It may well be that this is the same as Newbury's Marketplace. The SoS has given permission for there not to be lines on the road.

Unless they use the usual (and stupid) "Cars parked at owner's liability( or risk)" - which has been successfully argued in Court to be so imprecise that it was held to mean the owner of the car park as they posted the notice.

Do NOT call them. Anything now must be in writing. If you hear nothing, go to the court on the summons date and use your (unbeatable) defence - the Interpretation Act

To bring a totally new point, there does not seem to be anywhere in the legislation that will allow a hire or lease company to pass on the charges by (as registered keeper) stating that the car is hired - unlike DPE

It is not personal data as defined in the Act if it is not searchable by an individuals name and/or address. A VRM is not, under any circumstances, personal data - it belongs at all times to the SoS (ie DVLA). So if the data is only searchable by VRM then it is not personal data. Also, the copyright of the report belongs to the author. It would be a potential breach of that copyright for the insurers to provide any copies.

No. They have a specific permission under the law to release information to anybody with reasonable cause to have it.

You state that as you passed the light it was on amber. The offence is complete - amber means stop unless unsafe to do so. You will need to prove that it would have been unsafe in order to win the case.

The Bill (sched. 4 1.1.a) clearly defines "relevant land" in sched. 4 3.1. The provision only applies to land under statute and not private land. I suspect the reason is enable enforcement of non-decriminalised parking penalties on RKs instead of drivers - to parallel the situation across both crim and decrim parking. Remember that there is not requirement for a vehicle on private land to be registered and thus have a registered keeper.

The DPA is irrelevant here - it for use to obtain personal data - which an engineer's report on a car is patently not.

As you are not at fault and the claim is to be paid by the third party insurers, you are entitled to be put back into the same position as you were prior to the incident. They are obliged to settle at a price that will enable you to replace the car on a like-for-like basis (ie same model, colour, trim level and approximate age and mileage). They will, however, try to force you much lower; you need to fight them. Get price quotes from advertisements like Autotrader - ignore the price guide books

Is this England or Scotland - the law is different

The PCN has not been revoked by the court - they have no jurisdiction to do this. What they have done is set aside the charge certificate and the matter is set back to NTO stage and then needs to be appealed to PATAS. If you do nothing, then a new CC will be isssued

Nonsense, fixed GATSO cameras use radar, not laser. A fixed GATSO can only provide evidence for a vehicle moving away from it. The lines are not a statutory requirement, but the need for a secondary check is. Tthis can be performed by an officer comparing the perspective/sizes of two photographs and calculating the distance travelled - it is, of course, much easier if the lines are present. The only fixed camera approved for forward facing use is a Truvelo. There is only one picture taken - the secondary check is that the front wheels are on the triple lines prior to the camera. The Truvelo uses a very visible magenta-coloured flash. A Truvelo can be turned round and used as a GATSO

Technically, statute gives no set time for obtaining a ticket. It is worth pointing out that previous cases (and this is a criminal court case) have held that no time is allowed for the driver to obtain change; he/she is presumed at all times to have sufficient change with them. certainly, you would not get away with delivering child, then getting change and then getting a P&D ticket.

Sorry, wrong. SOGA applies for far longer. What changes is the burden of proof. Up to 6 months, the retailer needs to prove that the fault was not present at sale; after 6 months, the buyer needs to prove that the fault was present at the point of sale.

The Police have no part in any decision as to prosecute or not; this is done by the Crown Prosecution Service - which is an entirely separate organisation.

Even the original retailer is breaching their contract by retaining the security code - never mind passing it on to a third party. So I would definitely add the ICO to the list to complain to

Also note that if you do not need a licence, there is absolutely no duty to fill in their forms for this. So if you don't have a TV in your room, ignore them.

Make a copy of the receipt and the bank wish to keep it, allow them to have the copy.

You are not entitled to buy at the lower price - the retailer is not obliged to sell you anything at all. Many shops will sell at the lower price as a matter of customer goodwill, but there is no statutory duty. The item on the rail is an "invitation to treat" and the contract is not formed until a price is agreed and the transaction completed The store may have broken consumer legislation (Trades Descriptions and 'Bait & Switch') but this would still not entitle you to the lower price, Report the issue to Trading Standards

Sirius signed a deal with the BBC in 2005 to rebroadcast Radio 1. Sirius is a subscription service in US There is currently, AFAIK, no equivalent service to Sirius in UK.

16:38 to 16:38 is 59 seconds.

Where is the primary legislation that requires a vehicle to be insured?. The RTA only requires the driver to be insured; there is no requirement for a vehicle to be insured

The use of first class post has nothing to do with any High Court ruling; it is set in statute. Any delay in receipt is also irrelevant; the Interpretation Act applies. In that it states that if something is served via first class post it is deemed to have arrived 2 business days after posting. This is a rebuttable presumption in that if you can prove to the satisfaction of the Court that the document (NIP) was not received in the allowed time scale then you win. Any NIP posted on day 13 cannot be served within the necessary time-scale. It is also worth pointing out that only the first NIP to the RK must be served within 14 days; any subsequent NIP has no statutory time limits and can even be sent second class.

The 'fine' will be in the form of an FPN. This is challenged (as it should say on the FPN) by writing to the authority concerned and stating that you wish to challenge the issue of the FPN. The arbitrator will be the Magistrates' Court (ie the FPN will be replaced by a summons)