Google brings them up

Your 'ticket' is illegal as iar as we can currently see it as it fails to carry the company registration details - that any invoice/letter must do

1) It is not necessary to tax the vehicle before leaving the test centre (what would you do if it failed). the vehicle remains an exempt vehicle during the journey to and from a pre-booked MoT test (and to/from repair following a test fail)

2) There are different definitions of public highway for Vehicle Excise and Registration Act and Road Traffic Act offences. Driink/driving is an RTA offence and the RTA definition of highway is what is relevant. For VERA, the definition is precise within the Ac t - a road maintained at public offence

3) neither the cars on garage property nor the limo should have been clamped. But if you think the DVLA are thick, imagine what their sub-contractors are like.

AFAIK.

1) it is not legal for a UK licence holder to drive a vehicle in the UK that is registered elsewhere;

2) a vehicle can be insured in its VIN pending registration and driven without plates

The state of the brakes is irrelevant to the MoT test as long as they work with the required efficiency and balance during the test and nothing appears to be wrong without dismantling

Whilst it must illuminate the plate, it must not show a white light to the rear of the vehicle. This is why they are mounted in or behind the bumper in a lot of cases

If the headline price for your tin of beans is 50p, then that is the 'invitation to treat' and the price that is charged.

If underneath this, it says 12p per 100g, then this is advisory

No.

The bike was sold to a dealer. The dealer gets the V5 and the RK sends the yellow section to DVLA.

The OP has not stated whether or not he/she sent the yellow section. Even if the garage sent it (a they shouldn't send the V5 until the vehicle has a new owner, it was still sent. The RK is responsible for informing the DVLA of the change of keeper, but there is no requirement to do it personally - it can be a delegated task.

If the garage sent it, then a written statement from them and the Interpretation Act absolves the RK.

The priice per unit is only advisory and not statutory so I suspect that there is no offence here.

THE DVLA give out this information as an express part of statute; you can complain all you like and attempt to refuse permission but the statute overrides the DPA

As for the PCN number, I am sure it needs to be stated, but it should be on the payment slip as well. I remember the question of whether the payment slip constitutes part of the PCN was the subject of an adjudication ruling some years ago, but I don't remember the outcome.

The payment slip was held NOT to be part of the PCN

As they appear here, both of the first two pages need reporting to Companies House as there is a legal requirement for the company registration number to be on any invoice.

Well, the restricted street designation simply means (in this instance) that parking is governed by a yellow line.

Not quite. Restricted street means that it is governed by a TRO/TMO. The existence of signage (including lines) is also subject to the same order.

Not a good idea as they could have a genuine claim against you - damage to hearing

 

l

Not so. Whilst a whistle may be very loud, it cannot cause any hearing damage as the telephone system will, by design, 'clip' the magnitude of sound waves to protect itself.

First question.

Where are you? If in Scotland, you automatically have good title under Scottish law if you bought in good faith.

If in England/Wales then the answer is not so clear cut, but Courts have generally held that if you bought from a trader then as he is the 'professional' in his role and assumes liability for ensuring good title, you are presumed to have good title. If you purchased from a private individual, you don't have a leg to stand on.

1. An RK is usually presumed to be the owner unless the contrary is proven.

2. If it was registered and insured in your name and you were not the main driver, then you were probably guilty of 'fronting'.

VIN's yes but a VIN is not a registration mark. It is the tractor unit which carries the vehicle reg mark as it is the principle part of the vehicle. Didn't know that a trailer can have different insurance cover than that of the tractor unit though to satify the RTA. Perhaps you can expand on this and how it works.

If a UK registered tractor unit is being used, then the trailer must carry the same UK VRM as the tractor.

Where the tractor is registered in another EU country, then the trailer's VRM may or may not match the tractor depending on the rules of that country.

EU law overrides the RTA , VERA,C&U in this and many other things.

Quite a few vehicles used on farms don't even have number plates. Quad bikes and trikes that never go on public roads for example.

If they are not registered, they don't SORN or insurance

and "lose" the evidence...

i cant see what more the warden can do, toher than stand infornt of vehicle while some irate person decides im off.....

 

Personally.... pay the fine.... if i was on the council appeal panel, the fact you fled when you know you were getting a ticket, would make me more determined to enforce the ticket.....

 

You shouldnt flee the scene, when you know you done wrong.....

 

also to above poster..... if car was a company car ticket wouldve went to hire company/then passed to the business/or the address hire company held for driver.... so driver then further complicated matters by fleeing.

What a load of nonsense.

1) there is no council appeal panel - appeals go to an independent adjudicator

2) whilst there may be a moral reason to wait, there is no legal reason whatsoever

3) the PCN is not passed on - the company will get their own s.10 PCN - as this appears not to have happened, then we can reasonably assume that no s.10 PCN has been issued and that the Council are trying to enforce a non-served s.9

4) they stupidity of the Council's actions here are a prime example of why you should drive off if you can

.

The S.9 PCN was not served.

The Council will issue an S.10 PCN by post. A S.10 PCN also acts as NtO. If this went to a hire company,they would complete it as such and return it. The hirer (OP) would then get their own S.10 PCN.

The communication received by the OP refers to a previous opportunity to pay the reduced fee (ie an S.9 PCN) which was never served

Procedural impropriety on the part of the Council

I can see your point. The first thing the warden would have done. And the pocket book should confirm is send via post after obtaining your address. Is send the PCn via post.

No. The CEO should have noted that the S.9 PCN was not served and the Council would issue an S.10 PCN within 28 days.

Ok it sounds like you were served personally by what is said. But the warden told you a ticket was being issued.

An appeal won't harm but don't expect plain sailing

An S.9 PCN must be affixed to the vehicle or handed to the driver. Saying "it's just printing", doesn't cut it

Simple thing is a disabled space is for a disabled person. This offence is what the public hate. Double yellows single yellows not displaying a ticket etc we all like to fight

 

But using a disabled space. You asked for it

This is a personal opinion, and a rather sweeping generalisation. Personally, regardless of the alleged contravention, I would fight any PCN. I tend to think as regards the law as opposed to any moral wrongdoing

I would simply add that if an insurance company pys out for a written-off vehicle, then the vehicle and the VRM then belong to them.

This is overcome by making a declaration at the start of the insurance that the VRM is for identification purposes only and remains your property at all times.

2. Don't know. First, you should chase it up. Then I guess you can complain, or escalate it through the ombudsman. Don't know what the penalty is though.

Information Commissioner

That may not be wise dx. YOu are probably aware there is an on-going thread on CAG at the moment whereby a CAGger is being taken to court, not for the parking invoice, but for the dishonoured cheque specifically

Since the cheque has not been presented and he has received another letter that fails to acknowledge his initial cheque (regardless of ignoring it or not), then cancelling the (obviously) non-delivered cheque for "security reasons" would satisfy any attempt to sue for dishonouring the cheque.

He should, of course, write a short note or email informing them once he has cancelled it and then ignore any further correspondence from them.