I'm not the OP. (You seem to have replied to me as if I am... ) I am a bit confused though... In #10 you said: "... read this for what is actually going on here... A highway authority (usually the local authority) has the power to levy an excess charge if the parking place is covered by a Traffic Regulation Order under the 84 act. This is not a fine no matter when it is paid to the highway authority. If the driver does not pay within the specified time then the highway authority has the power to start legal criminal proceedings. Only if the court imposes a fine does the payment stop being a charge... " I took that to mean that you were suggesting to the OP that in his case the City Council had the power under the 1984 Act to start criminal proceedings against him in respect of this unpaid PCN. (If you didn't mean to suggest that I'm not sure why you would have posted it... ) Despite what you said in #14 the Charge Certificate clearly relates to an unpaid PCN and not an ECN, so I'm (1) somewhat dubious that this is an ECN and (2) I doubt there could ever be any criminal sanction for the OP. Or am I mistaken? Also, is it still the view that the OP is personally liable for this PCN even if the vehicle was rented in the name of a limited company? (I presume the lease company must have transferred liability to the OP's limited company)

But does that pdf show an Excess Charge Notice as opposed to a Charge Certificate which has been issued because of non-payment of a PCN? (As I said, I'm probably wrong, but I thought the two were entirely different things. I thought that council PCNs related to de-criminalised parking offences and remained purely civil matters, and that Excess Charge Notices were entirely separate from PCNs and related to parking offences that were still criminal matters. An example might be the ECNs issued for parking infringements in places like the Royal Parks in London and which if unpaid could end up in a magistrates court. The pdf seems to refer to a PCN being unpaid rather than an ECN being unpaid. Or have I got completely the wrong end of the stick?)

I'm not familiar with Liverpool City Council parking so I'm probably wrong, but is this clearly an Excess Charge Notice as opposed to a common or garden PCN? The council won't have any power to initiate criminal proceedings if it's not paid, will they? And if the limited company which hired the van has no money or other assets, can the council still pursue the OP? Can they do so because it's an Excess Charge Notice?

OK. Will be interesting to see the contracts* then. I note that A Shade Greener are known to the forum... *I don't see how you can acquire a contractual obligation through a property purchase without your solicitor becoming aware of it and telling you. Unless your vendors were telling porkies...

Surely your solicitor (who did your conveyancing on the purchase of the property) drew your attention to this at the time? Even if they were of the opinion that

If the comments were made by "the accused's representative" (by which I assume you mean their lawyer or some sort of union legal rep?) then they would not have been made under oath or affirmation. The accused's rep would be there simply to put forward their defence and to present their case, not to give evidence as a witness. Did they actually implicate you by name, or did they simply put forward an alternative explanation for the accumulated medication that could have involved various people other than the accused (which might possibly - but not necessarily - have included you)? I'm a former NHS manager myself. Are you by any chance in a profession regulated by a body like the HCPC or are you a member of a professional organisation? If I were you, I think my first port of call would be to ask the HCPC/NMC and my professional body whether proceedings in fitness to practice hearings can be the subject of a defamation claim. Like unclebulgaria, I suspect that the proceedings will be privileged and you will have no claim. You can try researching the law yourself, but beyond what I've suggested above, I suspect you'd be wasting your time. I'm a law graduate and I would not trust myself to come up with the right answers in an area like this. You really need paid for professional legal advice if you want even to consider pursuing this. As Honeybee has said, I believe the court fees just to initiate a defamation claim are c. £10k, and so far as I'm aware that's before any lawyer's fees are taken account of. You need very deep pockets to start a defamation claim...

I have just re-read posts #251 - #255 and I don't know whether to laugh hysterically or to scream loudly in frustration!!! @simeon1964 - I'm afraid that nobody has a clue as to WTF you are babbling incoherently on about... You've been asked several times on this thread and on the previous thread (1) to put your posts into context so people can clearly understand whether you are asking a question or making a statement, and what that question or statement is; (2) to set them out logically and clearly; (3) to indicate clearly when you are quoting from another document so others understand they are not your own words; (4) if you are quoting from another document, tell us what that document is and who it is from. And yet here we are 9 or 10 months down the line and it's still happening. Just earlier this month @FTMDave felt compelled to post this in response to you and I appreciate that English is not your first language but I doubt that what you post would make any more sense if it were written in Swahili, Yoruba, Asante Twi or Ancient Greek. @FTMDave and I spent hours earlier this year trying to help you draft the particulars of your counter-claim, but I feel it's like banging my head against a brick wall and it's incredibly frustrating and draining - because you don't seem to take anything on board. It feels like a complete waste of time. And that's not to mention the fact that you got a court order dated 5th August with a deadline for action 28 days later, but you didn't bother to tell anybody here about it until 19 days after it was issued...

???????????????????

Well if I were you I would find out everything I could about the three surveyors nominated as expert witnesses by the claimant. Haven't you already had a surveyor assess the poor standard of workmanship by the claimant? Why don't you ask them if they have anything to say about the three experts nominated by your opponent? And I don't see why you shouldn't be able to put forwards three nominations yourself. Apart from the surveyor who assessed the "negligent" work done on your house (who I assume you would not be able to nominate as an independent expert anyway) do you know any?

