The rules they cite refer to orders for the disclosure of documents.

Because you will get judgment but the clamping company will never pay up. The clampers will then have no/insufficient assets to enforce the judgment.

* You

I concur, but I have seen benches make some pretty bizarre decisions

Yeah the case would normally be made against the OP and the LBA will say that the insurance company will have to be informed. The insurance company will then act for the client. I got the impression that the OP's insurance co was not acting because of the confusion at renewal; I am probably wrong - maybe the OP could confirm whether they are getting involved?

I am sure you will appreciate that it is important to look at these things from both sides.

I think another aspect of this that needs to be addressed is the fact that the claim is being made against the OP rather than an insurance Co.

I know the stretch of road well. You will find that there is no statutory defence to speeding (though some general defences apply.) The facts surrounding your case will be good mitigation though. However, to play devils advocate and highlight something that may be raised: Were you acting in a medical emergency? Your son was being conveyed to the hospital by ambulance and I assume that you were following so that you could attend. The question that would be raised would be this: was it necessary for you to exceed the speed limit? If the ambulance had gone through a red light, would you have followed? Those are not necessarily my opinions, but they are factors that may be considered by the bench.

I think you are mistaken.

Nope!

I am sure that it will raise awareness, which is a good thing. That does not detract from the fact that it is an appalling piece of writing.

It is a load of rubbish. 1) It promotes people to "fight back" when ignoring them can be just as effective 2) As Green and Mean said, it makes it look like the PPC situation has only just been uncovered 3) It's the Daily Mail

Mungypup, I can assure you that I have conducted extensive research into the area of law.

Castle Doctrine. That is one of the many names given to the position in the USA. Essentially, it is a case of shoot now, ask questions later. To a lot of people, this seems to be the ideal law. Imagine it: You are in bed and you hear noises. You grab your trusty gun and head out of your room. You see a figure in the darkness. You shoot them dead. Job done - you just saved your possessions and your family and shot a burglar... or maybe you just mistakenly shot your child or anyone who happened to be in the house. Castle law, it has been argued, is a license to kill and there are serious doubts as to its effectiveness - in fact some wonder whether it is being used by gangs as a tool to kill people and escape conviction. The main issue though is that mistakes have been made. In some cases, drunks have happened to call at the wrong door and get shot. Trick or Treaters have been shot and there are countless cases where unarmed individuals who pose no immediate threat are killed. The UK law, as you say, looks at reasonable force. There is authority for the view that juries should consider that the person who used force did not have the luxury of weighing up the pros and cons of particular action. You say that if you felt threatened, you would use all force necessary. That would be fine. I cannot think of a case where a person has been convicted for using necessary force to protect their homes - you indicate that there are many such cases. I would like to see some. I have seen cases of the UK law at work - this blind man in Manchester who killed an intruder was not convicted: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/mar/19/clairecozens and neither was this home owner: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2550627.stm However, Tony Martin was convicted - though the person he killed was running away from him. I like to believe that most people in the UK respect the sanctity of human life. It would be a shame to copy what we see in America where one lives in a constant state of paranoia, shooting anything that moves.

No it wouldn't: longer jail sentences do not lead to a reduction in crime. We do have the right to protect our property. I do think the Justice system should be changed though. There needs to be much more investment during the investigation phase, the trial and there is the need for extensive investment into the disposal of those convicted - with an emphasis on rehabilitation to ensure lower re offending rates.

The killing of Bin Laden could have been a crime - it all depends on the events that unfolded inside the building in which he was found and the orders which the US soldiers received. If Bin Laden was taken alive, it must be realised that the resulting detention and trial of him would be fraught with difficulties and risks. However, this begs the question: do we abandon the rule of law just because implementing it is difficult?

Although this is of little consolation to the OP, I must ask: Does no one, apart from me, check that the ticket is visible on the dashboard after shutting the door and before leaving the car?

It is legal to walk or cycle on a dual carriageway. In fact, one may walk on all roads except motorways unless signs say otherwise. An example of this would be the A282, otherwise known as the Dartford-Thurrock crossing. While this stretch of road is not a motorway, signs forbid pedestrians and cyclists. The law concerning motorways is contained in the Motorways Traffic (England & Wales) Regulations 1982. While it may be legal to cycle or walk down the A12, I would not recommend it: http://www.thisistotalessex.co.uk/news/A12-Lorry-driver-fault-death/article-1290521-detail/article.html In the above news article, it is pointed out that walking along the A12 is not illegal... just unwise!

It is possible to subscribe to the thread by clicking "thread tools" and then "Subscribe to thread" at the top of the first post. Back to the matter in hand - My first thoughts would be to start making some records of the incidents. These can then be shown to the police and to the council. This is really a first step in what can be (unfortunately) a long process. The records can be diary entries but video/ audio records of the incidents would be better.

I know this reply is a little late, but some more info would be good - there are some instances whereby the innocent purchaser could obtain good title.

I assume that the difference is that a bus gate renders a whole section of road off limits to normal traffic. Where as a bus lane merely apportions a part of the road for the use of buses leaving the rest of the road available for normal traffic. I imagine the signs would be similar - in that they declare the road or parts thereof (in respect to bus lanes) off limits to normal traffic. The simple way of dealing with this is to not drive on any road or on a part of any road which is sign posted as being for buses only.

Likewise. This is about discretion. How the officer dealt with the offence is his prerogative. The OP came across as believing that it was his god given right to receive a VDRS form rather than a FPN, especially where he says the officer failed to "follow protocol." This is further aggravated by the nature of the offence - in that the OP had gone out of his way to flout the law fully aware of the risks. Any judgment as to the conduct of the officer should be reserved considering that the only account we have is from the OP who is obviously not going to be best pleased. I do not think that it reads as if the officer was arrogant - it was in fact the OP who was obstructive. Although the OP offered to change the plate then and there, the offence had already been committed. The officer was correct in his judgment that the OP was willing to flout the law (given that the OP changes the plates in order to get the car through an MOT.) It seems clear that to allow the OP to change the plates would not have been satisfactory since the OP would have merely swapped them back over again at a later date.

I don't think it is fair to suggest that the officer was arrogant or a "know it all" when essentially, the police officer was correct. The offence is there for a good reason - there has to be some sort of standard that registration plates have to meet.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/22/contents Sections 42 and 43 state that conviction renders the offender liable to a fine only.

It is a non endorseable offence.