Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Write to the IPC complaining that UKPC have not observed the requirements of PoFA . IPC  Waterside House, Macclesfield SK10 9NR Dear IPC, I am writing to complain about a serious breach of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 by UKPCM. I feel that as it is more a breach of the Act rather than not just  complying with your Code of Practice which is why I am bypassing your operator. Should you decide to insist that I first complain to your operator, I will instead pass over my complaint to the ICO and the DVLA . My story starts with being issued a windscreen PCN on 8/3/24 which was almost immediately removed and a second  PCN was then  sent by post on 13/3/24  [deemed delivered 15/3/24] which I did not receive and had to send an sar to have that particular mess revealed later  but that is not the reason for my complaint. UKPC then sent a Keeper Liability Notice dated 12/4/24 warning me that as 28 days have now elapsed, I as keeper am now liable for the charge.  This is in direct contravention of PoFA since the keeper does not become liable to pay until the day after the original PCN is deemed to have been given which would have been 13/4/24 -a Saturday ]. Not only does it not comply with PoFA but it fails to adhere to your Code of Practice and is in breach of their agreement with the DVLA. You will be aware that this is not the first time that UKPC have fallen foul of the DVLA and presumably yourselves. I have included copies of both Notices for information. You will realise the seriousness of this situation if this is standard practice from the UKPC to all motorists or just those where windscreen tickets are involved since the Law regarding PoFA is being abused and is unfair to misguide motorists. I await your  response which I understand will usually be within a week. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I would think that should be sufficient for the IPC to cancel your PCN though  you should await comments from the Site team before sending your complaint. Don't forget to include both PCNs.  
    • Hi DX, Sorry, fell asleep as I was up all night last night writing that statement. Yes, I attached the rest of the witness statement on post 50, bottom of webpage 2. That's the important part.  It looks like the lawyer who wrote Erudio's Witness statement does not work for them any more. So, I'll have another lawyer representing instead. Not sure if I can use Andy's hearsay argument verbally if that happens.... I did not put it in writing. Apart from not sending deferral forms, my main argument is that in 2014 Erudio fixed some arrears mistake that SLC made and then in 2018 they did the same mistake, sent me confusing letters. What is the legal defence when they send you confusing material?
    • Chinese firm MineOne Partners has been ordered to sell land it owns near a US nuclear missile site.View the full article
    • That isn’t actually what the Theft Act 1968 S1 actually says, BTW. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/1 (1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it;   The difference between what you’ve said and the Act? a) intent to permanently deprive rather than  just depriving (which is why the offence of “taking without consent” was brought in for motor vehicles, as otherwise "joyriders" could say "but I intended to give it back at the end") b) dishonesty : If I honestly believed A's pen belonged to B, and took it and gave it to B - B might be found guilty of theft but I shouldn't be. 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Stopped for speeding


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4994 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi I was stopped for speeding, allegedly 68 in a 40 zone. The incident happened in Scotland.

The police did not issue me with any documents, or ask me to submit my licence to my local police station but did say that I would receive a court summons.

Can you please tell me how long I will have to wait to find out if I am actually going to receive a summons?

The method used for detection was some sort of calibrated speedometer in the police car not a laser or radar, can you tell me if this sort of method is reliable.

and if there is any point in fighting the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When did this happen? Normally notice of intended prosecution letters arrive within a couple of weeks. These type of offences have 6 months to get into a court. If the NIP does not arrive then it may be that you will not go to court. If it arrives you will be prosecuted normally.

 

 

calibrated speedos are a lawful means to gather the evidence. There may be a video too, were shown one? Any point in fighting?????????? were you speeding? I suppose it is all down to the evidence and whether it is presented properly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the quick reply, when I was initially stopped the officer told me that both he and his colleague had witnessed me using my mobile phone. When I explained that was impossible because I was not in the possession of a mobile and after both had satisfied themselves that this was the case by means of a lengthy search of my car including the boot. (How they thought I could get the phone from a 4 door saloon into the boot I don’t know).

It was then that they explained that at least that was one less offence I had committed/had to concern myself about, but now there was the matter of my speed.

He pointed out the calibrated speedo but did not mention anything at any time about photographic evidence I am sure if they had had some photo evidence they would have checked it to how they could have thought I was using a mobile.

I guess I will just have to wait to see if I receive a N.I.P.

Thanks again for your replies

When did this happen? Normally notice of intended prosecution letters arrive within a couple of weeks. These type of offences have 6 months to get into a court. If the NIP does not arrive then it may be that you will not go to court. If it arrives you will be prosecuted normally.

 

 

calibrated speedos are a lawful means to gather the evidence. There may be a video too, were shown one? Any point in fighting?????????? were you speeding? I suppose it is all down to the evidence and whether it is presented properly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi That is outrageous. I would consider complaining about this. If you were not speeding these officers have potentially just stitched you up. Now you may not be able to prove they did this but if they have done it before and there is a series of similar complaints I would have thought their evidence would start to become suspect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As already posted by Raykay if you were stopped at the time you will have been verbally NIP'ed (by the use of the words - "You will be reported for consideration of the question of prosecution for the offence of excess speed/speeding"). Sadly, even if you do not recall those words you can be sure by the time the matter proceeds to court, if indeed it does, that those words were used.

 

As far as evidence is concerned there is no requirement that the police have photographs or video footage to corroborate what they say. The evidence of the opinions of officers supported by their observations of the calibrated speedo is sufficient to convict. In essence, as speeding is a strict liability offence, the only evidence the prosecution need adduce is that an offence was committed, that your vehicle was the the vehicle involved and that you were the driver at the time. From that point of view its pretty much a done-deal.

 

Although this incident occurred north of the border Scottish forces generally follow the Association of Chief Police Officers guidelines in respect of the prosecution of speeding offences. In terms of how these apply in the instant case the guidelines recommend that a fixed penalty be issued for speeds between 46 and 66mph (in a 40mph limit).

 

This may provide a glimmer of hope for the OP in that as the alleged speed is only just in excess of the cut-off it is possible that he may benefit from an option open to Procurators Fiscal in Scotland (but not available south of the border) and that is to offer a fixed penalty himself. That is not to say that this is what will happen but this need not necessarily proceed to citation.

 

The issue of the use of a putative mobile phone is a dead duck and I think its unlikely that anything will flow from it. One can be sure that had the OP been found in possession of a phone that whether he had been using it or not he'd have been reported for that as well. This case is a good illustration of the quality of police observational skills, on occasion, or rather the assumptions that are made of things that are only half seen (or occasionally imagined mistaken).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...