Jump to content

Murpheus

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    35
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I have written a letter which will be included with the admission from relative to driving the car. It will be posted first class registered tomorrow. Searched other sites and found out you can make an informal appeal to be included with your admission. Not all Police forces do this but there is nothing to lose, thumping a keyboard for 5 minutes and pressing print hasn't been at all stressful.
  2. 2 dimensional photos can be deceiving but believe me when I got done the distance travelled 15 metres per second [38 mph] could be plainly seen. looking at my relatives photos the car has barely moved which makes me want to question it. Is there a new speed gun on the block that can nick you in a second? Why were my photos, 15.03.07, 145.9 metres... 15.03.08 , 130.3 metres... 15.03.09, 115 metres 15.03.09, 110 metres. In both cases the camera graphics, timers, and other scaling are identical but at least I know for definite I was speeding given all that extra information. Will update tomorrow, thank
  3. Relative is going to phone tomorrow to see if there are any more photos. Like I said earlier my evidence for speeding clearly indicated 34 metres in 2 seconds, ie 7,8, and 9 seconds are on the same type of camera evidence. Anyway here is the photos, notice how it looks like 38 just past the 60 mph sign, c'mon we all speed up a bit once we approach that sign ! 1 second evidence..pdf
  4. I know what it's like to be done for speeding but the camera evidence I was given all made sense to me at the time. I had travelled 34-35 metres in 2 seconds and I am aware 38 mph is very close to 17 metres per second so fair cop. A relative has given me access to very similar police website photos but this time I'm scratching my head. 1st photo the car is 147.4 metres away with 24 seconds on the clock [frame 47 I think bottom left] allegedly doing 37 mph. 2nd photo 152 5 metres still 24 seconds on the clock frame 53 allegedly doing 38 mph. 3rd photo still 152.5 metres and still 24 seconds on the clock frame 54 allegedly doing 38 mph. Last photo is number plate but no time stamp like there was in my case. Both mine and relative were clocked by a mobile speed van that crudely hides just as you enter or in my relatives case leave 30 mph zone. Apart from the speed indications of 37 and 38 mph, there is nothing to prove an offence took place, what I note is 147.4 metres and 152.5 metres which indicate 5.1 metres per second, nothing more. Unless the police have more photos can my relative be punished with this evidence? Can I upload a PDF with all the info bar number plate of course.
  5. 2 copies posted, 1 to Northampton court, 1 to Civil enforcement. Will update as of when. Going to post something else now in the speeding department, looking for advice in the case of a relative.
  6. Pleased you asked lookinforinfo , could have sworn i uploaded it in earlier posts. I have stumbled across original PCN which is in the POPLA defence of Civil Enforcement. My short defence statement is also in that PDF and have to admit I was ignorant by not including more information like road works, traffic lights and wagons parked in front of the main blue sign. Thought my appointment and permission to park there would be enough... obviously not! pcn.pdf
  7. Thanks again dx, just a little concerned about which court should handle this. Don't fancy going all the way down to Northampton if push comes to shove. N180 box D1 does give option and my nearest County court is Gateshead. At the moment I'm on the sick so limited on travel.
  8. Just when you begin to think the matter has been dropped, good old CE have waited until the very last moment to inform the Court, they want my arse! As mentioned in previous posts, successful against these [when they turned a £30 parking fine for my daughter into a £600 + bill] thanks to the advice from here. This time unfortunately they aint going to let it drop. I have been looking at other posts and see JackD13 is in the same boat but a couple of weeks ahead of me....... link below. From what I can gather, looks like going down the "Mediation Services" route is being advised to avoid if it regards parking ? If they are anything like POPLA can understand why. Haven't heard anything from CE despite pre typed letters asking for various info. n180.pdf
  9. Update. I get the feeling they will try and take me all the way. Just have to wait and see. court letter..pdf
  10. Sorry for the loss of your father hightail. Been a while since I was on here, lots of figures flying about. So we all agree 17,000 have lost their lives to the rona that had no underlying health conditions. That is one huge leap from the whole of 2020 when the virus was rampant. 388 died that year, wonder what was introduced in 21 for the graphs to go off the scale? https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13584329/377-covid-deaths-under-60-underlying-health-conditions/
  11. Ok will do. Never changed my user name although it may have been all lower case at the time, murpheus. Have to dig through old emails from a different email address I guess.
  12. Thanks again FTMDave and dx100uk. Think I'm getting the jist of it now. Once I get this sortedi will delve into my daughters case and find out why they backed off back then. Not sure if it was the CPR 31:14 or the photos I had of the machine out of order that saved the day or both. The case was on here but can't find it anymore, did try to update the good news on here when it was fresh but had difficulties logging in and ultimately lost touch. That success story will be uploaded on here regardless of what happens with me. On that note, will do as advised and put reg number into what I pasted before and submit that as defence for now. I will read through it thoroughly maybe tomorrow and submit no later than Friday before I forget.
  13. Thanks Honeybee13 for that link. I may have been advised to click on it earlier but my head is up my arse at the moment. It looks like you can submit a small defence now and you can add to it later, I had no idea you could do that. When MCOL give you 122 lines in that defence paragraph it is easy to presume they want the whole information now. Never mind have copied and pasted part of that link and may use it after I have carefully read and understood it. This too is difficult to understand as it looks like what a Solicitor would say trying to defend me. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle]. 2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.
×
×
  • Create New...