PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

1095 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

southpaw82
Posted on: Yesterday, 15:25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,779
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 14:17) *
All above, nothing torn at all Peter.....

If his evidence was of no relevance he wouldn’t have been called.
  Forum: News / Press Articles · Post Preview: #1434688 · Replies: 41 · Views: 1,783

southpaw82
Posted on: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 21:47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,779
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 21:35) *
A WS and a Draft Order are lodged with the N244 each time, and the OPs are all told to go along armed with the basics of a defence and evidence that they were 'there to be found' but for a simple trace and acted promptly, and didn't try to avoid any debt by moving away and ignoring it.

To be fair, I didn't say anyone should rely SOLELY on the claim not being properly served! That would be daft.


Right, so the claimant not checking that the address is valid may or may not have been grounds for the decision, which in any case could have been granted under 13.3 anyway.

QUOTE
QUOTE
The court doesn’t (or shouldn’t) give a stuff what the government or DVLA thinks.

I think they should, and at least it shows a doubting Judge that PPCs have been singled out and that it's in their hands to make an effort to trace the victim before suing them. How is it OK that they don't?

We’re not dealing in what is ok and what is not. We’re dealing in the rather dry area of the CPR and the demands imposed by it. The duty to check that the address is good is imposed by r 6.9 and the trigger for that is a belief that it’s no longer a good address. There’s no blanket duty to check absent such a belief (though as I said, if there is any doubt it would be wise to do so). Whether there ought to be a duty is another matter but it would be wholly wrong for a court to seek to read one into the rule. You would probably hate a lot of the contracts I see, which include clauses that deem good service to have been effected at an address specified in the contract even if the defendant doesn’t live there and never receives the claim.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1434542 · Replies: 24 · Views: 280

southpaw82
Posted on: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 21:34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,779
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


Doesn’t sound like the greatest of claims, does it? “I hit the stationary object that I knew was there”.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1434536 · Replies: 3 · Views: 152

southpaw82
Posted on: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 21:19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,779
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 21:08) *
That's not what Johnersh or LoadsofChildren123 say, and every set aside, except one odd one, has been agreed re any parking charge.


And did they include a draft defence with reasonable prospects of success and act promptly, or did they solely rely on the claim form not being properly served?

QUOTE
IMHO it is clearly unreasonable for a parking firm to issue a claim to an address from which they have had no response in years, and the Government and DVLA evidence shows they agree, so why would the victim not want a Judge to see that, to show them who the real 'innocent party' is (never the claimant in a PPC scam case).

Well, there are a few points there:

1. If the defendant can evidence that the claimant has written to them at that address and not had a response and can evidence that they have not lived there since a certain date then they can begin to build an argument under r 6.9. That is quite different to what I wrote, which was “if they have no evidence”.

2. The court doesn’t (or shouldn’t) give a stuff what the government or DVLA thinks.

3. Who is the innocent party isn’t the test for a set aside under rules 13.2 or 13.3(1)(a), though it may form part of an assessment under 13.3(1)(b). So, no, I doubt I would be getting into a tizz showing the judge who the “victim” is (particularly if they’ve flagrantly trespassed on someone’s land) when all I have to prove is a realistic prospect of defending the claim and acting promptly.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1434527 · Replies: 24 · Views: 280

southpaw82
Posted on: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 20:48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,779
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 19:11) *
Maybe you are right. But let's not get bogged down on doom and gloom.

There is no doom and gloom. It seems to me that people are conflating the two grounds to set aside a default judgment into one whilst simultaneously imposing a burden on the claimant that doesn’t exist in law. If the defendant has a realistic prospect of success then they should apply promptly for a set aside on that ground. If they have no evidence of the claimant having a belief that the address was incorrect there’s no point in pursuing that ground.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1434513 · Replies: 24 · Views: 280

southpaw82
Posted on: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 20:44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,779
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


Hang on, two offences here...

You seem to have paid a fixed penalty (but not surrendered your licence) in respect of driving without insurance.

You’ve also received an SJPN for keeping a vehicle that doesn’t meet the insurance requirements (fine, no points).
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1434512 · Replies: 10 · Views: 362

southpaw82
Posted on: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 18:33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,779
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 18:24) *
Don't forget that the DVLA told PPCs that they could/should(?) use tracing agents to establish if old addresses were correct for service.

