I did post up a reply to this earlier, but it took 4 days for it to appear:rolleyes: and when it did it found its way into the NHS forum! Lets hope this one gets posted more promptly. It's necessary to seperate the initial actions of assisting the bailiffs (which has stopped) and the action by the professional standards branch against Watching You, as they are 2 seperate issues. Watching you has stated that he has made a number of complaints against GMP, and they have now decided to deal with him as vexatious/unreasonably persistent. They do have to follow procedures and they have to prove to the IPCC that they have done so. Look at page 37 here and it explains the procedure. http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/stat_guidelines.pdf I agree with the level of knowledge within GMP on this. It is something that could not have been agreed at divisional level (i.e station level) and would have had to have been agreed within the HQ somewhere.

What about details of a persons qualifications, do you think that should be made available?

If the goods were recovered by the store, then what is there for the store to claim under the RLP scheme? If they took someone to court who didn't pay what they were claiming, what would be the loss for them to attempt to claim back in such circumstances?

He should have been given a NIP no later than 14 days after the offence, unless police turned up at the scene and gave him a verbal NIP.

To what extent did you take responsibility? Did you say that you own the vehicle or anything like that?

When this case goes to court, if you plead not guilty then the DVLA will be obliged to serve you with copies of the evidence they will be relying on to prosecute you. This will include the so called admission of liability. Do you remember the form that your letter took when you wrote to DVLA on behalf of your father?

It is most likely the vexatious complainant policy that Watchingyou has most likely fallen foul of. All police services will have such a policy, as do other public bodies like local authorities and the NHS. It would be a good idea for him/her to write to the PSD and ask them to supply a copy of their policy. I had experience of this recently when NHS Suffolk tried to apply it to me. I have been fighting the NHS to pay for my fathers nursing home costs, and they tried to label me as an unreasonably persistent complainer and then threatened me with legal action if I "persisted with writing aggressive and derogatory" letters to them. I replied by advising them they had not followed their own policies and that to threaten someone without intending to carry out the threat was harassment under the POH act. I gave them 14 days to either take action against me, or to write to advise me they were not going to take action. They backed down as they had no basis whatsoever to label me in the way they had. If GMP have not followed their own policy correctly then it would be the basis for another complaint. If their policy is similar to the NHS one then there should be efforts made to advise that they are considering the use of the policy and to try and reach agreement to allow a complainer to modify their behaviour, before they take the step of labelling them as vexatious.

I would suggest that you write back to the Met and ask them if they can provide you with a photograph to assist you with identifying the driver of the vehicle. Wait until the 28 days you have been given are almost up before making the request. Do not ask them for evidence as they don't have to supply you with any prior to any trial being heard, just ask for the photo to assist with identification of the driver. A Google search of "fightback forums" could be fruitful for you too, in terms of additional advice.

It looks like they are treating you as a vexatious complainer or an unreasonably persistent complainer, but without actually going as far as to state that to you. Perhaps you should ask them for a copy of their policy on how they deal with complaints which they feel are vexatious or made by people they regard as unreasonably persistent complainers. I have been going through this process with the NHS and when I requested a copy of their policy it revealed they had not followed it properly. Perhaps this is the same with GMP.

Indeed it is, but it isn't helped when you make sweeping statements such as the ones you have made in this thread. As for your assumptions about my intent, you are way off beam there. And finally, remember one thing. CAG is an open forum where any member can post their views, regardless of whether or not you like them. The fact remains there are always two sides to every story, and we haven't even heard yours on this issue. All we have seen is you making comments that are ill advised, especially in the way you have slurred an entire profession based on the one incident you complain about, but strangely, you have not even told us what actually happened. You may well have your reasons for not stating what has happened, but it doesn't do much for your credibility by not saying what happened.

I am wondering how they can summons you for the offence when you are neither the registered keeper of the vehicle or the owner. All you have done is to represent your father. As for delaying your plans to go to Spain, why would you do that? if you have a job offer to go for why should you lose out because of an incompetent organisation! I would travel out there. They haven't served a summons on you as yet so don't put your life on hold for them.

What is the rationale for removing the search facilty on a moderated account?

I've not heard of a 15 percent rule. What I do know is that the legal limit for alcohol in the breath is 35. Some forces will charge if above that level, others will charge if the reading is 40 or over. If a person provides a sample that is between 40 and 50 then they can opt to provide a blood sample, but it is thier decision and not for the police to decide. If the sample provided is over 50 then there is no option to provide a blood sample.

Hertfordshire Police appealed to the House of Lords after the original judgement and their appeal was allowed. http://www.lawreports.co.uk/WLRD/2008/HLPC/jul0.8.htm House of Lords hands down van Colle judgment | News | Garden Court North - Garden Court North Barrister Chambers

You need to clarify who issued the ticket. Was it a local authority issued PCN (penalty charge notice) or issued by a PPC (private parking company). This is crucial information as it will affect the way you approach this matter.

Is this the diet of proof hearing?

Health and safety law is another area where if you are prosecuted you have to prove your innocence too.

The main issue will be what is in the original notes made by the officer who wrote out the ticket. If your son pleads not guilty then he will be entitled to see the evidence that the prosecution will be relying on to prove their case. If they have made a mistake in typing out the summons or papers from the court then they can make corrections.

Is it the summons that has the wrong reg number on it or is it other documentation?

If they have got the name of the road incorrect then you should be able to write back to the council and advise them that the PCN should be cancelled as the location is incorrect. I have had PCN's cancelled on this basis in the past, once where the post code entered was incorrect and the other time when the CEO put the location as being south of a particular street when it was in fact north.

Pat is right, it is not necessary to produce a driving licence to buy a car. Dealers will ask for a driving licence as it is a form of ID (at least the photocards are), but other ID would be acceptable. edited

He is under no obligation to disclose to the PPC who was driving. And if they pass it to a debt collection agency there is little they can do to enforce it. Read the stickies at the top of the page to get more insight into these types of "invoices".

... it's time to get back to the OP's original post. Who have you been in touch with at DVLA? Have you tried a local VRO (Vehicle Registration Office)? Another thing to bear in mind is the possibility that DVLA recorded it incorrectly on their records when it was first registered. So it's 4 months since you sent off the application for a V5? Have you chased them up or is this where they have said one won't be issued until the vehicle has been inspected? It's a tough way to learn. Which of the VINS was missing from the vehicle, was it the visible VIN that is usually in the windscreen or the stamped in one that is usually on the engine bay bulkhead or on the floor of the vehicle by the drivers seat? Are you refrring to a HPI check? Have they confirmed this apparant policy in writing to you? If there are doubts as to the true identity of the car then it will be checked by the police, that is normal procedure. If you have told the insurer you are the registered keeper of the vehicle and you have yet to receive the V5 because of the pending examination then that could cause problems with the insurance. There could be big problems if the provenance of the car is suspect and yet you make an attempt to sell it on.

Callumsgran, Do you have proof that not having road tax invalidates your insurance?