only turn up again three days ago to ask for more help for the hearing which is tomorrow!!!

It's over a year ago that FTMDave and I invested an enormous amount of our own time into helping you draft detailed particulars of your counterclaim.  Throughout that process we continually pressed you on what evidence you had to backup your counterclaim for £17k.  You assured us you had that evidence.  We also advised you to get all that evidence organised and collated in readiness for a hearing.  You've had more than enough time between then and whenever you learned of this hearing date to do all that.

You now need to use that well-organised evidence to argue against the expert witness's assessment that your counterclaim is only worth about £1k and not the £17k you think it is.  Nobody here can do that for you because we don't know what evidence you have.

All you can do at this late stage is do your best to follow @FTMDave's advice at #430 and put together the suggested schedule.

*I see the expert witness appears to agree with me and to disagree with you.  If the judge asks you to justify your assertion I suggest you do better than tell him to google the two terms 

On 26/02/2023 at 01:50, dx100uk said:

whomever , you?, raised the part 20 counterclaim needs to close it, discontinue it, whatever - thats the problem that the court is working on.

dont forget that claimant/defendant labels switch if the main claim is resolved but a counterclaim exists.

the raiser of the counterclaim then becomes the claimant, hence the confusion?

 

 

 

Eh?  Are you suggesting that simeon should discontinue his counterclaim at this stage?

(@FTMDave - thanks for your message letting me know this thread has revived.  I've been unwell over the last couple of weeks and haven't been able to follow the board closely)

I'm fairly sure it's wrong insofar as it says that anybody who passed their test before 2014 needs to renew their licence.  It's only the photocard that needs to be renewed so if you don't have one because you still have an old paper licence you can't renew it.

Also I'm not sure if they are right to say that not renewing your photocard necessarily invalidates your insurance.  I would have thought you would still have a valid licence even if the photocard is not renewed - but I'm not sure about that.

What they don't explain is that not renewing a photocard is an offence in itself and you can be fined up to £1000 for that.

So not a great article really.  Perhaps Lucy and Milica could do with a refesher at journalism school...

I might very well be mistaken, but isn't that article very misleading?

I thought it was only the photocard part of a licence that needed to be renewed every ten years, and not the licence itself.  And if somebody only has an old style paper licence, nothing needs renewing after ten year because they don't have a photocard.

Has the law changed?  If it has it's news to my wife and I suspect many people!

(I see whoever wrote that article can't spell "licence" properly either...)

Do you have any photos from outside showing how low the van was sitting?

Did the police stop you and weigh you because you looked obviously to be overweight or was it random?

8 minutes ago, dx100uk said:

My statement is factually correct .

 

 

Sorry.  I read your post to be confirming to the OP that this PCN was out of date rather than just a comment about PCNs in general.

I think the OP would be best advised to check who the RK actually is and when they received their PCN before assuming it's out of date on the basis of what the hire company has sent him

2 hours ago, 1manteam said:

Thanks. So I’m back to square 1. Next steps would be to review the footage and check for signs I may have missed?

Yes.

But I think you should also check who the registered keeper is and ask them to confirm when they received the original (ie first) PCN. 

Why don't you contact the car hire firm who alerted you to the PCN and ask them if they are the registered keeper?  If they are, fine and it might be out of time, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if they are not the RK and that the PCN they received and copied to you was not the first one.  [Edit:  If they just blithely say that they are the RK, politely ask them if they are sure they are, and ask them to confirm it is their name shown as RK on the car's V5C]

As others have said, it isn't technically your ticket to deal with until you receive one addressed to you.  You could then find out what the history of the ticket was and when it was first issued.

AIUI councils are meant to follow a prescribed procedure when re-issuing pcns in respect of hire cars, and they sometimes get this wrong, thus invalidating the ticket.  So come back to this thread when you get your own ticket.

13 hours ago, dx100uk said:

nothing overrides a pcn being out of time as MB says.

We don't know it is out of time, do we...?

1 hour ago, Michael Browne said:

No. Where a hire car co. transfers liability to the hirer the council are allowed to serve a second pcn to the hirer beyond 28days, but there is no excuse for the council not to have served the original pcn to the hire co. within 28 days

Sorry if I've missed it, but do we know that the original PCN was the one served on the hire company?  Isn't it at least possible that the RK is a finance company and not the hire company?

@DiscoCow  -  you're right, I'm really surprised.

So RAC just advise you check "at least" twice a year, but don't suggest that you need to do so any more frequently than that, and Halfords only seem to suggest doing so at the start of the summer...

And the Vauxhall manual doesn't say anything at all about visually checking the coolant level, unless you first get a warning light or vehicle message telling you the level is low.  Presumably you're saying you didn't get a warning light or vehicle message alerting you to a low coolant level?

I'm amazed that the Vauxhall manual seems to rely solely on the warning light and vehicle message systems working properly and doesn't suggest a regular visual check as a backup in case the electrical systems aren't working properly.  By way of contrast at p155 they do advise you to manually check the engine oil regularly to prevent engine damage.  Why don't they advise the same regarding coolant?

So yeah - on the face of it, it looks like the manufacturer's manual doesn't advise you to check the coolant level unless you've got a warning light or vehicle message.

So you've driven it according to the manufacturer's instructions...

On 09/02/2023 at 11:42, DiscoCow said:

... They haven't shown anything that proves that the coolant fault was not present at time of purchase.  

 

I suspect their counter argument will be that I didnt check the coolant system so will say its due to poor maintenance.   

 

Given the fact their is no guidance from manufacturer or from any recognised trade bodies like rac or aa on how often to check coolant I would push back that expecting me to check the coolant every time i drive is unreasonable and would only be the case if they knew it had an issue.  

 

You might recall that I asked on your original thread how often you checked the coolant level.  You replied that the AA/RAC guidance was that it only needed to be checked twice a year, and that Vauxhall indicated that it didn't really need to be checked at all as it was a "closed system".  (See #8 - #11).  I also don't think you actually answered the question.  (You said something like "How often is 'regularly'?")

The reason I asked that was because my car's manufacturer recommends that it should be checked each time you fill up with fuel.  And just looking at general AA advice it suggests as follows:

"Most modern cars have a sealed cooling system so they shouldn’t need topping up. Unless, of course, they’ve sprung a leak.

Check your engine coolant every couple of weeks so you can spot any problems early. It could save you a lot of money and hassle."  [My emphasis in bold]

See How to check your engine coolant | The AA

Have you got any links to anything saying that you did not need to check the coolant level regularly?  If you have I think it strengthens your case a lot because it shows that the dealer's defence is wrong in blamining you for not checking it.

But if you should have checked it and didn't, it's a bit more difficult for you.  (Yes - if the car broke down in the first 6 months there is a presumption that it was faulty when you bought it, but that presumption is rebuttable.  If the car failure is consistent with you not checking the coolant level I think it becomes less clear cut for you and more a case of "he said, she said")

You have left your friend's name and full adress visible in that PDF.  (You obviously didn't read all of it before uploading it... )   Also the name of the council's witness.  I suggest you correct it ASAP.

What is your friend's defence to the charge?

As @Man in the middle asked, what has your friend actually been sent telling them to be in court?

Then why are you on here and umpteen other forums asking if you can go to prison if you have a friend who obviously knows more about the law than Perry Mason and is a legal Houdini.

Go and ask him.

52 minutes ago, Braveheart2009 said:

... So, if i were a freeman least they have a voice against corruption and have won many court cases, but people still laugh at them and have no clue about black laws dictionary...

Well if you are under the delusion that freemen have won many court cases you're beyond help.

Can you point to a case that has been won by a freeman?

11 hours ago, Braveheart2009 said:

 

...There always a pathway to prison in the courts how they see fit. They are not accountable to anyone and know they can get away with miscarriges of justice because of their titles... 

 

What a load of rubbish.  Did you get sent to prison for your previous conviction?

It's been explained to you here and on other forums that you can't go to prison for an offence under s40A of the RTA 1988.  People have even given you references to the Act so you can check it yourself.  You don't need to be a lawyer to understand that.  And you can only be disqualified if you committed a previous offence under s40A within the last 3 years.

11 hours ago, Braveheart2009 said:

 

...So what does form the basis for a defence?...

 

Nothing you have said.

11 hours ago, Braveheart2009 said:

 

... So, drivers are expected to be 100% traffic law experts 100% of the time? What about vunrable/elderly drivers? People new to this country, have overseas driving licenses? 

 

What if you hired a van out for the odd occassion and mostly a car driver? You would reasonable expect a 1st time van driver to know not much about vans just like a newbie first day on the job?...

