PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Except Access Only
stevep119
post Thu, 7 Nov 2019 - 13:20
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 12 Sep 2014
Member No.: 73,003



Hi,

Looking for some advice smile.gif

Yesterday a driver accidently drove past a sign that said "Except Access Only".

The road they was travelling on had a mini roundabout with two exits, (straight over or right).

The sign is past the mini roundabout meaning you would have to go over the mini roundabout to see it, and in turn enter the "Except Access only" road.

As I say, they didnt see the sign, there was no yellow lines on the road and they could see other cars parked up without displaying permits or anything.

They did a 3 point turn and at that point their phone rang so they pulled over. While on the phone the driver saw a white van with a private security company name on the side.

The guy was taking a photo of the sign the driver had driven past. He then got in the van and drove up towards the drivers car. He parked about 10ft away, got out and then using his smart phone pointed it at an angle that looked like it might capture the drivers car but was not head on if that makes sense.

The driver looked at him and he smiled and waved. He made no indication the driver had done anything wrong nor made any enquires as to why the driver was in the road.

It looked like he either took a short video or a few pics in the general direction of the drivers car. He then drove drove off.

The driver was concerned as they wasnt aware they had done anything wrong, they looked around and again could see cars in the road parked and no lines or signs.

The driver decided to go and have a look at the sign, and when they got to it they saw it said "Except Access Only" with a picture of a car and a motorbike on top of eachother.

Concerned they drove away from the area and when they got home started worrying that this guy was taking pics of them and their car and will report them.

Has anyone else had this happen? what are the fines for entering an access only road.

Any help would be appreciated.

This post has been edited by stevep119: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 - 14:14
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 27)
Advertisement
post Thu, 7 Nov 2019 - 13:20
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
southpaw82
post Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 08:57
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30,450
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



It is for the claimant to prove their case. However, the rules require the defendant to deal with allegations in the claim in one of three ways - admit, deny or say no knowledge. The reply has to be true. It’s not a criminal trial where you can simply put the other side to proof (unless you have no knowledge) - that’s not how civil trials work.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 19:33
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,213
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 08:57) *
It is for the claimant to prove their case. However, the rules require the defendant to deal with allegations in the claim in one of three ways - admit, deny or say no knowledge. The reply has to be true. It’s not a criminal trial where you can simply put the other side to proof (unless you have no knowledge) - that’s not how civil trials work.

True but if the SoT for the PoC was signed recklessly, you have the option of pursing a contempt case.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 20:20
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30,450
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 19:33) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 08:57) *
It is for the claimant to prove their case. However, the rules require the defendant to deal with allegations in the claim in one of three ways - admit, deny or say no knowledge. The reply has to be true. It’s not a criminal trial where you can simply put the other side to proof (unless you have no knowledge) - that’s not how civil trials work.

True but if the SoT for the PoC was signed recklessly, you have the option of pursing a contempt case.

You do but you’d be hard pushed to prove it to the criminal standard where it’s phrased as “driver and/or keeper” and they’ve written asking for driver details and had no reply.

My concern is that an OP is given advice, or a defence is written for them, which says they’re not the driver. A lot of OP’s won’t argue and will just sign what’s there. The thread just refers to “the driver” but in fact it was them. Straight contempt, whether it’s pursued or not.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
anon45
post Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 20:59
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,107
Joined: 7 Aug 2009
Member No.: 31,007



In support of southpaw82's advice in post #21 (presumably referencing 16.5(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules: https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure...il/rules/part16, I found case law: https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?d...Civ/2019/7.html indicating that:
QUOTE
48...Clearly, a defendant is now under a positive duty to admit or deny pleaded allegations where he is able to do so, and he may only put the claimant to proof of a fact where he is unable to admit or deny it. But that does not answer the question of what "unable" means in this context.

49. In my judgment, a number of factors point towards the conclusion that a defendant is "unable to admit or deny" an allegation within the meaning of rule 16.5(1)(b) where the truth or falsity of the allegation is neither within his actual knowledge (including attributed knowledge in the case of a corporate defendant) nor capable of rapid ascertainment from documents or other sources of information at his ready disposal. In particular, there is no general obligation to make reasonable enquiries of third parties at this very early stage of the litigation. Instead, the purpose of the defence is to define and narrow the issues between the parties in general terms, on the basis of knowledge and information which the defendant has readily available to him during the short period afforded by the rules for filing his defence.

That said, if the PPC doesn't know who was driving, (and is unable to invoke RK liability), telling them who was driving prior to court action may be unwise in that:
1) POPLA (unlike the IPC's "I"AS) do usually uphold appeals on the basis of "the driver is not identified and there is no RK liability", provided that POPLA are satisfied on both points (of course, this is only relevant if the PPC in question is a member of POPLA);
2) the PPC may be less willing to pursue a claim against the RK if the driver is not known (and there is no RK liability) in case the RK was genuinely not driving, in which case they will presumably lose;
3) not all PPCs assert in claims that the RK was driving, in which case there is no need to make any admissions, (and at least some judges take the view that it would then be for the PPC to prove the point, again assuming there is indeed no RK liability) and;
4) in the case of defeat where the defendant is adjudged to be liable as RK, some judges will accept the point that the PoFA statute limits the amount that may be claimed against the RK as RK to the amount of the original parking charge and direct court costs (that is to say, dismissing claims for inflated or fictional "administration costs").

Lying at any stage of proceedings to anyone, failing to comply with the CPR, or refusing to answer questions from a judge, are all very strongly advised against.

Although it is clearly not the case with this OP, I see no reason why a hypothetical RK who genuinely doesn't know who was driving at the time of the incident in question to "neither admit nor deny" the allegation of driving in a statement of defence.

This post has been edited by anon45: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 07:53
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 03:49
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 43,310
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (anon45 @ Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 21:59) *
the "I"PC)

Not sure why "International" is between inverted comma's?


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
anon45
post Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 07:38
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,107
Joined: 7 Aug 2009
Member No.: 31,007



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 03:49) *
QUOTE (anon45 @ Fri, 8 Nov 2019 - 21:59) *
the "I"PC)

Not sure why "International" is between inverted comma's?

I've edit my post to correct my error, and to reflect my opinion of the level of independence of their appeal system- the one that guarantees to reject 85% of all appeals. Come to think of it, it's not exactly international, either.

This post has been edited by anon45: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 07:39
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Steve_999
post Sun, 10 Nov 2019 - 10:34
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,193
Joined: 12 Jun 2008
From: West Sussex
Member No.: 20,304



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 03:49) *
. . . . .
Not sure why "International" is between inverted comma's?


"comma's"?

Or do you perhaps mean plural?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sun, 10 Nov 2019 - 10:42
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 43,310
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Steve_999 @ Sun, 10 Nov 2019 - 11:34) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 03:49) *
. . . . .
Not sure why "International" is between inverted comma's?


"comma's"?

Or do you perhaps mean plural?

I did.......


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 6th December 2019 - 05:07
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.