DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 42509--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hackney, 52m Failure to comply with motor vehicle
prohibition, Pritchard's Rd
DIR By: TrixBear
Date: October 26, 2024, 10:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> You don't want to claim no contravention and de minimis.
>
> So change this para:
>
> Reversing into Pritchard’s Road and allowing enough clearance
between the two vehicles felt like the safest action I could
take in this situation, therefore giving me good reason. Since
this took place over such a short distance and time, I would
also suggest the minimal incurrence is taken into account under
the rule of de minimis.
>
> To:
>
> As I was reversing out of Regent's Row the van was turning in
and I had little alternative but to carry out the manoeuvre you
can see in your video to give us both space to proceed.
>
--- End Quote ---
Ok, thank you. Happy to change the last paragraph to what you've
suggested, I'm a little confused though. On your advice, I
opened the letter with "I am challenging the PCN on the grounds
that there was no contravention".. so isn't that claiming no
contravention? (Apologies, first time receiving and challenging
a PCN so it's all new to me)
And to confirm, I'm good to send it off once I've changed that
paragraph?
Thanks again!
#Post#: 42518--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hackney, 52m Failure to comply with motor vehicle
prohibition, Pritchard's Rd
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: October 26, 2024, 11:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I think it's best to just say no contravention at the start.
The bit I think you should replace then says there was a minimal
contravention so contradicts this.
It doesn't matter much as if Hackney is minded not to cancel it
will do so no matter what you say and you'll have to take it to
the tribunal but you may as well be consistent.
#Post#: 42577--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hackney, 52m Failure to comply with motor vehicle
prohibition, Pritchard's Rd
DIR By: TrixBear
Date: October 27, 2024, 2:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Alright, thanks so much. I'll get it sent off and let you know
how it all goes.
#Post#: 42742--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hackney, 52m Failure to comply with motor vehicle
prohibition, Pritchard's Rd
DIR By: TrixBear
Date: October 28, 2024, 2:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, I just went to make my representations online and now I
have another question.
The form asks me to complete a field stating whether I'm the
driver, keeper, driver and keeper, or incorrectly registered
keeper. This was a hire car so I tried selecting 'driver', but
I'm met with an error message saying 'Sorry but only the keeper
can make a challenge'.
How do I proceed? The hire company have transferred liability to
me, so do I count as both the driver and keeper in this
scenario?
Screenshots here:
HTML https://imgur.com/a/ew3qA6L
Thanks once again for your assistance!
*Edit
I think I've figured it out if this distinction is correct: "if
you hire/lease a car, the lessor/hire company are the
"registered keeper" and you are the day to day "keeper".
#Post#: 42757--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hackney, 52m Failure to comply with motor vehicle
prohibition, Pritchard's Rd
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: October 28, 2024, 4:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The reasons are somewhat dodgy.
What does the hire agreement say?
#Post#: 45461--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hackney, 52m Failure to comply with motor vehicle
prohibition, Pritchard's Rd
DIR By: TrixBear
Date: November 13, 2024, 9:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just had confirmation that this PCN has been cancelled! :D
Thanks all for your help!
#Post#: 45471--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hackney, 52m Failure to comply with motor vehicle
prohibition, Pritchard's Rd
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: November 13, 2024, 11:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Good - this was not a contravention by any reasonable terms.
#Post#: 45526--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hackney, 52m Failure to comply with motor vehicle
prohibition, Pritchard's Rd
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: November 13, 2024, 4:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: TrixBear link ---
>
> Just had confirmation that this PCN has been cancelled! :D
Thanks all for your help!
>
--- End Quote ---
Well done !
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page