This is why I think it would be sensible (and reasonable) for the father to ask the court to make a restricted supervised contact order with an initial frequency of about 2 hours a week. I don't think that they will order anything like overnight or weekend contact at this stage. I totally understand the issues here... i've been through them myself with the other side's family. But you must put the child's interests first otherwise the child may not thank you in later life.

There must be reasons for the application to be made in the first place. At the first hearing (which would be directions) the court would normally ask for statements from both parties at the same time of asking for the CAFCASS report if the application is being contested.

Think you are getting a bit over the top now TBH. There would be a long legal road to negotiate before you would get to that stage!

Only if it is a directions hearing on Tuesday, otherwise it's too late now. This is the drawback of not seeking advice earlier. A solicitor would of prepared one for you or I could of certainly told you how to do it. Did the applicant make a statement to support the application?

Well I am in that exact position. Following my successful application involving my eldest son, I did move away, some 180 miles away to be exact. BUT despite the animosity between myself, the child's mother and the maternal family, I actually made the 6 hour round trip each month so that my son had contact with his mother as I considered that is what HE wanted, over what I wanted. Having said that, although the court will no doubt order some form of contact (which will simply state that the resident parent will make the child AVAILABLE for contact), it cannot (as far as i'm aware) order that you actually deliver the child for contact. It would be up to the applicant to collect and return the child. HOWEVER if supervised contact is ordered, it would be then open to argue where the contact should take place which could, by de-fault compel the resident parent to deliver the child to the contact venue. I suppose if the OP is that way inclined, they could agree to the whole application (which CAFCASS may not agree to in court due to the child's age) and then move away forcing the applicant to do all the travelling (as the order would simply state the child will be "made available" for contact) of which the OP is saying that the applicant won't travel. BUT is that acting in the child's best interest? There is the chance that further down the line, this could back and haunt the Father.

The problem is that it matters not to the court about anything else but the child in the application. The applicant's lack of contact with the the child's Father and their respective relationship has little to do with this application. No doubt the court will express some sympathy but that's' as far as it will go. Only will they consider refusing the application if there is any evidence of any potential risk (either emotionally or physically) to the child put forward. If it is any consolation, I certainly don't think that the applicant will get the level of contact which is being demanded.

Nothing. But the grand parent's have rights also which can be enforced by a court. Like it or not, that's the way it works.

I am painfully aware how long this process takes and obviously this has progressed significantly from when the problems started so it's a pity you didn't come here sooner for advice. As I said, moving away will not stop or prevent the court order being enforced (just like any other). You and your partner need to distance yourselves from the issues between the applicant and the best interests of the child which will be reflected in the CAFCASS report. Your partner should of made a written formal statement in response of the section 7 report and filed it at court by the times given in the directions hearing. Any concerns in relation to the sec 7 report should of been raised in the statement. They can also be raised at the full hearing where the CAFCASS reporter will normally attend. Unless you are related to the child, you probably will not be allowed to attend the actual hearing. But the bottom line is that you MUST try and resist using the child as a weapon. The courts deal with these matters on a daily basis (unfortunately) and will spot the unreasonable party easily. You need the court on your side and the only option you have with the absence of any proof of any emotional or physical related convictions which the court may consider to be a risk to the child, is to agree some form of contact which dosn't necessarily have to be what the applicant is demanding.

FURTHER: Is there any police record or criminal conviction of any violence, physical abuse or similar of the applicant?

No doubt your partner had his opportunity to put his 'argument' forward when he was interviewed by CAFCASS and his feelings are reflected in the report. BUT you must understand that the court will only be interested in what is best for the child concerned. Your only hope of getting the application refused is to bring up a valid reason (such as you have reason to be concerned about the care during contact the applicant will offer the child or the child is at risk either physically or emotionally) that the court will consider. They will expect you to back up any such claim though. The court will certainly not consider what either you, your partner OR the applicant wants... they will focus on what is in the best interests of the child. By the sound of it, your partner hasn't convinced CAFCASS that there are any issues with the application so my advice would be as above as I would say the court will order some form of contact. It would be better if your partner took some control over it by suggesting supervised and less frequent contact than what the applicant is asking for. At least you will keep the court on your side by being reasonable. As for moving away, that wouldn't stop the consequences of breaching a contact/court order which, in extreme cases, can result ultimately in imprisonment. Has your partner considered seeing a family solicitor who offer a initial free consultation? Obviously I don't know the full history of your partner's history involving the paternal family side but I doubt it was more 'hostile' to the one I went through. I felt the same way, trust me but in the end they were totally unreasonable and I got custody (now referred to residence) of BOTH my sons and i'm their Father! I am more than happy to advise you accurately of the process involved and what to expect. BUT it may not necessarily be what you want to hear.

Hmm, I would of thought that to bring a successful prosecution, they will need some evidence in the form of some CCTV footage of the 'incident' or a witness statement. Both of which should be made available to you prior to any court hearing. Have you spoken to a solicitor yet about this?

Ok, i've been through this recently AND off and on over the last 20 years! In the last case, I simply represented myself and had my ex-partner's application rejected. Fist of all, legal funding has now ceased for straight forward family matters so unless there are real compelling reasons (such as neglect or abuse etc), you won't get it. By the sounds of it, CAFCASS have done their stuff which would of entailed interviewing both parties and the child concerned. Sec 7 report will also involve welfare checks. They would also check with the child's school or nursery when applicable. If the report is in the applicant's favour, then it is highly likely that the application will be granted and the subsequent order(s) will be made. Emphasis will always be in what is in the child's best interests above and beyond the feelings/wishes of the parents. However, consideration will be taken of the child's age and the relationship he/she has had with the absent parent. If the applicant hasn't had much contact with the child, you could argue that you consider that it would be inappropriate for the court to make an un-restricted contact order so perhaps a supervised order would be more suitable. Obviously there is most likely animosity between the parties so contact could be arranged through Spurgeons who host supervised contact sessions. Realistically from the information given, it would be my advice to consider an offer of contact which you can propose to the other party, starting with some form of supervision given the child's age. As for the duration, I would suggest a frequency of 2 hours a week in total for a interim period of 3 months to get the child acquainted with the applicant. This would no doubt in the court making an interim order which would be reviewed after the agreeable period has elapsed. I would almost certainly suggest that with a positive CAFCASS report (for the applicant) that there is no point being difficult as the court will almost definitely follow the recommendations in the report. However, I would not necessarily agree to all the applicants demands in the frequency and duration of the contact. Simply make the court consider that too much, too soon would not be in the child's best interest given his/her age. My last point (but quite happy to advise further on this) is do not, under any circumstances, use the child as a 'pawn' to wage a dispute with the applicant (they would be best advised not to do the same). Courts will not be impressed by any unreasonableness from either side.

I think the adjudicator would refer to the highway code in respect of turning in the road. I think you are not supposed to mount the footpath to do so. I also think it would be a gamble pursing this further.

Dosn't your original post state: "charge 62 - Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of the road other than a carriageway"?

Category D1 (mini-buses) = between 9 and 16 passenger seats Category D (buses) = Any bus with more than eight passenger seats with a trailer up to 750kg https://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/@motor/documents/digitalasset/dg_4011275.pdf

Excuse me? "Doing it again" when it was my first post on the thread? I detect an attitude problem here when the OP isn't liking what he is hearing! For your information I have been on the receiving end of this in may different ways (both as a coach and a bus driver) and I can categorically tell you that what I posted earlier is FACT whether you like it or not. As someone has previously said, a restricted bus stop dosn't need a traffic order and is exactly what it says on the tin; RESTRICTED meaning that only buses operating in a stage carriage capacity relating to the route to which the bus stop is part of, can legitimately stop there. If however the bus stop is 'unmarked' by the thick yellow line and no supporting sign, then the stop is not restricted thus meaning a coach could use it. While working at West Midlands Travel as a union rep, I once had to deal with a driver who had stopped on a restricted bus stop while running off service to wait for a colleague to visit an adjacent cash point. He received a ticket which we appealed using your argument. The appeal failed and we were "educated" then about when you can use a restricted bus stop and when you cannot. The yellow plate sign merely has to display the wording "Except buses" for the stop to be restricted although "Except Local Buses" is a permitted variant. However, ultimately it would be for an adjudicator to decide each particular case but that would be a bit of a gamble if you were not operating in service when the PCN was issued.

