Montego
-
Posts
17 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by Montego
-
Looking on Google Streetview, there looks like a change to the road surface and yellow lines along the right of the road on entry, which could indicate the change of land status - NCP car park to the left, land that is part of the shop's property, controlled by UKPC, to the right. As in earlier post, UKPC making their money by not making the difference that obvious.
-
The £80 would be a claim for The Late Licensing Penalty, a supplement payable to the crown - dealt with by the debt collectors. The £180 is a claim from the DVLA for the arrears of the vehicle licence.
-
As above, it is the status of the land that is relevant. If it established to be be business premises the exemption would apply, if it was not, the exemption would not apply.
-
Only if you are a motor trader and the vehicles are kept at business premises - s.29, 2(C), Vehicles Excise & Registration Act 1994.
-
Unfortunately the PCN was issued for being parked adjacent to a dropped kerb (Contravention 27), not for a yellow line contravention.
-
The wording of s.110, (1), Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, is only 'on a road', no mention of 'or other public place'.
-
Looking at the picture in post 1 and Google street view, it is a Loading/Disabled Bay, which has the Red Route 'No Stopping' restriction 7am to 7pm, except for Loading or Disabled during the permitted times. Which could explain the reason for the PCN.
-
That is one of the exemptions, as in post 12, unless exempt, it doesn't matter where a registered vehicle is located, it is required to be licensed.
-
For being the registered keeper of an unlicensed vehicle, the DVLA will often offer a Late Licensing Penalty prior to any prosecution. It could be that the DCA are dealing with on their behalf, and return the matter to the DVLA for further action if it is not paid.
-
Unless exempt, being the user or keeper of an unlicensed vehicle is an offence contrary to s.29(1), Vehicles Excise and Registration Act 1994. Being the registered keeper of an unlicensed vehicle is an offence contrary to s.31(A) & 31(C) of the same act.
-
Unless exempt, it is the same offence if it is not licensed wherever the vehicle is kept.
-
Check the wording of the letter. £80 is the normal DVLA penalty offer for the offence of being the registered keeper of an unlicensed vehicle, (which they may be using CCS to deal with). If not paid, it can result in a summons to magistrates court.
-
If it is within the harbour estate, The Wells Harbour Revision Order 1994, General Bylaws, s.9,(1),(k) regulates the movement ,speed and parking of vehicles on the estate.
-
If the offence was dealt with by the DVLA, it would be 'keeping an uninsured vehicle' - s.144A, Road Traffic Act 1988. That is an administrative matter, not the vehicle being seen by police cameras.
-
As above, insurance is required for the use on a 'road or other public place' - s. 143, Road Traffic Act 1988, but a driver is only required to hold a licence for driving on a 'road' - s.87 of the same act. A car park is not a road - House of Lords: Clark (A.P.) and Others v. Kato, Smith and General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corporation.
-
The 14 day limit only applies to the initial notice of intended prosecution required to be sent by post (Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988). It is not required for all offences, or if the person is stopped and told at the time.
-
One possible problem is the continuous insurance requirement - s.144A, Road Traffic Act 1988 - the vehicle will need to comply, or if it does not, it must be kept off the public road and SORN. Another is that for third party cover driving a different vehicle, some insurance companies require that vehicle is covered by insurance.
-
As has been mentioned in several posts, there are different ways that parking infringements are dealt with:
Local Authorities - using the Civil Enforcement legislation.
Other authorities (airports, railway companies etc.) - using their own by-law legislation.
Private Parking Companies - which can only make civil claims for breaching
their contract. Only if they comply with schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 can they claim for unpaid parking charges from the keeper. That is the only legislation that is available to the them, but they very rarely do comply. That is one reason why they use words like 'contravention', PCN' and 'contravention number' in their paperwork, in an attempt to confuse the motorist and give the impression that their 'Parking Charge Notice' has the same legal standing and penalties as a 'Penalty Charge Notice' issued by a local authority.
-
-
There is civil regulation and criminal regulation, and the relevant procedure needs to be followed by the relevant authority. The problem is that neither apply to claims by the Private Parking Companies. They make up their own rules, and claim a breach of contract when they consider they have been broken.
If the claim is for unpaid parking charges, and they comply with Protection of Freedoms Act 1012 (which is very rare), they can claim that from the keeper. That act does not apply to land covered by legislation - airport, railway company etc. land. The companies can deal with the matter via their by-law legislation, ( not the R.T.A. legislation), but some don't and pass the matter to a Private Parking Company to deal with, but all they can rely on is a breach of contract by the driver. That is one reason why some of their paperwork has wording similar to civil enforcement paperwork, quote byelaws etc, to try to confuse the motorist that they are liable for the claim as the keeper - which they are not.
-
