Then I sincerely hope that you have an SIA frontline licence. Blocking in (aka obstructing) is still immobilisation of the vehicle - like camping.

Very unlikely. That would be a criminal conviction that would have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Whilst you might be the beneficiary of the clamp being cut off, they would need to prove (or you confess) rather than simply assert that it was your car and you benefited so you must be guilty.

Actually, you can be charged and convicted for simply having the keys in your possession.

You have no right whatsoever to any 'proof' or 'evidence' until your case comes to Court. What you were offered is the opportunity to take 3 points and a fixed penalty instead of course. There is no requirement for any course to be offered and some areas don't do them at all. The demand that you made for evidence when you had no right to it has caused delays on your part that has resulted in the withdrawal of the offer of a course. The authorities are time-limited in laying a case before a Court and any messing about by the accused simply moves everything closer to a Court appearance.

The condition of the brakes is only checked on an MoT test by measuring the effectiveness of the braking. Even metal-to-metal could possibly pass an MoT as long as the brakes reached the required efficiency and braking effort remained balanced across all wheels. Callipers and hoses are checked for leaks/perishing, but there is no check of pad condition if they cannot be seen without dismantling

1) It is absolutely 14 days for service of a NIP (ie delivered) 2) Under English law the only requirement for a speedometer is that it is accurate +/- 10% at 30 mph - what it reads at other speeds is irrelevant. 3) This has EU law imposed upon it that states that a speedometer must never under-read. Hope that the addition of a few facts may help...

How do they do that then? They have no knowledge of who owns a vehicle. Or do you actually mean Registered Keeper - which is an entirely different animal

How do they do that then? They have no knowledge of who owns a vehicle. Or do you actually mean Registered Keeper - which is an entirely different animal

No. The OP is the data controller of any personal data held on the laptop and if it was accessed by the company, then the OP is the one in breach of the Act. You might get further with the Misuse Act

1) I am Pat, I am not TC. Nor do I know him/her. Just because more than one person is saying that you are wrong doesn't mean that it is one person posting under different guises. 2) I pointed out that both you and your friend were wrong. a non-working speedo is an offence. I have proved this by quoting the relevant legislation. You are now back-pedalling at a hell if a rate, reducing your position to that of enforceability. The offence exists, despite your opinion as to its enforceability 3) I have checked several motor policies and I have yet to find one that mentions having a valid MoT certificate . They all have mention of road worthiness - which is not the same thing at all.. It would be a logistical nightmare to provide wording to cover all the times that it is legal to drive on the road without a valid MoT. (eg to/from test - which can be anywhere in UK; to/from repairs after failing test - again anywhere in UK; etc.)

Your friend - traffic cop or not - is wrong. Road vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 s.35 & 36 outline the requirements for a speedometer. It is an offence not to comply with the regulations. There is no 'inevitability' about having an MoT certificate or the insurance is invalid. Most polices do not require this (although there is the requirement for the vehicle to be roadworthy - which has northing to do with the validity (or otherwise) of any MoT certificate). If you believe what you have stated about the inevitability, then please explain how a vehicle currently without a valid MoT can be driven to/from a test

Not so. Not all insurance companies require the main insured and the RK to be the same (otherwise, how could you insure a lease car?) And she would be liable, as RK, to the DVLA for having a SORN vehicle on a public road.

Council would not have paid for a dropped kerb on a road they are not responsible for maintaining.

Er...wrong. The MoT test only looks at certain items and checks the 'roadworthiness' of these items. Three quick examples where an unroadworthy (in the eyes of the law/Police) can sail through an MoT test 1) Over-tinted front side windows; 2) Incorrectly rated tyres (ie the R rating). Breaches type approval and therefore unroadworthy, but not checked in MoT; 3) Speedometer not working. BTW, I don't think that you could get a UK registered car through a Spanish MoT or vice versa. For a start, the headlamps dip the wrong way.

If the "invoice" does not have the company's registration details on it, then it breaches the law in itself.

Absolutely not. Even the MoT certificate itself states this. In fact, it is possible for a unroadworthy (in law) to pass and MoT test anyway.

I suggest that you need to find out from Morrisons who (or how many) others have done the same. If ECP have been made previously aware of the hazard and done nothing to remove or mitigate it then IMO they are liable.

TUV approval is only required if you intend to re-register the car in Germany. Otherwise, with a UK registration, you do not need TUV approved accessories to visit. Homologation is irrelevant - this is a system by which something qualifies for racing (ie by selling x number to the general public) You have no argument with BBS - they are not required to provide either TUV or homologation for a K sale. Under SOGA, your argument is with the retailer as not fit for purpose (and BBS's comments are evidence in your favour in this)

Well, I've never heard of that actually. Most policies require that the vehicle is road-worthy but that has nothing to do with having a valid MoT Certificate. In fact, if the MoT is expired, you can drive to/from an MoT test appointment without MoT but the vehicle remains insured.

20 mph is almost impossible to enforce anyway. None of the electronic camera/laser devices is certified below 30 mph; so it's back to good old hand-held radar guns.

But the major difference is that I have not placed the vehicle into Tesco's care for work to be done nor allowed any Tesco employee to drve it Try going over to the parking forum. The major hurdle that private parking companies have is that English Law does not allow somebody to enter a contract on behalf of somebody else without specific authority. The parking/towing you are talking about is where statute applies rather than contract. You are incorrectly conflating the two.

Most signs state "At owner's risk" which is, at best, ambiguous (owner of the vehicle or owner of the car park). In any case, as with private parking, the driver may not be the owner and cannot enter a contract on thier behalf. Case law has previously held that such blanket signs are almost irrelevant.

Where the claimant is not at fault - as with the OP - then he/she is entitled to be put back into the same position as before the accident. The third party's insurer must meet the full costs of replacement to you of as near-identical make, model, type, mileage, age and condition as the original. If the TP's insurers will not budge, take legal action (ie sue in County Court for the difference) against the TP. Where the claimant's own insurer is paying out total loss, then the contract between them will make it clear that only the 'trade value' is payable.

I agree that theft may be tenuous here; likewise blackmail - it has never gone anywhere near blackmail. However (risking throwing something else into the mix) as the OP has made it clear to NCP that he (as RK) owes no debt, then NCP could be committing extortion.

After 6 months, it is too late to lay a speeding charge - that is probably why the speeding has not been pursued Your defence - as a credible witness - means that the failing to provide has now been overturned