And also the Government exposed the scam and named & shamed parking firms:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016...iew-due-to.html

New measures to protect consumers from debt claims

That’s all well and good but there would still need to be evidence that the claimant had grounds to believe the address not to be valid. Believe is quite a high threshold. I don’t really see how the DVLA’s opinion or a government review has any real bearing on that. If the government wanted to stop such things happening they’d amend the CPR but they haven’t.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1434464 · Replies: 24 · Views: 280

southpaw82
Posted on: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 17:52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,779
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 17:44) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 17:40) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 17:36) *
Trial by combat does not apply under The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 so this is not going to wok.

Would you like a job as a straight man?

Are you recruiting?

I’ll keep your CV on file.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1434458 · Replies: 6 · Views: 296

southpaw82
Posted on: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 17:40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,779
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 17:36) *
Trial by combat does not apply under The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 so this is not going to wok.

Would you like a job as a straight man?
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1434451 · Replies: 6 · Views: 296

southpaw82
Posted on: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 16:28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,779
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


I thought the restrictions on learners and motorways had been lifted?
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1434435 · Replies: 12 · Views: 590

southpaw82
Posted on: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 15:01


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,779
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (letsfightback @ Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 14:47) *
southpaw82

I am not sure what you mean

In this scenario where the solicitor acting on behalf of claimant (UKPC), where they obligated to take reasonable steps to make ascertain the address of the defendant’s current residence.? What steps could they have been? As in this case the DVLA was updated of the new address 2 years before this claim was brought forward.

What I’m asking is “why wouldn’t they believe the address given to them previously by the DVLA was not still valid?” The claimant only has to make enquirers if they believe the address is no longer valid (though a prudent one would do so if they simply suspect that it is not).

Ultimately, if you have a good defence and act promptly it shouldn’t matter, and the address issue is irrelevant.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1434402 · Replies: 24 · Views: 280

southpaw82
Posted on: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 14:58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,779
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (peterguk @ Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 14:55) *
OK, thanks.
So how is this case different to the usual guilty plea for speeding, but sentenced at CoFP rate for "reasons unconnected with the offence"?

The OP is arguing that he should not be prosecuted at all, due to the statutory bar in the RTOA once he’s complied with the COFP. He doesn’t want to be sentenced or convicted at all.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1434397 · Replies: 37 · Views: 1,448

southpaw82
Posted on: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 14:30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,779
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (peterguk @ Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 14:18) *
QUOTE (Donald22 @ Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 14:08) *
Ok, thanks for the advice.
I'm think I'm going to give it a try with the argument being that I've already done everything required by law regarding the speeding offence.
That is I paid the fine and submitted a valid licence but they declined to indorse it.
I take it that I must plead not guilty to the speeding offence (even though I was speeding) for me to be able to make the above point.
I.e. I could not plead guilty then use this as an argument.

In regards to the alleged licence offence I'm more than happy to plead not guilty, as I now have proof from the DVLA that my licence was valid.

If you were speeding, and you accept you were speeding, you plead guilty to the offence.

Not if he’s going to dispute the court’s jurisdiction to try him though.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1434388 · Replies: 37 · Views: 1,448

southpaw82
Posted on: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 14:13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,779
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (kommando @ Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 13:13) *
you also need a valid reason for not receiving the original claim

Where is that requirement in the rules?
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1434382 · Replies: 5 · Views: 129

southpaw82
Posted on: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 14:11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,779
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


On what basis are people saying the claimant knew or should have known that the address was no longer correct? The passage of time? CPR 6.9(3) says

QUOTE
Where a claimant has reason to believe that the address of the defendant referred to in entries 1, 2 or 3 in the table in paragraph (2) is an address at which the defendant no longer resides or carries on business, the claimant must take reasonable steps to ascertain the address of the defendant’s current residence or place of business (‘current address’).


What are the reasons for the claimant to have that belief? Is it really relevant, other than for a set aside under the mandatory provisions (no service)?

The OP seems to be focusing on discretionary set aside (or people are conflating the two rules) which requires:

(a) the defendant to have a realistic prospect of successfully defending the claim (or some other reason for the case to be tried), and

(b) the defendant to have acted promptly.

