........

I saw some videos on You Tube recently (I presume I am allowed to mention the name of the internet site where I saw this:rolleyes:) where it showed clips from the BBC program about bailiffs. They were cruising around with their ANPR looking for cars with unpaid tickets. They found a Ferrari but when they checked they discovered the keeper had changed so they were unable tot ake any action because of this. I don't see that it is any different for you now that your father is the registered keeper of the car. They shouldn't be able to touch it.

DVLA are not the most efficient of organisations so it might be better for you to phone them. You have the licence in your possesion along with your licence number so at least you have the proof that a licence was actually issued. As for using your parents address, there is nothing wrong with you doing that in your current cicumstances.

It certainly shows up the folly of CCTV enforcement in situations such as you describe. You had followed the rules yet you still had to go through the process of informal resolution to get the PCN cancelled. No doubt G & M will be along soon to support the LA:rolleyes:

It seems that when you bought the bike that you did all the right things in respect of having a HPI check. It was not your fault that the insurance company failed to record the fact that the bike was a Cat C write off and you have the paperwork to back you up on that. It was only investigation by your claimant that revealed this. It might be worth your while to do another HPI check on the bike to see what it shows up now. As for where you stand, it is still very much a case of buyer beware and I don't believe the case put before the court will alter that in any way.

Assuming the local authority have fully complied with the law of course

I think Nero may have been referring you to Pepipoo. If you do a google search on it you should find the link to take you there. Quite why the mods are removing links to useful sites is beyond me!

You are entitled to see the video evidence they have so I would contact them and ask for a viewing.

CPS are a nasty little company (in my humble opinion) and they have been known to take people to the small claims court, so it is possible they will not go away. Should they take this course of action come back here or go to pepipoo.com and post in their parking section. There are several people there who know them well and will be able to assist you.

If you have already notified DVLA I wouldn't worry too much about them taking retrospective action on this. I would concentrate on getting back the money you have paid out from the courts.

Did you ever receive any correspondance after you wrote in with your representations? You should have received a NTO (notice to owner) which would have listed your options to appeal and if you had failed to respond to this then the authority would have sent out a charge certificate. If you have not received these documents then you will need to file a statutory declaration at the TEC Northampton. This link (I hope the mods won't remove it) should assist you in the process you will need to follow. [COMMERCIAL LINK REMOVED] The above will apply if it was a local authority issued PCN. If it was issued by a private company then it is a very differnt ball game! PS I see the Mods have seen fit to remove a link that would have been very useful for the OP. Such is life!

And when you delve deeper into many of them errors by the local authorities swiftly become apparant. Only in your book:rolleyes: But that is unsurprising given your unstinting support of the local authorities. Another bit of spin applied by G & M of the facts relating to speed enforcement. But only to be expected from someone who hates personal transport almost as much as Ken Livingstone.

Given the failure of many local authorities to comply with the regulations on how they should be marked, and their failure to maintain them properly, it is no surprise that people get confused.

And what is wrong with that? If local authorities are getting it wrong then others should be able to follow suit and claim their money back. If local authorities were acting within the law then you wouldn't get situations like this arising.

In your opinion of course:rolleyes: Wouldn't the cross over owner in this instance be the local authority? And if the crossover is no longer in use why should it be enforced? Surely the local authority should be revoking it as soon as it's status changes, rather than leaving it and allowing their CEOs to rack up additional revenue.

If the posts had were permanent and meant that the dropped footway could not be used then that would be a point worth taking up, but it is moot as you have decided to pay.

The zig zag areas are there to afford both pedestrians and drivers good visibility at a crossing, so by parking there the visibility is reduced making the crossing more dangerous. I personally believe that this is one you will have to put down to experience and pay and take the points.

I wouldn't give up just yet. You said the posts were concreted so you have nothing to lose, so why not write a letter making informal representations pointing this out. By making the informal reps the local authority will usually extend the time you have to settle at the reduced figure.I would also suggest you got to pepipoo.com and post in their parking section on this one as well. You don't have to listen to posters like Green and Mean (the champion of the local authorities).

Pedestrians and cyclists don't have to worry about the PCN offence codes, how long they have to pay at the reduced amount etc etc. All they have to worry about if a vehicle is causing them a problem or not. It's not rocket science from their perspective. It is certainly intriguing that you as a pedestrian or cyclist have taken it upon yourself to find out so much about decriminalised parking, and that you come on here fighting the battle on behalf of the local authorities. Are you sure you don't work for a local authority in connection with parking matters?

G & M, For someone who doesn't drive you sure have a high interest in parking matters. Are you sure you don't work for a local authority in some capacity that involves parking?

Another example. It is legal for motorcyclists to filter between slow moving traffic in the UK but it is illegal in Germany. If I was to travel to Germany and filter and get stopped by the police, would I then be able to say that as it is legal in the UK they can't touch me?

They only have to lay the information in the magistrates court within 6 months, it doesn't have to be served within the 6 months. Unless it's for the offence of failing to notify the driver where they get an extra 28 days for that.

If the officer saw you alledgely committing the offence on the public road then it won't make any difference that he/she eventually stopped you in a private car park. The alleged failure of the officer to complete the bottom of your form is unlikely to make any difference either. You have effectively been a fixed penalty notice with an invitation for you to either pay the £60 and get the endoresement on your licence or taking up the option of contesting the matter in court. If you choose the latter then information will have to be laid at the local magistrates court and a summons issued. If you want more advise on how to potentially tackle this I suggest you pop across to pepipoo.com as there are a number of people there who will be able to advise you.

EDIT - Personal remark removed Now, let's get back to your point. Say I travelled to a EU country where it is a requirement to carry a roadside warning triangle in case of a breakdown or a spare bulb kit, but I didn't comply with their laws, are you saying that I could say to the local officers of the law that as it is not a legal requirement for me to carry either in the UK that they should treat me as if I was back in the UK? As for the tax disc issue, good luck with that one should you ever come down to England and get reported for it.

I think you know the answer to your unhelpful rant:rolleyes: