A rock and a hard place!

 

A fair few years ago I received a NIP via post for exceeding the newly introduced variable speed limit on the M25. I also was being overtaken at the time of the flash on the overhead gantry. I sent back the Driver details form with a letter pointing this out and wondering if it was the other car, not mine, that the radar or sensors detected.

They replied with a copy of the photograph that did indeed show both cars but they pointed out my rear bumper was just clear a white 'target' dot in the centre of the lane (before the calibration/measurement marks) thereby determining it was my speed recorded by the device.

They did restart the Fixed Penalty period - but there was no $ACs then adding to local funds.

 

I'm always up for a fight if I feel confident I am right - but that's me.

But I can't advise you as I didn't witness the event or know the levels of your priorities and outrage.

 

Tricky.

I wish you well with whatever decision you make.

How could they prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the correct figure was showing on the other side of the gantry?

AIUI, c omputer records showing that the limit had been posted have been rejected by Courts as these are only evidence that the command to change the limit was given and not that it actually changed

You probably have an obligation as owner to provide details of the driver at the time.

There is no obligation on the owner of a vehicle.

There is an obligation on the Registered Keeper of a vehicle

Does CPR apply to small claims?

Can you prove that he was insured to drive your car?

Whilst it is not necessary to place the VRM on retention (it can be transferred directly), there is a requirement that is made very clear on the V317 and that is that you may not dispose of the donor car until the transfer is complete. IOW, you have to have title to both cars for a while.

Yes

The Highway Code is exactly right.

There is no offence of stopping in a box junction; the offence is entering when your exit is not clear (unless turning right and delayed by oncoming traffic).

Postal Services Act 2000

S.84 (1)(b) (my bold)

84 Interfering with the mail: general.

 

(1)A person commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, he—

(a)intentionally delays or opens a postal packet in the course of its transmission by post, or

(b)intentionally opens a mail-bag.

S.125 (3) (my bold)

(3)For the purposes of this Act—

(a)a postal packet shall be taken to be in course of transmission by post from the time of its being delivered to any post office or post office letter box to the time of its being delivered to the addressee,

(b)the delivery of a postal packet of any description to a letter carrier or other person authorised to receive postal packets of that description for the post or to a person engaged in the business of a postal operator to be dealt with in the course of that business shall be a delivery to a post office, and

©the delivery of a postal packet—

(i)at the premises to which it is addressed or redirected, unless they are a post office from which it is to be collected,

(ii)to any box or receptacle to which the occupier of those premises has agreed that postal packets addressed to persons at those premises may be delivered, or

(iii)to the addressee’s agent or to any other person considered to be authorised to receive the packet,shall be a delivery to the addressee.

Pedantic or otherwise, you don't have a leg to stand on

It's legal to open mail addressed to somebody else? Hope you can provide evidence to the fact? Give me 5 minutes, I'm sure I can prove otherwise.

Yep. It is only illegal to tamper with mail' in the course of transmission' (ie from the time it enters a postbox to the time it is delivered to an address). Once delivered, anybody can open it.

Think about it for a moment. If somebody at your address dies, are you saying that any mail received subsequently for them could not be opened and dealt with - even by the executor...?

returned it to sender as it is illegal to open mail not addressed to oneself.

Where did you get this nonsense from...?

You have tried it on and lost. I can't see any way out of this than to pay.

An acquaintance of mine had a camera fitted to his motorcycle. When he crashed at high speed on the Isle of Man, the footage was used by the police to aid in the conviction of the rider who caused the collision (indicating left then turning right). The IOM police then passed the memory card to another force, in whose area my acquaintance had filmed himself speeding up the A1; he ended up with a fine and points.

 

There didn't seem to be any privacy dramas.

There aren't. There is an absolute exemption under the DPA for the investigation of criminal mattters

Hydrogen sulphide is only emitted by a faulty battery - either low electrolyte or plates touching.

A good battery will only emit hydrogen.

I think you have missed the point Pat.

 

The supplier is not refusing to refund the item, they just want the Op to pay for return postage - which they are entitled to do under the DSR.

 

I think the Op just doesn't want to pay return postage.

 

For the Op to be entitled to get free postage they would have to be able to show the supplier did something wrong.

Depends entirely on what the seller's T&C said at the time of purchase. They can only require the customer to pay for return if this is specifically stated in the requisite T&C; if they don't state this, then they are liable for the return.

To take it a step further, they must refund at soon as reasonably possible and, in any case, no later than 28 days. Repayment it NOT contingent on the item being returned first

They've done their part, they've supplied the part that corresponds to the number you gave them. I think they're being very fair in letting you return it, there are a lot of parts suppliers that wouldn't.

I think this betrays a sad lack of understanding of the law.

If it was sold "at a distance" (ie over the WWW) then the supplier is legally obliged to accept a return under the DSRs, providing the customer notifies rejection in writing within 7 days.

The supplier here is complying with statute; "lots of parts suppliers that wouldn't" would be acting illegally.

DSRs apply. You must reject in writing within 7 days. If the seller's T&C state that you are responsible for return costs, then you are. If they do not, then you are not.

As per Labrat, there is no need to provide any reason for rejection under DSR.

The point has previously been made that blue badges mean nothing on private property.

That fact works both ways...

No, as there is no requirement in law for there to be a photograph.

You could appeal on the grounds that you had broken down; but will need to provide evidence of this

Directgov is good on this one: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/UntaxedVehicle/DG_4022072

 

Had the MOT run out? It is an offence to drive a vehicle which should have an MOT certificate but does not have one unless you are:-

 

taking the vehicle to a testing station for a pre-arranged test

or driving the vehicle away after the vehicle has failed its test.

 

 

It is also the driver's responsibility for ensuring a vehicle is roadworthy ~ you state that it isn't.

and then to/from pre-booked repair

They have 28 days in which to send an s.10 PCN

The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 S. 10(4)

I was diagnosed with OSA a few years back.

The advice from my consultant was that the condition was notifiable (by me, not him) but that if treatment was successful it was not necessary to notify DVLA.

I have a CPAP machine when sleeping which negates the problem and means that DVLA do not need to be notified

It would always be best to try and come to an agreement with the neighbour, but if you cant and you find him parked in your bay, park behind him blocking him in so he has to come to you and ask you to move! Then take your time like have a bath first!!

Blocking a vehicle in is, in law, immobilisation which is also how the law refers to clamping. You cannot do this lawfully without an SIA licence.

A better option would be to prevent the neighbour's access to the space in the first place by fitting a lockable post or similar.

, and are in contravention of the Human Rights Act in that it gives you the right to peacefully enjoy your property (which includes the allocated parking space).

This bit about the HRA is total nonsense.

The HRA regulates the relationship between the State (ie public bodies) and the individual. It does not apply to individuals or private companies.

It should also ask you if you were the driver and if not, the requirement to name the driver under s.110 of the RTRA

you stand very little chance.

You would have to prove that the building owner was negligent in that they knew there was a possibility of a tile moving due to lack of repair and also that there were no abnormal weather conditions - fat chance of that today. This is what you pay your own comprehensive insurance for.

If you'll need to be going to the garage for the MOT feel free to drive directly to the garage without either an MOT or tax, provided your trip to the garage is direct, and your appointment is booked you'll be fine even if you are stopped by the police. (because your papers would be in order)

There is no requirement in law to either go directly or to the nearest test station. Case law has set precedent that it is entirely reasonable to stop one the way to the test.