N244, witness statement setting out the promptness of the steps taken, draft defence, draft order.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1434381 · Replies: 24 · Views: 280

southpaw82
Posted on: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 13:58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,779
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (henrik777 @ Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 22:13) *
QUOTE (pocketpete @ Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 22:12) *
Yes they lost last time yet still pursued this the 3rd ticket. Its the usual robo stuff from BW Legal. Im not bothered about a counter claim I haven't got the time to write it up really. But there is one more ticket coming up very close to the 6 year mark which I have received a LBC if that goes ahead I will definitely be gunning for a counter claim.



I'd also include res judicata. They should've done all the old tickets in one claim.


That sounds more like abuse (Johnson v Gore Wood & Co) than res judicata.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1434376 · Replies: 14 · Views: 154

southpaw82
Posted on: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 14:50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,779
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


IIRC, as he’s no longer a co-defendant he’s now a competent and compellable witness in her trial.
  Forum: News / Press Articles · Post Preview: #1434040 · Replies: 41 · Views: 1,783

southpaw82
Posted on: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 23:26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,779
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


Enough.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1433620 · Replies: 19 · Views: 183

southpaw82
Posted on: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 21:25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,779
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (question1 @ Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 21:12) *
I would be interested to know how many of you would also support councils and private parking firms for using these tactics - https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/8...-parking-ticket


QUOTE
"MARTIN LEWIS, money saving expert, warned drivers to be careful with parking tickets from now on after he noted councils and parking firms using new tactics to extract money from motorists.

By LAUREN O'CALLAGHAN
PUBLISHED: 11:07, Fri, Jun 2, 2017 | UPDATED: 18:46, Fri, Jun 2, 2017

Speaking on This Morning, Martin told drivers not to throw away their pay and display parking tickets after using them.

He said: “So you pay for your pay and display parking ticket, put it on your windscreen, and then leave. Job done.

“Err not quite – these days it’s increasingly common for parking firms and councils to use cameras to monitor parking, not people, and that means even weeks after the date you can find a parking fine or invoice in the post.

“Having recently heard of cases where people have struggled to prove they’ve paid, I’ve checked out how long afterwards you can still be contacted.

“Most firms will do it within 45 days, though some even longer, and the maximum time they can chase legally is six years.

“So I’ve a new warning rule of thumb. Keep your pay and display tickets for two months at least.

“Why not keep an envelope in your car to put them in as you go, then when it’s filled empty it into a drawer at home. You could also take a photo of them before you throw them out so that way if you’re chased later than expected you do have some proof.”


Seems like another new tactic they're using for extra income by councils. And private firms also to stop people giving other people their tickets if they still have time left on them.

I wonder how many people on this site work for parking firms private or government? Or people that generally hate cars and motorist, as there's no shortage of those. Must be a fair amount. Makes sense if you run parking firms to pay people minimum wage to troll through these type of sites giving out poor advice or making it seem impossible to challenge a fine.

Is there a way to tell which members are most likely real?

So if people don’t share your world view they’re working for a PPC or council? Weird...
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1433551 · Replies: 19 · Views: 183

southpaw82
Posted on: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 20:07


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,779
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (henrik777 @ Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 18:29) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 3 Nov 2018 - 18:56) *
What’s POFA got to do with it? If it’s not a POFA case why are you referencing POFA?


http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=124065&hl=

QUOTE
The judge said the C was left with very little options except to follow PoFA. The judge conceded that although the C has said they are not following PoFA she may be able to find in their favour if they had inadvertently been compliant.


That would be interesting. If POFA wasn’t pleaded and the defendant didn’t know they had to address the issue how is a fair trial possible? That would be a pretty shaky finding.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1433498 · Replies: 85 · Views: 2,920

southpaw82
Posted on: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 14:52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,779
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


Why? Are you being prosecuted for contravening one?
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1433344 · Replies: 11 · Views: 523

southpaw82
Posted on: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 - 19:14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,779
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


The particular test is (per Dyson J):

QUOTE
"(1) The purpose of the six-month time limit imposed by section 127 of the 1980 Act is to ensure that summary offences are charged and tried as soon as reasonably practicable after their alleged commission.

