Outcome! I attended tribunal but lost! The key point was that the Adjudicator said he had to take the information as to who the owner was from the DVLA i.e. me, and that my email from my company to the contrary was not sufficient. I also got a letter from my company advising that it is correct that I am the registered keeper when the order was sent to them after the tribunal. But this was contrary to what they emailed me! So in the end I had no chance! But it was fun trying!

Thanks buzby. Are there any decent channels on FreeSat?

Hi buzby - How can I 'switch your receiver to view channels on FreeSat'? THanks

Mossycat - it was a friend of mine. All I know is he has received a speeding ticket by post saying he was doing 36mph in a 30mph limit. Should I request any supporting documents such as the photograph, the calibration certificate, training certificate etc etc, and post them too? What is the full list of documents I should ask for which may have a legal technicality issue which I could use to challange the Notice? Does anyone on here have any experience that the legal technicality approach is valid and can prove fruitful?

Can I not just make a Small Claim to Argos and state that the Sale of Goods Act has been breached since the 'goods are not a described'? The box specifically states that I will receive 'Freeview' channels however I have not received them all. Simple? Or am I missing something?

I am looking for any legal technicalities which may be present in either the NIP or the evidence etc which could mean that the Notice was not lawfully served.

Hello I am looking for some help on the above Notice of Intended Prosectution I received for an alleged speeding offence. The Notice of Issue Date is 15/3/2010 and it was from West Mercia Police. The Notice states I was doing 36mph in a 30mph limit. Can anyone help with ways out? Stewart

Hi The story is as follows. I purchased the Sky 'Pay Forever' Digital TV package from Argos last year. It cost a one-off payment of £75. No contract. For this you get a Sky man who comes over and installs the dish and a basic Sky set-top box. For the first 4 months, you get the basic Sky channels for free and then after the 4 month period, the packaging supplied with this product states that '..there will remain 200 free digital TV channels – that’s four times more than Freeview - which can be watched forever...and you can continue watching the free digital channels (including all the main Freeview channels).' When I cancelled the start-up of the Direct Debit after the 4 month period, some of the promised Freeview channels were cancelled and are now not available and secondly I only have approximately 64 free channels in total, not the 'over 200' as promised. I have complained to Argos requesting a refund on the basis that the goods are not as described but they have stated that the free channels included with this product are those from 'FreeSat' and hacve refused to give me a refund i.e. http://www/freesatfromsky.co.uk/freesat-tv-choice-all.aspx. However, this is not what is stated on the contract which refers to the 'main Freeview channels' not FreeSat. Stewart

I wish to make a small claim against Argos for breach of the Sale of Goods Act (goods not as advertised). The value of the product is £75. Can I also claim back the cost of making the claim using MoneyOnline? If so, how do I legally express this on my Claim form? Am I entitled to any further compensation for, for example, the amount of time I have had to spend administering my complaint? Thanks

On the basis that the LA have (1) supplied incorrect information to the Tribunal Adjudicator as to both the Registered Keeper and the owner, and (2) stated incorrect law in their submission to the Adjudicator, should I make a separate complaint to the Information Commissioner and perhaps the Local Government Ombudsman on this? If the LA are providing false information in this way in order to support their case, is this not a much more serious issue than a simple parking ticket? If I did this at my job I would be disciplined up to and including dismissal. I feel compelled to escalate this so as to ensure that they don't try it on other members of the public in my area. It's pretty disgraceful behaviour as far as I can see now. Any thoughts?

Hi Lamma! I am interested in your view that the LA is talking legal rubbish . Can you suggest a template letter I can send to them covering this or an ammendment to the letter as suggested by Bernie that I was intending to send? i.e. Dear Adjudicator, Re Case reference No: [#] (insert from letter they sent you) Please find enclosed additional evidence relating to this appeal against a pcn. This confirms that I am not the owner of the vehicle and the identity of who the owner is. This comes direct from the owner themselves and therefore should be irrefutable. This in support of my appeal against this pcn in the Statutory ground that "I never was the owner of the vehicle". Yours faithfully.

I have received further letters on this alleged debt from a DCA called Fredrickson. I have now complained to the FoS about NatWest not providing me with an executable CCA. Is there a template letter I can send to Fredrickson to stop them sending me threatening letters and telephoning me? Thanks

