MoT and VED are only required on a road maintained at public expense (Vehicle Excise and Registration Act). Insurance is required on any road that can be defined as a public highway - regardless of ownership or maintenance regime

G&M is spot on. The existence (or otherwise) of TRO and lines, notices, etc. is totally irrelevant. The OP was issued with a Police FPN for obstruction, not for parking. Any vehicle stationary on the highway (other than in a designated parking space) is obstructing the highway - end of. OP, at the very minimum, you are facing the value of the FPN plus CPS costs plus £15 'victim surcharge - levied on all fines in a Magistrates' Court

I give up. Please read the regs regarding number plates before proceeding to Court and further grief. That your 'hairline crack' had not previously been picked up is totally irrelevant and certainly no defence/mitigation.

Yes, but all it will take is the PC's evidence. You have already admitted on here that it was broken Totally irrelevant. You miss my point entirely. It was not conforming (legible or not) with the crack present. You are on hiding to nothing with your intended course of action.

Sorry, but a cracked plate is non-conforming. The legibility of the plate is not a factor; it is whether it conforms to the regulations.

The brutal truth is that regardless of how the plate was broken, the offence was committed. The proposed defence/mitigation will cut no ice whatsoever as the plate was non-conforming at the stage when it was cracked before the local layabouts completed the damage by breaking it. Cheapest way forward, if still within time, is simply to pay the FPN

You could always go in at the usual time and then say "what email?". Why should you be reading company emails in your own time?

There is no requirement in law for a vehicle to be fitted with a mileometer. MoT goes onto VOSA database, which is accessed by DVLA for on-line VED, etc.

As the other driver was at fault, you can sue him for the difference. Whilst your contract with your insurance allows them to offer trade value, you are entitled to be put back into the same position as you were in before the 'accident'.

I'm sure that they would argue that the interest is given in kind by way of provision of free banking.

It is illegal for them to sell out-of-date items. If they do, report it.

Line echo does not necessarily mean that the call is being recorded, merely that there is high impedance somewhere in the connection - could be anything

ANPR is the ability to 'read' a VRM from a picture and store it. The layman's view of ANPR as used by the Police includes the further processing of this stored VRM against a database. However, the database is irrelevant to the functioning of the ANPR bit. The Police ANPR does not use the DVLA database. It uses a subset loaded into the Police vehicle equipmentand this is further appended to by a list of 'VRMs of interest to the Police'

The DVLA advice is fine as far as the DVLA is concerned. However, there is a separate criminal offence (enforced by Police) of failing to display a current VED disk.

Keep any evidence that you were away, S.172 states "There is a defence built into the section (at ss (7)(b) which says "the person on whom the notice is served shall not be guilty of an offence under this section if he shows either that he gave the information as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of that period or that it has not been reasonably practicable for him to give it."

The laser is calibrated annually. However, there is an operational requirement to check the distance ranging at the start and end of a session. The fact that the officers were not immediately visible is immaterial - you are not dealing with a speed camera partnership operation, but an operational Police speed trap. Forget calibration issues. The signage is more interesting... If your single sign is the entry to the limit, and it was obscured, get pictures straight away. There have been successful cases where drivers have had the case squashed since the signs did not comply with the legal requirements. Were there street lights? If not,then your single sign might just be a repeater.

To answer your questions in order. Yes No SORN is valid only for 1 year at a time and has to be renewed annually. There is no requirement whatsoever on the DVLA to send any reminder; so lack of one is no defence.

The regs require that the PCN is affixed to the vehicle - no mention of windscreen at all or the method of fixing.

The DVLA make it very clear that the donor vehicle must not be transferred away from the transferer as an inspection may be required. Even if the seller wrote anything into the receipt about the transfer, then it may still fail if DVLA discover that the donor vehicle no longer belongs to the person who signed the transfer paperwork. The 'correct' way for this to happen now is for your Dad to get hold of all the documentation and place the VRM onto retention. He can then let the seller have the retention certificate once your Dad's full costs havbe been paid.

'Entering" meaning "being within the zone", not the act of entering. You need to check the TRO, it is not straightforward for a Council to remove all vehicular access from a highway (which is why most of them still allow cycles...)

Nice try by the council at blagging the money:eek:. That should be your last phone call. Do everything in writing from now forwards. They have admitted in the phone call that the sign is wrong in that it is non-compliant. Thus, in settled case law, the sign does not exist; and cannot be enforced.

No. There was no process for revocation in this manner prior to this Act. Anyway, by now, one would expect their 6 months probationary period to be well over!

Diagram 614 is a No U-turn. TSRGD allows co-location of Diagram 570 ( "For" + distance). The only variation allowed to 570 is the actual distance. So you are right, it means for the next xx. It can never mean in xx. But to be valid, it must state "For".

A plate placed with a no U-turn sign may only read "for + distance" - TSRGD2002. If the plate simply says "150 yds", then it is unlawful (unless the Council can show existence of specific permission from the SoS to use a non-standard sign) Therefore no offence as the sign is not as prescribed (Davies v Heatley)

This is a link to the Act on the OPSI web-site. See section 3.2