Jump to content

Montego

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Montego

  1. That is one of the exemptions, as in post 12, unless exempt, it doesn't matter where a registered vehicle is located, it is required to be licensed.
  2. For being the registered keeper of an unlicensed vehicle, the DVLA will often offer a Late Licensing Penalty prior to any prosecution. It could be that the DCA are dealing with on their behalf, and return the matter to the DVLA for further action if it is not paid.
  3. Unless exempt, being the user or keeper of an unlicensed vehicle is an offence contrary to s.29(1), Vehicles Excise and Registration Act 1994. Being the registered keeper of an unlicensed vehicle is an offence contrary to s.31(A) & 31(C) of the same act.
  4. Unless exempt, it is the same offence if it is not licensed wherever the vehicle is kept.
  5. Check the wording of the letter. £80 is the normal DVLA penalty offer for the offence of being the registered keeper of an unlicensed vehicle, (which they may be using CCS to deal with). If not paid, it can result in a summons to magistrates court.
  6. If it is within the harbour estate, The Wells Harbour Revision Order 1994, General Bylaws, s.9,(1),(k) regulates the movement ,speed and parking of vehicles on the estate.
  7. If the offence was dealt with by the DVLA, it would be 'keeping an uninsured vehicle' - s.144A, Road Traffic Act 1988. That is an administrative matter, not the vehicle being seen by police cameras.
  8. As above, insurance is required for the use on a 'road or other public place' - s. 143, Road Traffic Act 1988, but a driver is only required to hold a licence for driving on a 'road' - s.87 of the same act. A car park is not a road - House of Lords: Clark (A.P.) and Others v. Kato, Smith and General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corporation.
  9. The 14 day limit only applies to the initial notice of intended prosecution required to be sent by post (Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988). It is not required for all offences, or if the person is stopped and told at the time.
  10. One possible problem is the continuous insurance requirement - s.144A, Road Traffic Act 1988 - the vehicle will need to comply, or if it does not, it must be kept off the public road and SORN. Another is that for third party cover driving a different vehicle, some insurance companies require that vehicle is covered by insurance.
  11. As has been mentioned in several posts, there are different ways that parking infringements are dealt with:

    Local Authorities - using the  Civil Enforcement legislation.

    Other authorities (airports, railway companies etc.) - using their own by-law legislation.

    Private Parking Companies - which can only make civil claims for breaching

    their contract. Only if they comply with schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 can they claim for unpaid parking charges from the keeper. That is the only legislation that is available to the them, but they very rarely do comply. That is one reason why they use words like 'contravention', PCN'  and 'contravention number' in their paperwork, in an attempt to confuse the motorist and give the impression that their 'Parking Charge Notice' has the same legal standing and penalties as a 'Penalty Charge Notice' issued by a local authority.

    1. Peterbard

      Peterbard

      Yes indeed, civil regulation not criminal. There is as you say accommodation in the act for SI which gives various groups permission the enforce in the civil court. It is not always a criminal procedure which is what the experts here are saying.

    2. Montego

      Montego

      There is civil regulation and criminal regulation, and the relevant procedure needs to be followed by the relevant authority. The problem is that neither apply to claims by the Private Parking Companies. They make up their own rules, and claim a breach of contract when they consider they have been broken.

      If the claim is for unpaid parking charges, and they comply with Protection of Freedoms Act 1012 (which is very rare), they can claim that from the keeper. That act does not apply to land covered by legislation - airport, railway company etc. land. The companies can deal with the matter via their by-law legislation, ( not the R.T.A. legislation), but some don't and pass the matter to a Private Parking Company to deal with, but all they can rely on is a breach of contract by the driver. That is one reason why some of their paperwork has wording similar to civil enforcement paperwork, quote byelaws etc, to try to confuse the motorist that they are liable for the claim as the keeper - which they are not.

×
×
  • Create New...