peak4

Cheers for that; you're dead right, I didn't see the original title.

Depending on the individual vehicle, surely that would depend on whether the relevant track rod end has a left or right hand thread. On mine, the track rod specifically has left hand thread at one end, and right at the other; so that slackening both locknut/pinch-bolts and twisting the tube varies the overall length, and thus adjusts the tracking. (hence it being called a track rod) To the OP. compare the appearance of the exposed thread, near the locknut, with that of a conventional bolt. If the helix angle goes the same way, then Dardandec's advice holds true; if it goes the opposite way, then that particular TRE is a left hand thread, so the opposite direction for tightening/loosening is appropriate.

I'll stand to be corrected by someone with specific knowledge, but I think it only refers to conditional signs, i.e. "no right turn except buses" I presume it's down to the specific wording of the TRO covering an individual junction. I'm sure Planner1 could advise on the specifics. e.g. at Glossop Rd

They've cunningly hidden it under a drop down section below the map HERE https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/content/sheffield/home/travel-transport/bus-lanes-gates.html Other vehicles using gates & lanes Other vehicles can use the gates and lanes, including taxis, cycles and 'authorised' vehicles such as emergency services. No vehicles other than trams can use any of the 'tram only' facilities. The following vehicles can use the listed lanes and gates below: buses - no exceptions taxis - bus lanes, prescribed and prohibited turns, bus or bus/tram gates except Peaks Mount at Waterthorpe, adjacent to Crystal Peaks bus station, on runways B, C and D within Sheffield Transport Interchange (STI), on STI runway E (unless holding a PTE pass) pedal cycles - bus lanes, prescribed and prohibited turns, bus or bus/tram gates except on the runways within Sheffield Transport Interchange solo motorcyles - bus lanes only authorised vehicles - bus lanes, prescribed and prohibited turns, bus or bus/tram gates except on Peaks Mount at Waterthorpe, adjacent to Crystal Peaks Bus Station or on the runways within Sheffield Transport Interchange

This is why I was trying to find "the other site" to see if there were any more meaningful photos.

What's the other forum melv?

They've already been to court 275 times so far this year. I believe that current advice is not to make contact with them about the screen ticket, but to await the "notice to keeper (NTC)". When it arrives, read up on the next course of action on one of the previous links in this thread, but do not identify the driver. There is always the chance that the NTC will not be POFA compliant, thus providing another means of defence during court action. They are IPC rather than BPA affiliated, so it's widely reported that both their internal and external appeal service is little more than a kangaroo court. A well crafted and robust response, to show that you're not an easy target, may lead to cancellation, but don't bank on it. Good Luck

If you're lucky, they might have one left at Maplin, though clearly they won't be offering a warranty.

Check your policy, Yes for the Admiral group of companies, no for most others.

I think the pertinent bit of the story, and sentencing, is that which I've emboldened below. "Mr Williams, of Tottenham, north London, 35, died in January after being stabbed twelve times in the back by Hastings who claimed he had acted to protect his family." An arrest and formal investigation in this current case would seem reasonable, but one would hope that the CPS would decide that a prosecution was not in the public interest, or some similar final outcome.

They were taken over by one of their rivals a few years ago, Spencer Coatings, who do still list their products, but don't say where they are available.

This video URL will only work if you have a Facebook account, as I can't see if it's been posted elsewhere, but does show what some folks have to contend with. Whichever came first, chicken or egg, how do we get back from where we are now, whilst still protecting the public from these louts?