Thanks for all this. I am finding it a fascinating discussion. I can confirm that the company I lease the vehicle from is NOT a hire company. It is a car manufacturer. Because I work for a separate car manufacturer, I get a lease car as a benefit (for business and personal use) and make a nominal monthly payment for the car. The scheme attacts no tax liability (don't ask me how they managed to convince the tax man on that!). The company leases cars to my company since it is affliated. This is not a hire agreement not is there any HP payment. In the LA's submission to the Adjudicator, they state that 'while the council acknowledges that the appellant has advised that they were not the driver...legislation states the 'owner' means the person by whom the vehicle is kept...which is presumed (unless the contrary is proved) to be the person in whose name the vehicle is registered. The DVLA have confirmed the registered keeper's details on 28/8/2009 as myself, c/o XXXX Motor Co Ltd, Essex. As the contrary couldn't be proved under the grounds as stated in the NTO, as the owner could not provide details of the driver, the Council maintains that the registered keep/appellant remains liable'. But as I say, the company who lease me the car, the XXXX Motor Co, have just written to me when I asked this specific questions confirming that 'The XXXX Motor Co' is registered keeper and also the owner. So I am at a loss as to why the DVLA has said that I am the registered keeper at all. And presumably the DVLA would simply be using information supplied to them by the XXXX Motor Co. So someone is telling fibs here. As Bernie suggest in post#22, 'This comes direct from the owner themselves and therefore should be irrefutable.' Surely if the LA's submission is ONLY based on me being liable since I am the 'registered keeper' and I have a written statement to the contrary, this must be my clear defence and should be a slam-dunk win? Would it be worth my writing to the DVLA to confirm who the registered keeper is? I am reluctant to do this and I am not sure if I am entitled to be given this information anyway when I am not the keeper or owner. And surely the owner's statement on this information trumps anything the LA claim they have from the DVLA? But it does seems strange to me that there is a discrepancy on the keeper details and the case does seem to hinge on this fact. So I am thinking that either writing to the Adjudicator with this information - as per Bernie's post#22 - or keeping it in my back pocket and producing it on the day as my defence, is my best bet. Presumably there is no advantage of one of these options over the other?

Hi Update! I wrote to my Company Vehicle department and they have confirmed in writing that (1) The XXXX Motor Co is the registered keeper and (2) The XXXX Motor Co is also the 'owner'. So I do not understand how the Council have decided that I am the owner and therefore put my name on the NTO. Surely, this is now my main defence. I have it in writing from The XXXX Motor Co that I am not the owner. Is there any need to bother with secondary challanges based on this new news? The adjudictor agreed to my appeal some weeks ago and I have already have a date for the hearing in April. The adjuducator accepted my letter - where I explained that I was not the driver, that the vehicle is a company car, was on loan on this day etc etc - as my appeal application. He did not ask me to complete any other application form. This is all in writing. Should I now write to the Adjudicator stating that my challange has been modified - in-light of the bundle I have received from the Council where they stated that it is the 'owner' who is liable in the case where the driver cannot be identified and that I am the owner - to 'I am not the owner' and supply the written confirmation of this from my company car company?

Hi Jamberson:- The sequence of events was that I initially ticked the box on the Notice saying something like 'rejected on basis of legal technicality'. This was because I received the Notice via second class post. This was rejected by the Council since they stated that they correctly served it to the registered keeper, The XXXX Motor Co Ltd, by first class post. I then realised that I had loaned the car out on that day (hence the reason I received the Notice via post) and so wrote to the Council saying this and advising that for this reason I did not believe the parking offence was anything to do with me. They wrote back with neither a rejection or acceptance but said that they would not enter into any further correspondance and that I should contact the Adjudicator on this. So I wrote to the Adjudicator (first class post), as requested by the Council, with this information asking them to cancel the penalty. I recieved no reply so assumed that the penalty had been cancelled. The next thing I got is a letter from the council some weeks later stating that a dept had been registered with the Court, my employer will be contacted to take the money from my salary, baliffs will be send etc etc. At this point I was rather shocked, to say the least, and wrote to the Council to ask them to explain but they claimed that the Adjudictor had not recieved my letter. I then wrote to the Adjudicator to ask if they received my letter. They wrote back to say they 'had passed my letter of appeal onto the Adjudicator'. So I take this as tacit confirmation that they received it. And I have now requested a personal hearing which has also been accepted. At no point have they asked me to fill in any form in order to make an application for adjudication. They have said my letter is the application. I have just received a letter from a DCA but with no details of what it is about. So I am not sure if I am now being chased by a DCA on this. Are the Council allowed to do this when I have requested and had a Tribunal accepted? I think the acceptance of the Tribunal came after the Council sent their threatening letter and so perhaps they have been remiss in cancelling the DCA action etc? Should I write to the Council to complain about the DCA chasing me when I have a Tribunal set for April? I would have thought this is clear-cut harassment. Bernie:- 'If you own the car, on what basis does your employer require you to lend it to others?' It believe it is mandated that I lend it out for business use in my contract of employment. But I can confirm this from my HR dept if required. 'Who insures it when it is used by others?' It is covered by the same corporate insurance policy that I driven under. 'Do you know who was driving it when the alleged contravention took place and can this be proved?' No. No-one will admit! Mean and Green:- Re the section you highlight in red text...(1) My company car is not loaned under a normal hire arrangement! I work for the car manufacturer themselves and the company car I receive is taken on a loan agreement for a maximum period of approx 6 months and then I return it and it is sold in the dealer network. But I have no tax liability! I just have a monthly loan payment taken directly from my salary. So I am not sure if this qualifies as a 'hiring agreement' as in a 'normal' company car hire. (2) I am not convinced that I have actually signed any agreement where it states that I am liable for penalty charges. This may or may not be written down somewhere on an internal intranet site but clearly that does not mean I signed-up to this on the actual agreement form. I need to get a copy of the agreement I signed from my company vehicles office I guess? Cheers all!