They don’t waste money acknowledging cancellations, but you can go as if to pay the PCN and see if it still shows anything is owed.

Well if the cyclist in question did either of those such that it resulted in you passing them closely, it would form part of a defence, but I’m assuming they didn’t?

If you did pass too closely then that would seem to exclude you from the sensible drivers club.

Or in other words you either did it (and will likely get some form of punishment) or did not and what others do or don’t do is wholly irrelevant.

You can ask the safety camera unit to provide photos under the subterfuge they are to help you confirm the driver’s ID (you aren’t entitled to evidence at this stage), as the cameras there are HADECS3 the photos will normally include the gantry showing the signs.
46/40 will see an awareness course offered so no points.

It would also help to complete the NIP wizard as requested/linked to in the ‘read this first BEFORE posting’ sticky, have the output added to this thread.

They’ve made their decision, although some of their reply is rather presumptuous as they seem to think they are a court, the advice is also wrong, nothing to stop you accepting an FP and arguing the ‘other’ allegation is statute barred as one offence.

Yes, so if you read the Beavis case you would know why the point is relevant!

You may be lucky and the single justice sentence you, I'm sure they have local guidelines for when to sentence and when to pass on, but they aren't broadcast.

But otherwise, yes be ready, a suite isn't necessary just being smart enough to show you are taking it seriously.

As this is an IPC PPC whether or not it is PoFA compliant is of little help unless the keeper wasn't driving as it won't put them off.

The car clearly wasn't wholly in the marked bay, something the driver was surely aware of. So we need to see if you have a signage argument as to that not being a contractual condition. You may have a 'commercially justified (lack of) argument for court.

As a BMW owner I wince at the stereotypes, but sometimes.....

Well the only meaning of jump here that matters was breaking the law, which you did unless that was directed by a Police officer, if you have no reasonable hope of proving that sufficient for the court then pleading guilty would be your only option.

The bottom left photo clearly shows you NOT over the stop line and later over it, so clearly did ‘jump the lights’ I’m afraid. I can’t see any defence there.

80/70 should see you offered an awareness course (unless one down in the last three years), so it would probably be foolish to take it to court I think.
If you do the course I certainly wouldn’t then be offering any ‘mitigation’, it would achieve nothing and could see you dismissed from the course and heading to court.

This is like squeezing blood from a stone, you never even mentioned you had pictures, the good Lord (and us) help those who help themselves.
Do the photos show you straddling the the stop line, YES or NO.
Perhaps share them if in doubt.
Unless they have a photo showing you crossing the stop line, they would appear to have no evidence of an offence, as previously mentioned in another post you ignored, the sensors are after the stop line and can be triggered by a car already over it pulling away.

This... and the lack of a revocation really don't stack up. What seems more likely is there is some confusion here between daughter and Mum.

Being disqualified for 6 months and taking 6 months to get the tests passed again seems more likely to me.

MS90 for failing to provide driver's details perhaps? What date do they show as applied to your licence? Were you aware of the case? They may still be preparing to hear the disqualification hearing for that totting.

Yes max and min points is 3 unless they decide (very unlikely) a short disqualification is in order.

You could try addressing all the other points raised?

Why on earth would you be taking them to court? Hint - you won't be, don't have to etc.

If any part of the car crossed the stop line (including just the back bumper) while the lights were red then you did 'jump the lights', if you were already fully over the stop line you were free to continue (with caution).

It's possible you were past the stop line but still over (and triggered) the sensors perhaps?

I'd suggest writing and asking for photo's to 'help confirm the drivers' ID or similar subterfuge (you aren't entitled to see evidence at this stage and are relying on goodwill) and see what it shows.

Who are 'they' and when was this said?
And did you get an acknowledgement after that? If you didn't did you then chase it up?

Do a licence check online and you'll see she currently (from what you say) should have zero points, an awareness course (if she didn't do one in the last three years) or a simple (3pt/£100) fixed penalty.

As SP says the TT99 just indicates a totting disqualification (although your story seems to have some 'differences' from what you would usually expect which was a 6 months disqualification and also a licence revocation), it carries no points and if she had a totting ban then the points that triggered that will have been wiped (though the endorsements remain for insurance declaration purposes).

Because if POPLA agree they breached the CoP by not giving warning of changes they will cancel the PCN.

Not a case so I suspect the Mod' will move this to the flame pit.

I fear your argument is 2+2=5 here, how does the ATA not mentioning something make it a breach of the DPA?
However the BPA CoP says which appears to be a mention before I delve any further,


What the ATA says is irrelevant IMO in that respect, the companies have to comply with the DPA and probably do.

Who was 'them'?

If it was DCB Ltd they should continue to use that new address, they had no liability to inform MET or DCB Legal (which is who would raise the court claim based on information from MET). That is I fear where you fell down and why your claim would have a significant chance of failing. You should have been telling MET who owned the alleged debt.

You can still seek to have the case reopened which will reverse the judgement, by paying now you avoid having a CCJ on your credit file if that attempt to re-open fails.

I believe the only way you can revers that now is via a set aside application costing over £250 (not sure of the current rate as I think it's just gone up), with no guarantee of success that may be throwing good money after bad I'm afraid.

Faulty understanding as explained already

No legs on that argument at all, instead you need real legal arguments.

Some would say using a Disabled bay when not entitled to was also unfair maybe, this is relevant to my last point below.

So
1/ Let's see a copy of the original notice, is it PoFA compliant.
2/ Were the signs there to be seen
3/ Were the signs capable of forming an enforceable contract
4/ Were the bays themselves adequately conveyed (they usually are)
5/ Does the driver (or a passenger) have a 'protected characteristic' that would justify using the disabled bay?
(Read the FAQ on hosting images, using an external host such as IMGBB)

Judges I think will be less receptive of a 'technical defence' to an abuse such as this than to a merely technical infringement which had little possibility of impacting anyone else.

The gantry in my link never had any camera mounting at all, just deterrent value.

Can't say why none were acknowledged but if they aren't you're expected to try again.

Just call the court in question and cancel the appointment!