The colour field is not a requirement of the Act - it is merely evidential should the ticket be challenged

Also be aware that there is a difference in the RTA between 'keeper' and 'registered keeper' In the scenario above, the driver is regarded as the 'keeper' and would be the responsible party for an uninsured behicle being on the road if he parked it there. Under S172, the registered keeper is required to name the keeper

An ECN cannot be issued under the 1991 Act, in any way shape or form. Only PCNs can be issued

POCA, This is a PCN issued in London. This sort of offience has now been decriminalised and us dealt with in the same way as parking. Since there is no criminal offence, there is no requirement for any Police involvement It does not go to Court - the appeal will eventually and up at PATAS

I was not aware that any liability attached to the vehicle owner. I was under the distinct impression that liability attached to the Registered Keeper (who may or may not be the owner)

The description above would tend to point to it not being the CKP sensor. This is used for ignition timing - we are talking about Diesels here folks - there is no ignition to time

What a load of nonsense for a first post. Firstly, the machine' is a portable printer - it does not measure and therefore does not require calibration in the terms you imply. Secondly, unless they have very, very long and totally invisible power leads, then these are battery operated - they do not have to be Portable Appliance Tested as they are not initended to be attached to the mains (unless the battery charger is inbuilt - which I doubt) The only Part P that I am aware of even vaguely in context is the electrical part of the Building Regs and relates to electrical rather than electronic. Since the PA is operating in the open air and not within a building, there is no part P requirement. Since the portable printer will be operating on less than 12v DC, there is no application for Part P anyway. Even if there was, it is perfectly possible to get approval without using a Part P trained and registered electrician. There is NO qualification necessary to undertake PAT testing, although there is a recommended one-day course. Finally the H&S legislation to which you refer is the Health & Safety at Work Etc. Act 1974 - this does not provide any specific legislation relating to electrical or portable appliances - it provides an enablement for subsequent detailed and specific legislation and regulation.

The purpose of the pictures is to provide evidence that the ticket was affixed to the vehicle, so that the driver cannot say he/she never got the PCN.

There is no mechanism within a Gatso camera for a single 'warning' flash. A dummy camera can flash once. The truvelo camera only has a single flash but that is magenta in colour and faces the driver

Duplicate post removed

If the Bombay centre is claimed to be working entirely alone and on its own initiative, then HSBC are prima facie breaching the Data Protection Act by sending personal data outside the EU whilst not retaining control of said data. They can't have it both ways.

As this will be private property,it will be 'enforcement' by a private company. Therefore it cannot be a 'fine'; they are attempting to levy a charge under a contract that the driver impliedly accepted by parking there. They wiil write to the registered keeper (who seems to morph into the owner in their eyes); the RK is under no obligation whatsoever to inform them of the driver's details. What you need to prevent happening is for the leasing company to pay the charge and pass it on - once this si done, it is too late. You need to write to them explicitly stating that if they do pay this charge, they may not reclaim it from you as you believe it to be fraudulaent and/or unenforceable. Most companies, as part of issuning a compnay car require you sign a notice authorising them to deduct such 'fines' from salary - you need to rescind this, in writing, immediately. The 'invoice' is unenforceable unless they take you to the county court; where they would need to prove that you were the driver at the time and therefore liable, that any notices were both clearly visible and valid, that the driver impliedly accepted the contract by parking having seen and read the notices, that the charge is proportionate with any loss or reasonable cost and is not at all punitive. Furthermore, the notice will haqve to explicitly state that you must be a customer of B&Q for a set period around the ticket date/time. Otherwise you could validly produce any B&Q receipt for any date or time to prove your were a customer if they don't define a time period. AFAIK. none of these companies has actually gone as far as court - they rely on the same bullyig tactics as DCAs to get people to pay up.

As this will be private property,it will be 'enforcement' by a private company. Therefore it cannot be a 'fine'; they are attempting to levy a charge under a contract that the driver impliedly accepted by parking there. They wiil write to the registered keeper (who seems to morph into the owner in their eyes); the RK is under no obligation whatsoever to inform them of the driver's details The 'invoice' is unenforceable unless they take you to the county court; where they would need to prove that you were the driver at the time and therefore liable, that any notices were both clearly visible and valid, that the driver impliedly accepted the contract by parking having seen and read the notices, that the charge is proportionate with any loss or reasonable cost and is not at all punitive. AFAIK. none of these companies has actually gone as far as court - they rely on the same bullyig tactics as DCAs to get people to pay up.