 

Well, er, yes.  Does that come as a surprise to you?  Have you never heard of one of the most basic priciples of criminal law:  "Ignorance of the law is no defence"?  If you drive a motor vehicle in the UK you are expected to know and to adhere to the law that applies to your vehicle.  Full stop.

It doesn't matter what you, I, or anybody else thinks is reasonable - it's what the law is.

11 hours ago, Braveheart2009 said:

 

...There was nothing wrong with the load it was safe and secure 50-60% of the loading area was empty drove for miles with no issues its all what if that actually never happen. An empty vehicle is as dangerous as a loaded vehicle be it 1 or 90%. You cannot make up that the 90% vehicle will crush more of a car or person! ...

 

... well it wasnt a danger for 160 miles and 3 hours with hundreds if not thousands of cars and vehicles passing by. The trucks and vehicles around me posed a danger regardless of being overloaded or not they were driving to fast...

 

If I were you I wouldn't mention any of that in court...

You seem to have some strange views about courts and the law.  Are you a Freeman on the Land by any chance?

5 hours ago, Man in the middle said:

 

... No I’m not because I don’t rent vans. If I did, particularly if I did so professionally, I would make it my business to find out the maximum payload etc. But it isn’t what I know or don’t know that matters...

To me this is the clincher.

I've seen the OP's same thread on two other forums and I'm surprised that a professional driver (HGV qualified) should apparently have such a massive hole in what I would have thought should be basic knowledge for them.  (And still remain blind to it...)

A couple of days ago before I first read any of these threads I knew absolutely nothing about vans, but I suspect I now know more about gross vehicle weight, kerb weight and maximum payload weight than the OP does even now.  Plus that having a fitted tail lift significantly reduces your effective payload.

Two axles and you were over on one of them by 2.6 tons?!

What were you driving and what's the maximum payload for that vehicle?

4 minutes ago, mrk1 said:

Yeah but I did not move, just my mind moving faster than I could think.

But you did change your name?

"Yeah I got the cert through early week. All seems good. Not done any changing with any official agencies yet tho"

Which one are you using to sue him?

You specifically said you were changing your name so that this "evil" man could not trace you:

... that guy is getting very passive aggressive and I have had to press charges with the police as he is continuing to harass me at 9pm at night with emails and texts and now has my full name since when the police messaged him they used my full name, great. He has been threatening to use a tracing agent, and I have met this guy and he looks like no nice guy, I don't trust him... 

... Yes, this guy is not sane, he is evil in my opinion, I can tell from his threatening emails. He is slightly psychotic - emailing me at 9/10pm ay night "I won't stop till you pay me back".

I just can't take that risk, I need peace of mind. Police calling me today to take a statement I think, I had to press charges as he had a text from the police to not harass me any more, and lo behold 7 hours later he's at it, and then relentlessly...

... They (he) is becoming more and more threatening and aggressive.

I want to chnage name because he is threatening t use a trace agent, and I do not trust this thug as far as I can throw him. He's a grunt. I have to consider my own wellbeing now...

Isn't this a windup?  

He's meant to be so scared of this "evil" person that's he's been forced to change his name and move address.

Yet he goes into the bloke's shop and asks if he's in!

11 hours ago, mrk1 said:

Ah ok thanks, yes I see you removed them, thanks.

I shall get it printed off and sent asap.

So are you now happy to give him your new name etc in your "Letter Before Claim"?

I thought you had had to change your name so as to prevent him tracking you down because you were afraid of violence from this "evil" man - or his friends. 

Change name by deed poll. - General Consumer Issues - Consumer Action Group

Has that been sorted out now?

(You do realise you can't send a LBC without identifying yourself?)

I would think that you have absolutely zero hope of getting any meaningful satisfaction for an error that originated in 1994 (or earlier) and was put right in 2005.

I don't know what correspondence you've had recently with DVLA but you could try writing to them, explaining what happened and ask them for an apology.  But if the error was put right 18 years ago I'd suggest that any apology you received, or even recognition of the problem, would just be an empty form of words and be meaningless.  That's if they got back to you at all.

If I were you and I was suffering no adverse consequences now, I'd put it behind me and forget it.  But if it would make you feel better, by all means write to them.  However, don't hold your breath waiting for a response...