Raykay
-
Posts
1,267 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by Raykay
-
The offence the DVLA are claiming is committed by the registered keeper, who may or may not be the owner, so they will not be interested in the change of owner, only that you were the registered keeper at the time. That is what you need to defend.
-
Have a look at the latest blog by Parking Prankster (parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk) According to that, The DVLA cofirm that data cannot be passed to MIL collections.
-
RTA 1998 Section 172 - Magistrate Court help
Raykay replied to Psulkin's topic in Speeding and Motoring Offences
Not quite, if the court decide that s.172, (5) applies, then the officers of the company etc. can also be proceeded against and punished accordingly. -
It was a reply to Silverfox1961's post 23 which was comparing the enforcement of Railway Byelaws and Airport Byelaws
-
TfL have given the management of the car park to NCP, but as it a TfL car park it is subject to statutory control and so although NCP can claim for a breach of their 'rules' from the driver, they cannot claim from the keeper. The main concern about airports appears to be the status of the land in question - is it actually part of the airport or not, and so subject to the airport byelaws or not.
-
TfL have their own railway byelaws, the parking byelaws are virtually the same as the Transport Act ones. (See post 11).
-
It is a TfL car park, so subject to byelaws (see post 11).
-
I think so, it is a letter before claim, rather than a letter before action, and they only 'anticipate' county court action - another ruse to worry people enough to pay. If you do reply, don't sign the letter, just print your name - you never know what other of their documents your signature may appear on!!
-
You can ignore 'begging letters' from NCP and their friends, but don't ignore a 'Letter Before Action' or a claim from Northampton County Court (if NCP are daft enough to try). You are under no obligation to identify the driver - regardless of any claim by NCP that you need to.
-
As you have seen, there is no mention of parking within markings of a space in the byelaws. The car park is 'managed' by NCP on behalf of TfL. NCP 'invent' their own rules for the use of the car park and issue 'notices' for not complying with those rules. Prior to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, only the driver was liable for their claims - as that was the person who allegedly broke their rules. Sch. 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act gave the power - under certain circumstances - to claim from the keeper if the driver was not known. Land mentioned in Sch.4, s.3, is not covered by the act. S, 3© is land subject to statutory control - which includes Stanmore Station Car park as it is subject to byelaws. As is many railway company, airport company, harbour company etc. land. If NCP know who the driver was, they can claim from the driver for breaking their rules, but not from the keeper. In your case, only TfL can for breaking their byelaws, and that would be case in the magistrate's court and there is a time limit of six months. NCP know that, which is why all they, and their partners, can do is keep sending letters - increasing the amount each time, and various threats of county court action and County Court Judgements, and sometimes a reduced amount, hoping that the person will pay. So, if the driver is not identified, NCP have no authority to claim from the keeper for breaking their rules. TfL would need to take action within 6 months if was considered to be a byelaw offence (which it doesn't appear to be).
-
According to: https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/car-park-asset-list.xlsx it is one of theirs. And the byelaws: https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/terms-and-conditions/byelaws#on-this-page-0 Apply - especially Railway Byelaw 14 in respect of parking.,
-
Check if the car park is covered by TfL/LU and their bye-laws. If it is, the Protection of Freedoms Act will not apply, so nor will keeper liability.
-
£40 + £19.47 sounds like the Late Licensing Penalty plus the outstanding duty - s.7A, Vehicles Excise & Registration Act 1994. The second one would be for the offence of using an unlicensed vehicle - s.29 of the same act.
-
Advice insufficient tyre tread?
Raykay replied to onestressedwoman's topic in Speeding and Motoring Offences
The requirement is a minimum tread depth of 1.5mm in a continuous band, so if the point where the tyre was checked the depth is less than 1.5mm, it will not be a continuous band of 1.5mm, and so not be compliant. -
Sheriff orders woman to pay £24,500 parking invoices
Raykay replied to paulwlton's topic in Private Land Parking Enforcement
Sch. 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 does not apply in Scotland, so there is no keeper liability there. However, as in this case, if the driver is identified it is no different to England & Wales in respect of claiming from the driver. -
charged for insurance with more than points than what was valid
Raykay replied to lynzfa's topic in Motor Insurance
Insurance companies normally require notification of points awarded for 5 years. They are valid for 3 years for 'totting' purposes and remain on the licence for 4 years. -
Generally it is 79 to 86 in a 70 limit, but it will depend on the local force criteria.
-
The £80 Late Licensing Penalty - s.7A, Vehicles Excise & Registration Act 1994 - is treated as a civil debt due to the crown, which is why the DVLA employ debt collectors to collect it on their behalf. If an appeal is not accepted, and the penalty is not paid, the matter could become a claim in the County Court. An alternative is prosecution for keeping an unlicensed vehicle - s.29 of the same act.
-
Yes, unless it is exempt, a registered vehicle is required to be licensed wherever it is. A SORN is one of the exemptions, and for that to be valid, the vehicle must not be kept or used on a public road.
-
As is often the case with the .gov.uk website, it should not be relied on for accurate advice. For a car, the VED would be based on the emissions, for a van based on the same vehicle it is fixed at £230.
-
Is it a Light Goods Vehicle? The VED for them is £230.
-
Parking company breaching DPA
Raykay replied to Crackpott's topic in Private Land Parking Enforcement
it could depend on who the DCA are claiming on behalf of - the parking company or as in the MIL case, themselves. -
He would have only needed the form the V890 for SORN - obtainable from a main Post Offices, or download from the .gov.uk website.
-
If you were the Registered Keeper at the time, and the vehicle was not insured (or exempt), you would be guilty of the offence - s.144A, Road Traffic Act 1988. If the vehicle had been declared SORN, it would have been exempt.
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS