Sorry, won't work. The information must be laid before a Court in order to issue a summons; prosecution can be up to three years after that.

I would caution your friend not to rely on the V5 and being the registered keeper - this has nothing to do with ownership. I suggest that your friend writes (not phones) ING Direct and explains that he purchased the car months prior to the finance being arranged and enclose a copy of the invoice/reciept. Further suggest to ING that they contact the Police as regards what seems to be fraud on the part of the dealer (note; only suggest fraud, do not put any direct accusation into writing)

There is no distance limit set in statute for driving to/from a pre-booked MoT. i have known it done, and have even known it advised by a traffic officer. If you were stopped and plod thought that you were taking the p*ss, they would probably go over you and the car with a fine-tooth comb and find something wrong.

You need to contact the officer you issued the HORT/1 (producer). Only the licence must be produced personally and for these purposes, the counterpart must be produced as it is part of the licence. If you produce everything as soon as you can, I doubt that the CPS will take it any further

Not so. 1) DOC is not dependant on the vehicle being insured by somebody else. 2) There is no legal requirement for a vehicle to be insured. Only the driver must be insured 3) Most DOC provides third party cover, not RTA cover

The point being missed here, is that the law only requires the driver to be insurer. Collingwood's offer is perfectly legal and acceptable, as only they will be insuring the learner. Privilege are completely wrong as they will have no liablity when the learner is driving. If Privilege were correct, then the same circumstances would apply if you let anybody else drive on their own 'driving other cars' extension - which would be a total nonsense.

You have two options here. 1) Roll over and send them personal details to which they have absolutely no right. What difference does it make whether or not you could pay for the hire car - absolutely none. 2) Write back and tell them in no uncertain terms that your total claim is £nn and if it is not paid in full within 14 days, you will be issuing a County Court summons. Let them try explaining to a Judge why they think your personal financial details are at all relevant to a claim where liability is already admitted.

Try putting yourself on as a named driver - Note: not the main driver. This not 'fronting' as the insurance is in the name of the main driver; but it may lower the premium somewhat.

The vehicle was an exempt vehicle whilst it was being driven to the test centre for a pre-booked test. It was not an exempt vehicle at the time it was parked unattended outside your house on a public road - for no matter how short a time.

To go back to the OP's post, the quoted regs are irrelevant, since - by definition - we are dealing with private land. In any case, I fail to see the need for another line of defence - against what is already to be ignored

This is not a PCN; it is simply an unenforceable invoice. The advice is as follows:- 1) Ignore; 2) ignore; 3) refer to (1) You will get a series of ever-increasing threatograms which you can safely continue to ignore. Eventually, they will give up and concentrate on an easier target If you do decide to pay, could you let me have your address so I can send you a similar demand for payment - it would have exactly the same authority

Not if you don't have the V5, it can't

Oh, come on. The MoT Test was introduced 12 years before Thatcher became PM

G&M, I iknow that this was a few months ago now, but you entirely miss my point. The assumption that the RK is the owner is rebuttable in law; this PCN does not give any grounds for such rebuttal - only buying or selling. Consider this scenario: I am the RK of vehicle A I am not the owner of vehicle A A PCN is issued for a box junction offence by the driver of vehicle A The PCN is sent to me as RK I need to be able to inform issuing authority that I am not the owner and thus not liable.

Case law holds that it is an abuse of process to summons you for both offences. If you are guilty of failing to furnish, then by definition they do not have the driver identity evidence for the speeding charge. If they have the driver identity for the speeding charge, then how can you have failed to furnish?

As it is a private firm, simply ignore this and future letters regarding this. Try reading some of the other threads on here about this...

Actually, it is an s112 (of the RTRA 1984) rather than an s172 request (under RTA 1988). Only a chief officer of police can require information under s172.

One large supermarket chain allows its drivers 6 minutes to make a delivery when scheduling.

Realistically, no. All you can do is ask the trader for the tax disc, but he may well have factored its value into his pricing

HA cannot supply such a dispensation; it can only come from SoS

A vehicle is also an exempt vehicle when being driven to/from pre-booked repair after failing an MoT test.

You don't send any tear-off strip. You give a section to the new keeper and send all of the rest of the V5 to DVLA

Ignore completely. Do the same with any letters they send You do not have a parking ticket or fine; you have an unenforceable invoice.

Nonsense. Anybody has a right to lien on property in their possession pending settlement of a debt.

So the moral of this story seems to be that if you need to, absolutely legally, take a car with no MoT to/from a pre-booked test, don't insure with Zenith.