PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

1095 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

southpaw82
Posted on: Yesterday, 14:50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,763
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: 35 · Views: 1,566

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


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,763
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: 179

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


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,763
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: 179

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


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,763
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: 2,795

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


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,763
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: 501

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


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,763
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: 4,624

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


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,763
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: 754

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


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,763
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: 609

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


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,763
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: 609

southpaw82
Posted on: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 - 16:58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,763
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (OUYSINEP @ Wed, 7 Nov 2018 - 16:41) *
Your employer posted it you and now its got "lost in the post" if you catch my drift wink.gif

You won’t be posting here for long if you suggest people lie.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1432001 · Replies: 21 · Views: 894

southpaw82
Posted on: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 - 16:57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,763
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 7 Nov 2018 - 15:14) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 7 Nov 2018 - 15:05) *
QUOTE (Khalil @ Wed, 7 Nov 2018 - 13:24) *
thanks, but we deceived to send the children to school outside our borough and thus we cannot use this service.

You probably shouldn’t admit that on a public forum.

Why not? The OP may be sending his children to a school that isn't covered by catchment area rules.

That probably wouldn’t require deception then.

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 7 Nov 2018 - 15:39) *
Indeed, really not sure what SP thinks the issue is, the choice to send children further has been around for years, my secondary school was 13 miles from home, I bypassed the two which were 7 miles away.

Travel support is to the nearest SUITABLE school though.



QUOTE (Logician @ Wed, 7 Nov 2018 - 16:47) *
The issue lies with the word 'deceived', some councils have attempted to prosecute under the Fraud Act for false information given to obtain admission to schools, although it is not clear that the act covers it, and the place might be withdrawn if deception is discovered.

This.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1432000 · Replies: 35 · Views: 1,618

southpaw82
Posted on: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 - 15:05


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,763
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (Khalil @ Wed, 7 Nov 2018 - 13:24) *
thanks, but we deceived to send the children to school outside our borough and thus we cannot use this service.

You probably shouldn’t admit that on a public forum.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1431953 · Replies: 35 · Views: 1,618

southpaw82
Posted on: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 18:05


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,763
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


You can't have mine...
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1431713 · Replies: 25 · Views: 857

southpaw82
Posted on: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 18:04


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,763
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 6 Nov 2018 - 16:49) *
But if you don't mind I'll take legal advice from a highly trained ex copper

I don't mind at all. Whether he's highly trained so as to give legal advice seems completely divorced from his former status as a police officer though.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1431712 · Replies: 39 · Views: 980

southpaw82
Posted on: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 - 22:43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,763
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 5 Nov 2018 - 21:51) *
Its years ago, I witnessed an accident and stopped to offer ais, the police arrived and asked what I saw. I told them and gave the opinion that one of the vehicle was traveling at approx. 45mph. He told me they could not use my estimation of speed as I did not have the experience.to form an accurate view. This changed when they learnt I was a professional driver

Police officers aren’t experts in the admissibility of evidence (a sub-species of never take legal advice from a copper).
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1431476 · Replies: 39 · Views: 980

southpaw82
Posted on: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 - 20:04


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,763
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 5 Nov 2018 - 20:04) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Mon, 5 Nov 2018 - 19:58) *
QUOTE (scoobfactor @ Mon, 5 Nov 2018 - 19:02) *
certainly at the time in the dvlas eyes it was reasonable,and they were subsequently shown to be in error by the ruling under section 142 now it needs correcting

If the tests for seizing the vehicle and convicting you of an offence are different, what bearing does one have upon the other? By your logic, every arrest of a person subsequently acquitted of an offence would be unlawful, which is simply not the case.

I think taking the OP's view to its natural conclusion, every person who is arrested and not subsequently convicted could sue the police for kidnapping and false imprisonment, which is self-evidently absurd and illustrates why it's equally absurd to suggest the DVLA were wrong to seize the car.

‘Zactly.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1431434 · Replies: 22 · Views: 1,471

southpaw82
Posted on: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 - 20:03


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,763
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 5 Nov 2018 - 19:58) *
would be able to cite relevant experience

Do you not think that relevant experience of judging the speed of a vehicle is something most people pick up day to day, often by driving their own vehicle? Does it require any particular expertise to do?

I don’t think anyone’s opinion is enough to tell the difference between 30 and 35 but most people can tell the difference between 30 and 60. The court might attach more weight to that of a person used to having their opinions verified by a mechanical device but that seems academic if the real question is “was the vehicle traveling in excess of 30mph?” and two witnesses say “it was doing 60”.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1431432 · Replies: 39 · Views: 980

southpaw82
Posted on: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 - 19:58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,763
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (scoobfactor @ Mon, 5 Nov 2018 - 19:02) *
certainly at the time in the dvlas eyes it was reasonable,and they were subsequently shown to be in error by the ruling under section 142 now it needs correcting

If the tests for seizing the vehicle and convicting you of an offence are different, what bearing does one have upon the other? By your logic, every arrest of a person subsequently acquitted of an offence would be unlawful, which is simply not the case.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1431425 · Replies: 22 · Views: 1,471

southpaw82
Posted on: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 - 19:45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,763
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 5 Nov 2018 - 19:38) *
I can speak from experience to say that the CPS would not allow scenario 2 to go to court in the first place (evidential test not met), and I was illustrating why they would take that view.

That’s a given. However, why would scenario 1 be any different if the witnesses were not police officers?
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1431416 · Replies: 39 · Views: 980

southpaw82
Posted on: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 - 19:35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,763
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (scoobfactor @ Mon, 5 Nov 2018 - 19:02) *
(why do i get the feeling this site is being trolled by the dVLA)

Don’t know, why do you?
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1431409 · Replies: 22 · Views: 1,471

southpaw82
Posted on: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 - 18:27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,763
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (Redivi @ Mon, 5 Nov 2018 - 09:12) *
Court staff are not legally trained.

If some of them were, claims with fake signatures and legal representative costs, that disclose no cause of action could be struck out

Not by a court officer it can’t.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1431389 · Replies: 31 · Views: 686

southpaw82
Posted on: Sun, 4 Nov 2018 - 21:37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,763
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (kemanan @ Sun, 4 Nov 2018 - 18:48) *
emailed to ccbcaq@justice.gov.uk

Including the bits that are just waffle?
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1431076 · Replies: 31 · Views: 686

southpaw82
Posted on: Sun, 4 Nov 2018 - 19:47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,763
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


Well, I’m going with the learned editors of Blackstone’s and other lawyers. Any witness can give their opinion as to speed, unless for some reason the court finds they were unable to form an opinion. There is no requirement per s 89(2) that the witnesses are professional witnesses. What weight the court gives to the opinion is a matter for the court.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1431027 · Replies: 39 · Views: 980

southpaw82
Posted on: Sun, 4 Nov 2018 - 12:40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,763
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


All I got was the impression of chants of “greater good” (i.e. “I’m a nurse so why should I have to obey parking rules?”)
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1430902 · Replies: 7 · Views: 511

southpaw82
Posted on: Sun, 4 Nov 2018 - 12:38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,763
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483


QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 3 Nov 2018 - 23:07) *
While professional witnesses can give opinion evidence, I don't believe simple witnesses of fact can do so.


Can you cite an authority for that proposition? A court might give less weight to the evidence but it’s not inadmissible.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1430900 · Replies: 39 · Views: 980

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: Thursday, 15th November 2018 - 11:32
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.