From their spelling of "license" and web address of .com I presume they are American(?). Their terms say that the contract is governed "... by the laws of the School Owner’s home jurisdiction... " which makes me wonder if it's some sort of franchise - surely the business ought to be able to state which country has jurisdiction over it? Regardless of whether UK consumer legislation applies or not, I'm not sure you have any grounds for a refund on a "change of mind" basis if you have actually accessed the course materials...

Who is that from?

Well I suppose I shouldn't really be surprised that you both think that posting wrong advice on a public forum is a laughing matter.

Double yellow lines apply to everything up to the property line - including road, pavement, pathway and verges etc. Do you know for a fact that that piece of land where you parked is private?

Most polite people in my experience apologise after being publicly rude, wrong and sarcastic... Same goes for @Homer67 who liked your rudeness...

Just been catching up overnight. Congratulations Jake Wightman with a totally unexpected Gold medal in the men's 1500 metres.

So you're both wrong. Not having a MOT does not necessarily invalidate your insurance. It might do - but not necessarily. I'm sure that @dx100uk can confirm that I have corrected wrong advice that he's given a poster within the last couple of weeks and he or she has got eight time more posts than you two combined have. It isn't me doing the willy waving...

Assuming the collision must have occurred on a public road, what insurance details did the tractor driver give you? I would pass those on to the van hire firm. If they charge you for the damage, recover from the tractor driver insurer's third party claims dept. I'm not sure if you could claim on your own insurance if you don't have an insurable interest in the van. What does your policy say about driving other vehicles? [Edit: You perhaps should have posted on the Motor Insurance board. Can you request the thread be moved?]

So you are 100% certain that not having a MOT - even though your car is otherwise roadworthy - necessarily "invalidates any insurance you have on it"? Apologies for pressing you and @Homer67 on the point, but I'm not sure that that is correct(?). Is My Car Insurance Valid Without An MOT? | comparethemarket.com No MOT Doesn't Invalidate Insurance - Patterson Law I'm not even sure that if a term of your policy said that you needed a current valid MOT that that would necessarily invalidate your insurance in the event of an accident if the cause of the claim was unrelated to not having an MOT. (eg the car was otherwise roadworthy and would pass an MOT). Please note - I'm not suggesting that people should go around breaking the law by driving without a MOT cars that require one - that would be stupid - I'm simply questioning your rather broad and categoric statement that not having a MOT means your insurance is invalid. I'm not sure you are correct. [Edit: You may have a source to back up your view? I'd be interested to know as I think it's important that consumers get the best and most accurate advice. I know that some views given are not always correct] Personally I'd be more concerned that the OP might be in breach of the continuous insurance legislation ...

Are you certain that's necessarily correct? Unless the car is SORN, doesn't that mean you are breaching the "continuous insurance" rules and committing an offence? (I'm not commenting on whether the vehicle may or may not be roadworthy... )

And you might want to review the earlier posts (made when you were particularising your counterclaim) as to what sort of evidence you would need to support your claim.

Serious question: what provision of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 says anything about what a consumer is or is not entitled to if they elect to cancel an online or distance sale? The right to cancel an online or distance sale is contained in The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, isn't it, and not the CRA 2015? And more specifically, isn't it s34(8) of the Consumer Contracts etc Regulations 2013 that prevents the retailer charging a restocking fee for a distance sale cancellation? The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (legislation.gov.uk) Agreed. But isn't that why it's important for the OP to be confident that they can refer to the correct legislation that gives them those rights?

Hm. Are you certain about that? I thought it was s29 of the legislation I linked to in #2. And not sure how you'd send it back before it's in your possession...

There is nothing you can appeal. It's simply a notice informing you that they intend to prosecute the driver of the car for speeding as per the notice. What you have to do is to comply with the s172 requirement to name the driver within 28 days, otherwise you commit a rather more serious and expensive offence. (Failure to identify the driver, 6 points, a large fine and paying a lot more for insurance for the next five years). You could ask if they have any photographs you could look at "to help you to identify the driver". (Do NOT phrase any question you ask so that it sounds like you are asking for evidence of the offence itself. If you do, they will likely refuse to help). If they give you photos they might indirectly confirm the offence for you or - if you are very lucky - they might show the driver isn't you or that it isn't even your car. In any case you must reply naming the driver within the 28 day limit.

As regards "excessive handling" my understanding is that the law is very clear on this point and that it specifically says you are allowed to handle the goods sufficiently for you "... to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods... " before the trader can claim you have diminished their value. (See s34(9) The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (legislation.gov.uk) So it's up to you to argue with the seller that what you did in turning it on etc was no more than was necessary for you to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the radio*. I'm not sure about the value of the speaker, but I'd be inclined to argue that if they truly gave it to you for nothing, and you paid nothing for it, then it's value - working or not - is nothing. It was certainly worth nothing to you because you weren't going to complain about it not working (NB - I would have complained to them... ) and it was worth nothing to them because they gave it to you for free. But as I say, I'm not sure about this point... As regards damage, marks and scratches, you need to argue the toss about this with the seller. *s34(12) gives as an example that if you were to handle the goods beyond what might reasonable be allowed in a shop, then that could be beyond what is necessary to establish etc... etc... But I would have thought you would be allowed to turn the radio on in a shop to see how it worked and funcioned and - most importantly - to hear what it sounded like. [EDIT: The above all assumes that this - as the thread title says - qualifies as a distance sale cancellation]

Is @mantis shrimp a phantom?