Show Posts - mdann52

If they posted it on the 21st August, how did it arrive to you on the 21st August?The court officer is correct - the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) 75.3(5) requires service within 15 days from the date of registration, so as long as they posted it on or before the 13th August they appear to be in the clear.The CPRs do not specify any consequence of late service, however at best you could get the OfR set aside and they would be free to reapply and reserve it, so it's not really a get out clause here

Wouldn't a SAR be better than an FOIR?Given the council cannot release personal details under FOI

Quote from: Sandymarton on 14 Jun, 2025 16:59Quote from: roythebus on 13 Jun, 2025 23:58At least 4 car lengths, the average car being about 3.5m long.the use of bus lane is for under 3 seconds and at the very end, I didn't go all the way, this should fall under the "de minimis"principal, too minimal to enforce.De Minimis Incursion:Many adjudicators accept that a momentary crossing (under three seconds, one or two car-lengths) purely to turn left is too trivial to enforce. Citing the “de minimis” principle (Lambeth LBC v Parr [2013])It's more than 2 car lengths (you can tell by the parking spaces),  appears to be 4-5 seconds from when you crossed the line to when you went off screen, and you've gained an advantage by entering the bus lane in passing the car in front. You'll be hard pressed to argue "de minimis"

As mentioned in the letter, you can expect the police to do searches into the insurance used by the driver at the time, and they'll seek to prosecute you for permitting use without insurance unless you can provide evidence they were insured, if the Motor Insurance Bureau shows no policy was heldThis offence can be dual-charged with Failure to Furnish, meaning that even if you defend that you may still be convicted of insurance offences.

There is one possibility here. The offence wording of "Stop a Vehicle Within Pelican Crossing Limits" corresponds to the ZP97001 offence code. This then continues: Contrary to regulation 18 of the Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations 1997, section 25(5) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.Now... The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations 1997 have been repealed, so they cannot prosecute you under that act. Legislation.gov likes to pretend it hasn't, but it has.They should have given you a CoFP you with "Failing to Comply with a S36 Traffic Sign (endorsable) (manned equipment)" instead.So if you are feeling lucky, you can ignore the CoFP, wait for the police to go to court, and hope they attempt to charge you under the incorrect act.

I didn't think the online form required inputting all the required details under the legislation? I haven't had to do it myself though, only seen screenshots, so happy to be corrected.I think it's going to come down to the DoB - the driving licence number still only contains two digits for year of birth, so it's possible for two people born in different centuries to have the same licence number, minus the last few random digits

Have you checked the address on your V5C is correct and up to date?

Surely the police can't withdraw a CoFP and prosecute the OP within the 28 day period where court action is suspended?

The speed shown in the image is irrelevant, and likely isn't even the "money shot". It will just be a picture to aid in identification of the driver

The police could decline to accept it, as legally there's no presumption of service if sent by emailIf police have acknowledged receipt, that becomes a non-issue

I did start work on such a piece of software in the past, but quickly hit issues, lack of time etc and couldn't progress it further. I guess the question is what do we want? A full case management/tracking software, probably probably with "here's the deadline for your appeal, and here's what's worked for that location/code/authority before", or something much more lightweight?It's a lot of work to do and maintain voluntarily though, I don't have enough experience of the intricacies of the legislation to create a "quick steps" to identify issues with the notices, or to flag up key cases etc. If people are willing to work with me, I'm happy to revitilise the project, with the caveat I'll only have a matter of hours a week to work on it so it won't be a quick job.

Quote from: harbourlights on 14 Aug, 2024 22:221) Presumably she can get a £189 refund. Is that something to refer to TfL?Arguably, she should get a full refund and be given the opportunity to pay at the reduced rate or make representations. The balls in TfLs court to reissue the PCN, but they should refund you if you contact them (this may also be done automatically, but I'm not sure how reliable TfL's systems are nowadays!)Quote from: harbourlights on 14 Aug, 2024 22:222) Why on earth would two identical PE2 & PE3 forms result in different judgements?Just out of interest - do you know if TfL opposed them both? If they didn't oppose one, either through an admin issue or incompetence, then that might explain itQuote from: harbourlights on 14 Aug, 2024 22:223) Does this inconsistency open the door for the first PE2/PE3 to be reconsidered, and is there a process for doing that? Would that be one of the two (at-cost) appeal routes outlined in the rejection letter? If the appeal is upheld, is the appeal cost refunded (by TfL?)?No, as each PE2/3 is considered independently and doesn't set a precedent. If you want it reviewed you need to apply on an N244, which comes with a £109/£307 fee from memory, depending if the hearing is on papers or in person. As long as the judge has acted lawfully in rejecting the PE2, the decision will be upheld.Quote from: harbourlights on 14 Aug, 2024 22:224) (Slightly flippantly) What on earth are Royal Mail playing at? That is the third time in relation to this matter that there has been a 9-day delay in the post...not to mention serious question marks about the original PCN and Charge Certificate. We don't generally have postal issues, so forgive my cynicism...but is it possible that the problems here do not, in fact, relate to Royal Mail at all, and that TfL potentially failed to post the PCN and CC, and that the TEC are not processing their post in a timely manner (in either direction)? Is there any grounds for taking that up with an appropriate body? Significant delays on the part of the TEC might seem like pedantry, but not when they have rejected a PE2 which was required, at least in part, by "postal issues".cheersJamesThere will be a delay between an order being made and it being sent it. If different sorting offices are involved, 9 days isn't unreasonable for redirected first class post, given how the system works.

If it was neither taxed nor sorned, an offence under S31a Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 appears to have been committed. The only defence seemingly available would be if the vehicle is exempt from VED.

You now wait and see what the council do

That references completely the wrong legislation, and the council will be able to dismiss it out of hand. Schedule 4 POFA is only applicable to ticket from private companies, not statutory PCNs. The only thing that matters with council signs is they comply with the legislation, which these ones do. Additionally, if you lease the vehicle, the council have to issue the next notice to the lease company, who transfer liability to you, so this isn't going to help.You also need to answer the questions from H C Andersen and Incandescent.