Looking at the original question and speaking as a former coach (and bus) driver myself, i've yet to come across a destination which hasn't had some form of parking facilities for coaches. Equally, I haven't come across many car parks where you could get a coach in, let alone park. Therefore there are occasions where the driver may have to park some distance away from where he has dropped his passengers off. Most large towns and cities have parking facilities for coaches of some sort. When operating a private hire, the hirer would normally pay for any parking charges (this was the policy at the firms I worked for) but obviously when operating an "off the board" or excursion, then the coach operator would reimburse the driver for parking. I think that most local authorities recognise that unlike a car, you just can't park a coach anywhere. But as it has already been said, coaches can drop off and pick on double yellows providing that they are not doing so near a junction, on a bend or in any other place which would cause a hazard to other road users and they are not "parked" for longer than necessary.

Not if the bus stop is a 'restricted one' defined by a thick yellow line running though it kerb-side and supported by a yellow plate with the wording "no stopping except buses" and a clearway symbol upon it, UNLESS the vehicle is operating on a stage carriage service of which the bus stop is part of it's registered route. Even a local service bus operating a private hire or running out of service cannot stop at a restricted bus stop. Similar rules apply to bus lanes and bus gates. Bus lanes which are part of a registered stage carriage route are restricted to buses (or coaches) operating on that service. Hackney carriages are also allowed to use bus lanes BUT private hire 'taxis' are not. A coach operating on an excursion, tour or private hire come under different legislation to coaches operating on a registered stage carriage service.

Fixed that for you. Speaking as a fully fledged Fiat owner and having worked in after sales at a main dealer, I can safely say that they are no more prone to failure than any other car. I currently have a MK2 Punto (HGT version) on a W plate (2000) with 75k on the clock and it runs like it's half the age that it is. I would say that if the mileage is genuine, then £620 isn't a bad price (especially if it's a higher spec model) for the car. So now we've cleared that up, lets move on to the solution to the problem. I actually concur with Ssparks advice in post #2. It's clear that the seller is a trader so all you can do is consider your options (which both will no doubt end up in court). You can either write to the seller (no point phoning any more) and give him the opportunity to rectify saying that if he dosn't, you will get the job done yourself and pursue him for the cost (this would be my preferred option considering how much you paid for the car and assuming there isn't any other issues), or formally reject the car (again, if he dosn't or isn't prepared to rectify) Either way I think that the seller is a wrong 'un and will play the system. Make sure you make him fully aware that as far as you are concerned, he is NOT a private seller. Send all your letters by recorded delivery and keep copies. Please keep us posted.

The LA applies for a recovery order via the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at the Northampton Court Centre. This is then issued to a licensed bailiff who can remove goods to the value. There is no hearing involved.

Which "court" deals with the non payment of PCN's?

AFAIK there is quite a lengthy process that goes on before reaching this stage. The bailiffs will be acting on an order issued by the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at the Northampton Court centre. By this time it is out of the issuing authority's hands so the OP should of applied to the TEC to have the charge certificate (or warrant) set aside to enable him to file a defence. Me thinks that nothing can be done now in terms of seeking any refund. The horse has bolted as it were. Happy to be corrected though.

Very pleased for you and as you say, the bus lane isn't compliant anyway unless things have changed since my last post on this thread.

Correct apart from that bit. Assuming the OP was caught by a camera, first you get a NIP (Notice of intended prosecution) which you complete and send back. Then they will either send out a FPN or an offer to attend a speed awareness course providing you haven't been offered one within the last 3 years. You can only contest the FPN by attending court. If you get a FPN, then you couldn't of met the criteria for the course.

You will stand a good chance of wasting your time (and money) of pursing this unless you establish whether or not the seller is a trader. Private sellers are pretty much immune from the SOGA unless they deliberately/knowingly falsely advertise a car. I'm not sure that by not divulging these "advisories" would be enough ammunition in brining a successful claim. The issues weren't serious enough IMHO. My advice is to do some detective work and establish first that the seller is actually a trader which will increase your chances dramatically.