Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - The Rookie

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
Wrong forum, a Mod' will move it to the council forum for you.

Private parking tickets / Re: PCN but was never at the parking site
« on: February 29, 2024, 10:53:33 am »
So I will also wait for the SAR incase there is a risk itís been cloned
If they realise it's a misread then your SAR should return nothing as it's not (or perhaps 'no longer') your data.

If it's a clone they won't have cancelled unless there was a clear mismatch in make/model and they should (and certainly could) decline to share photos as it's not your car.

So don't get your hopes up!

I agreed that I had oversped, not that I knew my tyre was faulty.
What you agree with is irrelevant, that you didn't know about it is also irrelevant, if the tyre was defective the offence was committed.
Otherwise we could all drive around on bald tyres and just say we never looked at them and never be convicted.

Do you have photos of the defect, did you keep the tyre or get it inspected?

All the press reports seem to indicate that is precisely what Mrs Hamilton did. But I have my doubts.
The reports at the time, which may be harder to find now made it clearer.

From memory of the better reports at the time, both Neil and Christine were in the car and had been swapping drivers (so location type evidence doesn't help identify the driver), they recalled swapping driver near where the car was detected speeding but couldn't be sure if it was just before or just after the 'ping' location.  This information was provided to the Police and evidenced by them both in court which accepted Christine's RD defence.  I don't recall if there was any other evidence presented other than the witness testimonies.

Sending something signed for is generally a really bad idea to somewhere receiving bulk mail as
1/ It won't be signed for and
2/ The Postie won't even bother going through the hundreds of items to find and 'self sign' it.
Sending with free proof of posting is cheaper and just as effective.

It's probably been delivered but not logged, just delivered in a sack with the rest of that days mail.

The police are not in the habit of prosecuting for replies received a few days late anyway, they would prefer to just progress the underlying charge.

As above, you can phone and ask if they have the reply.

Arguably as you 'know' (at face value) that the reply hasn't be received you need to make immediate arrangements to get details to them (another advantage of using proof of posting instead, as you it could create no such liability).

If Iíve bought the land, then these parasites can do one!
Seems unlikely you've bought it? Though not impossible.
Is the flat leasehold or freehold?
Even if it's freehold you may have only acquired the right to use the space on an easement basis and it's not part of the freehold in the same way as if the flat is leasehold.

Totally understand so you would say pleading guilty by post would be the best option the go for?
As per my post on FB, yes.
I really can't see a viable defence and losing in court will cost you circa £1000 (costs will start at £660 and you will lose the 1/3 discount off the fine) at least and you may even get more points.

To me it's clear he was 'there to be seen' and a careful and competent driver (the standard applied) should have seen him, even if the route he was taking was unexpected, although it looks to me like he was looking to turn right.
GSV -,-0.1330146,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sA0bH-o7vkXG2r_EdYZZUTA!2e0!!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

Speeding and other criminal offences / Re: No insurance
« on: January 30, 2024, 01:00:03 pm »
To ad, Insurers don't like drivers with convictions from driving while uninsured (for what should be obvious reasons) and you can expect your premium to roughly double in the first year reducing to a circa 20% increase in the fifth year after conviction.  The financial penalty from the fixed penalty or fine will likely pale into insignificance by comparison.

Depends on what 'the letter' is.

The Flame Pit / Re: 'Keeper' vs 'Registered Keeper' - PoFA
« on: January 15, 2024, 04:07:11 pm »
Has anyone yet seen a case where this was a defence? Where the RK was not the "keeper" at the time?
I know of cases where PoFA wasn't complied with and the keeper could show they were not the driver, the claims rarely get to an actual court.

But were the RK wasn't the keeper, can't recall any cases where this was used, or even could have been used.

The Flame Pit / Re: 'Keeper' vs 'Registered Keeper' - PoFA
« on: January 11, 2024, 08:28:25 am »

No confusion. Para. 2, (effectively Definitions) states that the 'keeper' is presumed to be the RK. It then defines RK. That's it.

This is the last time that the RK is mentioned. Having disposed of who is the 'keeper' in s2, the rest of Sch 4 refers only to 'keeper' as it should, incl
para. 13.
If the contrary is proved, then the registered keeper is no longer the keeper, that is surely self evident.

Nearly everywhere else it refers to whoever is proven to be the keeper, although the poor drafting means sometimes the entity who is the RK is referred to as the keeper. Para 4 makes the keeper liable, under your interpretation a Hirer could never then be liable, as nothing ever makes a hirer liable only the keeper.  It's just really shoddy drafting but it's clear once the hirer is proven to be the keeper ILO of the registered keeper they are then the keeper as well as the hirer.

The Flame Pit / 'Keeper' vs 'Registered Keeper' - PoFA
« on: January 10, 2024, 09:18:02 am »

We wish to confirm that SLtd is the hirer and keeper of the vehicle in question

No you are not. The 'keeper' is the registered keeper.

The hirer is the hirer, that's it, the hirer.
Erm, really not.
The registered keeper is assumed to be the keeper unless otherwise 'proven', the hirer is the keeper with respect to 'keeper liability' (funnily enough).
ďkeeperĒ means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked, which in the case of a registered vehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the registered keeper;
All in S4 of The PoFA.

Yes I realise that in para 13 then get's it's knickers in a twist when referring to the registered keeper as keeper with respect to naming the hirer, but that's because they are still the keeper until the hirer (and actual keeper) is named, just another example of the really bad drafting.

!/ This is an airport, as there are Byelaws in place the Keeper has no liability, only the unknown to them driver.
2/ As the keeper can state truthfully they were not the driver, that is very useful.
3/ The appeal time limit is wholly a construct of the industry, anyone can challenge an invoice as not being owed at any time (and certainly should, it's the 'reasonable' thing to do.
4/ Their appeal replies conveniently (for them, not for you) usually go into Spam folders and get auto deleted.  Almost like they do it by design.
5/ The addition of debt collection charges is an unjustified, and wholly ignorable, construct and never backed by courts (if it gets there).

I can't see the attachments (possibly due to my co. firewall) so can't add further.

Private parking tickets / Re: PCN Notice
« on: January 09, 2024, 02:08:15 pm »
The first thing you should do is edit your post to not reveal who was driving,
This still needs doing!

The last correspondence I received (06/01/2024) is dated 03/01/2024
So with an offence date of 9/08/23 they must start proceedings by 08/02/24, you have until 31/01 to accept the offer or gamble on them failing to commence proceedings (by raising the written charge) in that week. It's a big gamble but has some chance of paying off.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7