(2) Where an information has been laid within the six-month period it can be amended after the expiry of that period.

(3) An information can be amended after the expiry of the six-month period, even to allege a different offence or different offences provided that:
(i) the different offence or offences allege the 'same misdoing' as the original offence; and
(ii) the amendment can be made in the interests of justice.

These two conditions require a little elucidation. The phrase 'same misdoing' appears in the judgment of McCullough J in Simpson v Roberts. In my view it should not be construed too narrowly. I understand it to mean that the new offence should arise out of the same (or substantially the same) facts as gave rise to the original offence."


Also, bear in mind the words of Burton J in Williams v DPP:

QUOTE
In so far as that is intended to be a statement to be relied on in other cases, I would, for my part, respectfully disagree with the him. The test is plainly, as my Lord has said, set out in Dyson J's judgment in Scunthorpe Justices, which makes it plain that although the phrase 'the same misdoing' is that which is intended to be guidance, in his view those words should not be construed too narrowly, "I understand it to mean that the new offence should arise out of the same (or substantially the same) facts as gave rise to the original offence". In this case, where the appellant arrived at the police station at 23.40, and within a few minutes thereafter was taken through the procedure, first, in relation to alcohol, and then in relation to urine, in my judgment, it cannot possibly be denied that it was substantially the same facts as gave rise to both offences.

In those circumstances, any suggestion that there is a difference in the wrong-doing is not the proper test and not one which should be followed in future.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1432944 · Replies: 52 · Views: 4,682

southpaw82
Posted on: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 - 15:41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,779
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (SC86 @ Thu, 8 Nov 2018 - 15:40) *
Do the "Vector" Cameras that are forward facing take pics of the driver?

Why do you ask?
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1432307 · Replies: 15 · Views: 806

southpaw82
Posted on: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 - 15:41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,779
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 8 Nov 2018 - 15:25) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 8 Nov 2018 - 15:14) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 8 Nov 2018 - 14:42) *
If the police sent the s172 to the correct address as per the DVLA records (which is almost certainly the case), you would not appear to have a viable defence to the s172 charge.

I’m not sure it’s as clear cut as that. If the s 172 notice was sent to the correct address then there seems to have been lawful service and an obligation to reply arises. It’s still open to the court to find that it was not reasonably practicable for the accused to have responded - just as it’s open to the court to find the other way.

It may be open to the court but I suspect the OP's chances would be extremely slim if the only explanation given is "I forgot to update the V5C", and I don't think we would normally advice a not guilty plea on that basis.

What the OP does is up to him (or her) but it seems rather unjust to be convicted of an offence carrying six points for forgetting to update the vehicle details, for which the punishment is normally just a fine. This case is quite removed from Whiteside, who went away and didn’t have any process in place to deal with the post. I do wonder how the court could find that it was reasonably practicable for the OP to respond, when the key omission seems to have been committed a year before the notice was even served.

The OP needs to make a choice:

Plead not guilty and be acquitted - no penalty.

Plead not guilty and be convicted - 6 points, an income related fine, surcharge of 10% of the fine, and costs of around £600.

Plead guilty - 6 points, an income related fine reduced by 1/3, surcharge of 10% of the fine, costs of around £85.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1432306 · Replies: 11 · Views: 621

southpaw82
Posted on: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 - 15:14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,779
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 8 Nov 2018 - 14:42) *
If the police sent the s172 to the correct address as per the DVLA records (which is almost certainly the case), you would not appear to have a viable defence to the s172 charge.

I’m not sure it’s as clear cut as that. If the s 172 notice was sent to the correct address then there seems to have been lawful service and an obligation to reply arises. It’s still open to the court to find that it was not reasonably practicable for the accused to have responded - just as it’s open to the court to find the other way.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1432294 · Replies: 11 · Views: 621

1095 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

New Posts  New Replies
No New Posts  No New Replies
Hot topic  Hot Topic (New)
No new  Hot Topic (No New)
Poll  Poll (New)
No new votes  Poll (No New)
Closed  Locked Topic
Moved  Moved Topic
 

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Saturday, 17th November 2018 - 03:35
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.