The time limit to commence the court proceedings is six months from the date of the alleged offence. Allowing for the time you have to accept or refuse the COFP, that will still be within the six month limit.

When did the licence expire? If it was due to be renewed on 1st March, and the MOT had expired, the licence would not be renewed and would explain the refund of the fee and subsequent removal.

If the Late Licensing Penalty - s.7A, Vehicles Excise & Registration Act 1994 ( a debt due to the crown, s.7A, 3, (c),) is not paid, the DVLA may deal with matter as the offence of using or keeping an unlicensed vehicle - s.29 of the same act. - usually, first, an 'out of court settlement offer', if that is not paid, a court summons. 

The registered keeper (who may or may not be the owner) is responsible for licensing the vehicle.  As you were the registered keeper for part of that month (until the DVLA changed the registered keeper), you are liable for licensing the vehicle for that month.

10 hours ago, Mr Forty said:

 They, the DVLA insist it must be insured!

It is not the DVLA that insist it must be insured, it is s.144A, Road Traffic Act 1988. Off road and SORN is one of the exceptions - s.144B of the same act.

Vehicle licensing has always been on a monthly basis, not a daily basis. Refunds are only made for complete outstanding months. You were the registered keeper for part of the month covered by the licence and so no refund is due to you for that month. When a new registered keeper takes out a licence part way through the month, that will also be for that month.

It depends when the DVLA change the  keeper details, if it is after the first of the month, the old keeper will still be liable for that month, a new keeper will also be liable for that month as they are the registered keeper for their part of the month.. Vehicle licensing duty is a monthly matter, any part of a month counts as the same month for both.

Ownership is irrelevant, it is the registered keeper that is responsible for licensing the vehicle. At the change of registered keeper, when the DVLA process the change, any current licence is cancelled and any refund due sent to the old registered keeper, and the vehicle will be unlicensed until the new registered keeper takes out a licence.

Yes, 'On a public road' was removed from s.29, Vehicles Excise & Registration Act 1994 by Sch. 45, Finance Act 2008, now it is 'If a person uses, or keeps, a vehicle which is unlicensed he is guilty of an offence', there are exemptions, one is if the vehicle is subject of a SORN and not used or kept on a public road.

14 minutes ago, ericsbrother said:

Strictly speaking it isnt SORN as he doesnt have the necessary permission to park it there and no doubt it is uninsured as well.

 

For vehicle licensing purposes a SORN is valid as long as the vehicle is not used or kept on a public road within the meaning of the Vehicles Excise & Registration Act 1994 (nothing about permission).

For insurance purposes a SORN is valid as long as the vehicle is not used on a road or other public place within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (again, nothing about permission).

So you can have the situation that a vehicle subject of a SORN, that is exempt from licensing  but not for insurance.

If it is a car park, a  SORN declaration would be valid - a car park is not a road (Clarke v Kato 1988).

It is the address on the V5C that needs to be checked, there is no connection between the address on a driving licence and the address on a V5C - which is the address the parking companies get from the DVLA.

The 14 day limit does not apply to offences involving an accident.

I had car insurance with Quick Fit back in 2016 and after writing my car off I cancelled my direct debit as I didnt have a car to be insured.

You may need to check the terms of the insurance credit agreement, some companies require the full annual payment to be made in the case of a write off. That could be what Helix are dealing with.

. My point was that the disability buses are pre-booked, so not a 'public service'.

If the vehicle complies with s.1, Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981, (more than 8 passenger seats, fare paying passengers etc.), it may be considered to be a Public Service Vehicle.

I accept that they have marked out the 'Bus Stop' and put a thick solid yellow line against the kerb,

Check if there is there also a sign showing the times of operation. If there is, and you were parked during those times, it could weaken your case.

To me, the law is grey

The legislation that enables private parking companies to claim for the recovery of unpaid parking charges is Sch. 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. But it is very very rare for them to correctly comply with the conditions of the act - which is the grey area.

Reading that article, it states that part of the road is adopted and it is requiring, unless agreed otherwise, that a Traffic Regulation Order be obtained for double yellow lines etc. It may also explain the boundary marking of the road in your earlier plans, from the main road just up to the island and the two short 'spurs' - it certainly looks adopted in your earlier pictures.

That is one reason why you need to establish who owns the road. In that plan there appear to be three separate sites - the building including Tesco, the road and site behind Tesco and the old hospital site. They could each have a different owner.

He said the landowner was the Landlord of Tesco, so this was still private land!

Have you established the landowner of the road, Tesco's landlord? or the developer? - (Land Registry check?) - only the landowner can have a contract with the private parking company.

So the developer can take action for trespass and NPM the car parking, providing they adhere to the IPC code of conduct, which they are not doing so in more ways than one!!!!

A private parking company controls parking in car parks etc. where parking is permitted and a list of conditions that drivers are required to comply with when parking is displayed, and claim that any driver who has not complied with those conditions is in breach of contract - and that is what they claim. As you have found out, they make up all sorts of other irrelevant and useless other reasons to try to justify their claims, irrespective of codes of conduct, appeal services etc.

A totally difference process to a landowner claiming for trespass where parking is prohibited.

Only if the developer is the actual owner of the road, they can take action for trespass. The private parking company cannot take any action because there is no permitted car parking for them control.

It is not the status of the road that you need to establish, it is the actual owner.

On the plan in your last post, the boundary of the road appears to be separate from the old hospital site, so the owner of the development site may or not be the owner of the road, you need to establish who actually owns it.

As in earlier posts, the sign is a prohibition, and only the landowner themselves can take action for trespass (not a private parking company).

It is a completely different situation to a private parking company controlling a car park etc, where they claim for breach of contract for failing to comply with their conditions.

That plan shows the adopted highway, which shows that where you parked is not adopted, you need to establish who is the owner of that the part of the road, and have they a contract with the parking company. Don't accept anything from the IPC, the IAS, Gladstone solicitors, the parking company etc. unless it is confirmed in writing.

They may have a contract,

but does that contract include the part of the road that you were parked on,

or has that part of the road just been un-adopted as a highway by the council,

but still owned by them?