So how can you drive with insurance to an MoT appointment without VED and MoT certificate? As I said, the legal exemption is from having those - you still have to be insured. I have just checked both mine and the wife's insurance (different companies) and they do use the phrase "roadworthy"; nothing about legally road-going or anything similar.

How did TfL get a congestion charge bill to a Magistrates' Court?

HUSBANDKAHN, Why would a standing order be returned unpaid? If there are insufficent funds in the account, it is simply not paid out from the account. The recipient has no control over a stanfdng order and cannot request or change the amount of payment. A standing order is an instruction by you to make regular payments from your account to a nominated recipient account. Conversely, a direct debit is an authority given by you to your bank to authorise the recipient to request payments of various amount and various dates from your account.

Neither is black....

I would suggest that since there is no legal requirement ot have a pouch, then what is written on it will be outside the scope of the RTA and irrelevant to any attempt to dispute the ticket. It is the ticket that matters and perhaps you could scan, wash and post the ticket.

The specific exemption is for driving without VED or MoT; it has nothing whatsoever to do with insurance. The vehicle must still be insured. My point was that it will still be insured whether ot not it has VED/MoT Not quite so. Most insurance companies will have a clause withdrawing (or downgrading to legal minimum) cover if the vehicle is unroadworthy. The difference between unroadworthy and MoT failure is vast. (eg If the vehicle fails its MoT test because the spare tyre is completely bald - this would not make it unroadworthy). A lack of MoT certificate does not make a vehicle unroadworthy - it is a specific offence. The lack of VED certainly does not make a vehicle unroadworthy. A common misconception. It is perfectly lawful to drive an otherwise uninsured car on the extension granted by your insurance. For this purpose, the registration number on your certificate is irrelevant. ANPR checks are just that - checks. If pulled, you simply produce your valid insurance certificate with extension and that is the end of it - because you are insured to drive the vehicle. In the UK, the driver is insured. The vehicle is assessed as part of the risk of accident/theft. Some policies no lomger have a registration number attached; some have more than one. If I have an insurance policy for me to drive my Jeep and my wife lets her Audi insurance lapse then it is perfectly lawful for me to drive her car using my policy, despite there not being a policy showing against her vehicle. Sometimes I borrow my son's car - he has a only driver policy; I drive it quite lawfully on my policy. No. As previously outlined. It must be insured (directly or via a policy extension) to be om the public highway. Due to the specific exemption, it does not have to be taxed or MoT'd. Other use does require that the vehicle be taxed and MoT if over 3 years from first registration. Also, as an aside, there is a world of difference between voiding and invalidating insurance. Void means that the policy has ceased and there is no cover whatsoever; invalidated means that only third party claims will be paid.

The insurance is not invalidated by not having MoT or tax. Remember that in UK, it is the driver who is insured, not the vehicle. How else do you get to/from an MoT test station for a test appointment when you have neither?

Both Google and Companies House Webcheck will provide the answers required except for Barclay's Connect - which is simply Barclay's Bank. I suggest that you "look around" a little more for yourself; it took me no more than 10 minutes to find all of the above.

Er, no. Every time I have used B&Q, the card is swiped through the till and then placed in the C&P machine. It is definitely two swipes of the card on different machines.

But how do you prevent others from adding to your bin once you have put it out for collection?

That's for GATSO or Truvelo cameras. Doesn't apply to SPECS. SPECS reads the registration number on two (or more) cameras and calculates the average speed driven between them. Since SPECS reads the front plate, there will be a lot more tailgating past the cameras

I think that you need to be clearer as to whether this a a fixed penalty notice or a penalty charge notice - they are not the same thing. A PCN is appealed to the council in the first instance; an FPN can only be appealed to a Magistrates' Court by contacting them and refusing to accept the FPN.