Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by patdavies

  1. How could they prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the correct figure was showing on the other side of the gantry? AIUI, c omputer records showing that the limit had been posted have been rejected by Courts as these are only evidence that the command to change the limit was given and not that it actually changed
  2. Whilst it is not necessary to place the VRM on retention (it can be transferred directly), there is a requirement that is made very clear on the V317 and that is that you may not dispose of the donor car until the transfer is complete. IOW, you have to have title to both cars for a while.
  3. The Highway Code is exactly right. There is no offence of stopping in a box junction; the offence is entering when your exit is not clear (unless turning right and delayed by oncoming traffic).
  4. Postal Services Act 2000 S.84 (1)(b) (my bold) S.125 (3) (my bold) Pedantic or otherwise, you don't have a leg to stand on
  5. Yep. It is only illegal to tamper with mail' in the course of transmission' (ie from the time it enters a postbox to the time it is delivered to an address). Once delivered, anybody can open it. Think about it for a moment. If somebody at your address dies, are you saying that any mail received subsequently for them could not be opened and dealt with - even by the executor...?
  6. Where did you get this nonsense from...? You have tried it on and lost. I can't see any way out of this than to pay.
  7. There aren't. There is an absolute exemption under the DPA for the investigation of criminal mattters
  8. Hydrogen sulphide is only emitted by a faulty battery - either low electrolyte or plates touching. A good battery will only emit hydrogen.
  9. Depends entirely on what the seller's T&C said at the time of purchase. They can only require the customer to pay for return if this is specifically stated in the requisite T&C; if they don't state this, then they are liable for the return. To take it a step further, they must refund at soon as reasonably possible and, in any case, no later than 28 days. Repayment it NOT contingent on the item being returned first
  10. I think this betrays a sad lack of understanding of the law. If it was sold "at a distance" (ie over the WWW) then the supplier is legally obliged to accept a return under the DSRs, providing the customer notifies rejection in writing within 7 days. The supplier here is complying with statute; "lots of parts suppliers that wouldn't" would be acting illegally.
  11. DSRs apply. You must reject in writing within 7 days. If the seller's T&C state that you are responsible for return costs, then you are. If they do not, then you are not. As per Labrat, there is no need to provide any reason for rejection under DSR.
  12. The point has previously been made that blue badges mean nothing on private property. That fact works both ways...
  13. No, as there is no requirement in law for there to be a photograph. You could appeal on the grounds that you had broken down; but will need to provide evidence of this
  14. They have 28 days in which to send an s.10 PCN The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 S. 10(4)
  15. I was diagnosed with OSA a few years back. The advice from my consultant was that the condition was notifiable (by me, not him) but that if treatment was successful it was not necessary to notify DVLA. I have a CPAP machine when sleeping which negates the problem and means that DVLA do not need to be notified
  16. Blocking a vehicle in is, in law, immobilisation which is also how the law refers to clamping. You cannot do this lawfully without an SIA licence. A better option would be to prevent the neighbour's access to the space in the first place by fitting a lockable post or similar.
  17. This bit about the HRA is total nonsense. The HRA regulates the relationship between the State (ie public bodies) and the individual. It does not apply to individuals or private companies.
  18. It should also ask you if you were the driver and if not, the requirement to name the driver under s.110 of the RTRA
  19. you stand very little chance. You would have to prove that the building owner was negligent in that they knew there was a possibility of a tile moving due to lack of repair and also that there were no abnormal weather conditions - fat chance of that today. This is what you pay your own comprehensive insurance for.
  20. There is no requirement in law to either go directly or to the nearest test station. Case law has set precedent that it is entirely reasonable to stop one the way to the test.
  • Create New...