Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Northmonk forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA. Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant. First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement  since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period  is exactly that -ie the time youwere actually parked in a parking spot.  If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either. So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a] In S9[2][f] the Act states  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..." As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant. Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act. Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA. Second S14 [5] states " (5)The notice to Hirer must— (a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer; ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail. I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.
    • Weaknesses in some banks' security measures for online and mobile banking could leave customers more exposed to scammers, new data from Which? reveals.View the full article
    • I understand what you mean. But consider that part of the problem, and the frustration of those trying to help, is the way that questions are asked without context and without straight facts. A lot of effort was wasted discussing as a consumer issue before it was mentioned that the property was BTL. I don't think we have your history with this property. Were you the freehold owner prior to this split? Did you buy the leasehold of one half? From a family member? How was that funded (earlier loan?). How long ago was it split? Have either of the leasehold halves changed hands since? I'm wondering if the split and the leashold/freehold arrangements were set up in a way that was OK when everyone was everyone was connected. But a way that makes the leasehold virtually unsaleable to an unrelated party.
  • 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

2 x Notice of Intended Prosecution (NoIP) "exceed a variable speed limit - automatic camera device


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 262 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

Please could someone provide some advice?

I was travelling from home up M6 and was caught twice breaking the speed limit in a variable speed zone.

I have set out the detail below.

My biggest concern is the police service has stated they cannot deal with one offence with a fixed penalty and have referred it to the magistrates' court.

Do I need to get specific legal advice, or should I turn up, tell the truth and accept the consequence (I am worried what the consequence will be).

I have never been convicted of any motoring offence.

Received NoIP on 23/06/2023 detailing the offence: exceed a variable speed limit - automatic camera device recorded speed 68mph in a 40mph limit at 09:22 on 11/05/2023 @ M6 Northbound between junctions 13-14 (approx 2 1/2 miles after junction 13). The letter was dated 14/06/2023

Received NoIP on 25/06/2023 detailing the offence: exceed a temporary 50mph speed restriction on a motorway - automatic camera device recorded speed 60mph in a 50mph limit at 09:43 on 11/05/2023 @ M6 junction 16. The letter was dated 21/06/2023

I responded to both NIP172 forms and asked if they could consider the two offences as one offence. I received a reply dated 10/07/2023 stating that they could not consider the offences as one offence. I understand that it is their call and accept that.

I received a further letter dated 22/07/2023 regarding the offence of exceed a variable speed limit - automatic camera device recorded speed 68mph in a 40mph limit setting out that "due to the excessively high speed of your vehicle it is not possible to deal with this matter through the fixed penalty scheme. The matter will now have to be placed before the court to be heard by a Magistrate. This is the bit I really need help with.

I received a further letter dated 25/07/2023 regarding the offence of exceed a temporary 50mph speed restriction on a motorway - automatic camera device recorded speed 60mph in a 50mph limit offering a speed awareness course, conditional offer of penalty points or opt to got to court. I intend to opt for the speed awareness course but I have delayed that until I get some advice. I know that I need to respond within 28 days.

Thank you in anticipation of your help

Link to post
Share on other sites

You do not need legal advice and you will not need to attend court unless you specifically want to.

The more serious offence will be dealt with under the "Single Justice" Procedure. This involves a single Magistrate sitting in an office with a Legal Advisor, dealing with matters "on papers" only. Nobody else can attend.

The sentencing guidelines for 68mph in a 40mph limit suggest a fine of a week's net income (which includes a discount of one third if you plead guilty) and either a ban of between 7 and 56 days or six points. The overwhelming likelihood is six points. You will also pay a "victim surcharge" of 40% of the fine and prosecution costs of around £90.

You will learn when court proceedings have begun by way of a "Single Justice Procedure Notice." The police have six months from the date of the offence to bring proceedings and in many areas they take all of that, so you may not hear until a week or two after the deadline. You will have 21 days to enter a plea and you will also be asked to provide details of your income. You will be advised of the outcome of your case by post.

In the (very unlikely) event that the Single Justice believes a ban should be considered your case will be listed for a hearing in the normal Magistrates' Court and you will be invited to attend to make representations. A Single Justice will not disqualify you in your absence.

Let me know if I can help further.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...