Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have just read the smaller print on their signs. It says that you can pay at the end of your parking session. given that you have ten minutes grace period the 35 seconds could easily have been taken up with walking back to your car, switching on the engine and then driving out. Even in my younger days when I used to regularly exceed speed limits, I doubt I could have done that in 35 seconds even when I  had a TR5.
    • Makers of insect-based animal feed hope to be able to compete with soybeans on price.View the full article
    • Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.
    • Defence and Counterclaim Claim number XXX Claimant Civil Enforcement Limited Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX   How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.   Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons.   Defence 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX  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. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have no legal representative. 7. 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. Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true XXXXXXXXXXX 01/05/2024   Defendant's date of birth XXXXXXXXXX   Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you  
    • pop up on the bulk court website detailed on the claimform. [if it is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] . When you select ‘Register’, you will be taken to a screen titled ‘Sign in using Government Gateway’.  Choose ‘Create sign in details’ to register for the first time.  You will be asked to provide your name, email address, set a password and a memorable recovery word. You will be emailed your Government Gateway 12-digit User ID.  You should make a note of your memorable word, or password as these are not included in the email.<<**IMPORTANT**  then log in to the bulk court Website .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform . defend all leave jurisdiction unticked  you DO NOT file a defence at this time [BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ] click thru to the end confirm and exit the website .get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim type your name ONLY no need to sign anything .you DO NOT await the return of paperwork. you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.
  • 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

producer for car docs


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6274 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

As far as I'm aware it voids the producer. However, you are dealing with possible criminal scanctions by not producing, so I wouldn't take my word for it if I were you.

 

J.

 

Absolutely not.

 

You have been given a HO/RT1 to produce the documents required. As it is not your vehicle, you MUST attend the police station with your docs and explain the error. They should make a note of it and pass the details produced and the note to the officer who issued the HO/RT1

 

If you do nothing, you will be prosecute for failure to produce

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Two quick points. If ever you goto magis court and the prosecution try and ajourn the case refuse.

 

You can object, but the actual decision is for the Magistrates and they usually allow a CPS application for adjournment the first time round.

 

The case then gets thrown out as the defendant does not have a case to answer to. 2. even though the car owner is your son that does not mean that you or your husband cant drive it as long as you have third party on anycar. If your son is being done for the tax then not to worry. If insurance then Technically as your son has recieved the car and it is in the previous owners name the previous owner is liable unless he can show what time the vehicle was dropped off!!

 

And you think that the Police will not ask the previous owner if this is claimed!

 

A bit of a technicality but works if you see how.

 

No it doesn't, because regardless of who might be holding the insurance, it has not been produced and that is the offence - failure to produce.

 

 

Waht we need from the OP is the actual offence(s), exactly as listed in the summons

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bailiff

I think this is if the person borrowing the other vehicle holds fully comp and the vehicle they are driving has to have a valid policy on it.

But its always best to read your insurers conditions first.;)

 

Nope. There is no requirement for any insurance on the temporarily covered vehicle.

 

In the UK, vehicles are not insured - drivers are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

If you take this to its (absurd) logical conclusion, any unattended vehicle is uninsured given the circumstances you state above.

 

In the UK, we insure the driver, not the vehicle.

 

In theory, if I take my car into town and park it to go shopping, then it is no longer insured as I am insured to drive it.

 

Contrarily, if you argue that the vehicle is insured, then when I leave it a a garage for service/road test/etc. they don't need their own insurance as the vehicle is already insured.

 

The very fact that we insure the driver is what prevents having an insurance sticker on the windscreen like a VED disk, It would have to be continually changed when the driver changes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Pat, I have to take issue with you on that. Individuals have to to take out a policy of insurance and when they do, they have to give details of the vehicle they wish to insure. That is the vehicle which they are covered to drive under the policy they have taken out as an individual. To be able to keep a vehicle on the public road, there must be a minimum of third party cover taken out by the owner kin respect of that vehicle.

 

There is no absolute need to take out an insurance policy. The law allows a person to pay a deposit to the government and drive any vehicle - the driver is covered. (I think it is currently about £5M). It is possible to get any vehicle insurance - for example motor traders. I have had insurance certificates in the past that have not had any vehicle details on (even registration number). They coverd me to drive any vehicle - but reduced the cover to TPO if it wasn't the vehicle nominated on the policy. Nevertheless, as the driver. I was insured for any vehicle

 

Driving other vehicles on your policy - if you have it - also indicates that it is the driver that is covered.

 

The absolute legal minimum insurance (effectively TPO) provide no cover whatsoever for the vehicle driven - only for third parties.

 

Neither the owner nor the registered keeper is required to insure a vehicle. They would only need insurance if they drive the vehicle. Leasing companies do not insure the vehicles that they lease - even personal leases - they do however, remain the owner. If the owner were required to insure a vehicle the HP companies would have to insure any car on HP finance with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's be realistic here Pat, how many individuals could put down a bond of £5 million?

 

Very few - but they do exist

 

 

Again, realistically how many companies will offer this? I was getting quotes for my car last year in both my own name and my wifes, but when getting quotes in her name, as soon as I mentioned that she was not the registered keeper, the number of companies prepared to offer a quote diminished rapidly.

 

Anybody with a vehicle on a personal lease plan (those with guaranteed residual values) all have to get insurance without owning the vehicle.

 

 

And this is one area where a lot of companies are pulling out of with their policies. Doesn't that tell you something?

 

And some are putting it back due to market pressure. There was talk of outlawing it by statute which led some companies to withdraw the facility prematurely

 

 

No, but then the whole idea of keeping a vehicle on the road is that it must be insured, a legal requirment under section 143 of the Road Traffic Act.

 

143.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act—

  • (a) a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and

  • (b) a person must not cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act.

(2) If a person acts in contravention of subsection (1) above he is guilty of an offence.

 

Nowehere in S143 does it even hint at the vehicle being insured. It refers to "a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act"

 

 

 

Indeed, you can own a vehicle and not insure it, as long as you have no intentions to use it on a road. And there we come back to the issue with the OP. His son had the car on a road and to keep a car on the road there must be either a policy of insurance in existance for it or a bond has been lodged.

 

You miss the whole point. The vehicle is not insured; the driver (or person using, to quote S143) is the insured.

 

What this case swings on is where the line (if any) falls, between driving and using a vehicle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...