Firstly, declaring the identification of the driver is a bad move, as since Oct 2012, when POFA came into force to restrict the dodgy clampers, there is potential keeper liability. This is harder for them to enforce through the courts as mistakes are often made in the Private Parking Company's (PPCs) paperwork leading to a viable defence for the keeper, since the driver hasn't been identified, even though they may be one and the same person). I would suggest that writing "The driver" entered the car park etc, rather than "I entered.." etc. Secondly, regardless of what you might read elsewhere, what you have received is an "invoice" not a "fine"; private companies cannot "fine" you, merely send you an invoice, which may be enforceable in the County Court. Council tickets are a different ballgame. I would also suggest that ignoring is bad advice, as the PPC has up to 6 years to instigate a claim via the County Court. Certainly ignore the Martin Lewis meme that's doing the rounds again, saying to ignore, as he's now retracted it in a further blog post. You will find good advice on the previous links further up this thread, MSE and The Prankster, along with; PADI for a list of how often the PPC instigates court action. The right hand column there gives a radio button linking to the number of court cases instigated, but takes no account of those who paid up before the case made it to court. Pepipoo has an active PPC forum, where you will receive good advice, but you will need to register for an account there. Like MSE mentioned above, you will be expected to do some of your own research as every case is different. Scan/photograph both sides of all paperwork received, redacting your personal details, host somewhere free, and post a link in your initial thread there. Look at previous threads, on the forum of your choice, and see what questions the regulars ask, so you know what other information to provide in your initial post; this will save everyone wasting their time repeatedly asking the same questions. Please pay heed to the number of posts each contributor has made previously; these forums are broadly self policing, and it's not unknown for someone to pop up spouting "advice" which will cause you some grief. There are a number of Facebook groups available, but be very careful of which ones you use for advice, see my previous comment. Also, there are one or two websites charging for their services in getting a ticket cancelled. It is rumoured that one , or more, of these is as much as a scam as the PPCs. Don't get too stressed, and when folk mention County Court Judgements (CCJs), remember that they don't land on you immediately, regardless of what the PPC may imply. You would first have to have been taken to court, lose, and still not pay up within the specified period, for one to be taken out against you. Note from this, that the PPCs would love you to ignore all the paperwork, including anything from the County Court processing centre in Northampton, so that they could press a court case, which you would lose in your absence. If you then ignore that, the CCJ will appear on your credit record for 6 years.

Well it might, but from what I can gather, the point of law leading to the successful appeal, was that the instructions on the S172 form were not sufficient regarding how to complete the form if you don't know who was driving.

Hmmm that's strange, It wasn't when I first looked at it. Just re-checked, search for Conviviality on Google, then click on the relevant FT link and all will be revealed. Or it was just now anyway; yes my original link takes you to the paywall login.

SJPN, as far as I'm aware, equates to legal person in office accepting early guilty pleas. (and thus a discount on costs) In order to argue your case for a not guilty plea, or do any sort of a deal, a formal court appearance is necessary. I'll stand to be corrected, ( as I'm no lawyer, armchair or otherwise ), but I didn't think a court could order/offer a speed awareness course, as the course is offered as an alternative to prosecution for those who accept their guilt, much like a fixed penalty notice. I'd be interested to see an example, as I'm sure would the folks over at Pepipoo A reduction of sentence for a alcohol related driving offence, on completion of a related course of treatment, is a different matter.

I'd kind of go along with that, but my understanding of "not being disadvantaged" relates when it gets to court. i.e. he should be able to ask for the sentence to be at the fixed penalty equivalent, rather than the court starting point (4 points and a larger fine???) By the time it does get to court, the chance of a course will be long gone, as it's a means of avoiding prosecution, hence needing to complete the course within the 6 month timeframe, leaving enough slack at the end to permit prosecution of the OP fails to attend.

Reasonable article explaining things in the FT https://www.ft.com/content/bef01404-331b-11e8-ac48-10c6fdc22f03

Obelix, As you quite rightly point out, the police apparently haven't received a S172 reply yet; i.e. they don't know who was driving, so currently any speeding charge is dead in the water. Have a look at the timescales; 4 months to receive the NIP/S172, and now just over 28 days later, and still no S172 reply sent. The S172 offence looks to be complete, though the Police may accept a late driver nomination. Unfortunately, I understand that a course offer is normally only made up to 4 months from the date of the alleged offence, in order that a course be booked and completed, whilst still leaving time for the speeding charge to be resurrected and progressed within the 6 month time limit. There may be a defence against the S172, if the keeper can prove due diligence to the Magistrates Court, that they couldn't identify the driver. ( the time delay helps, but has the OP checked phone bills, bank statements, cellphone tracking, diary appointments etc. and asked all possible drivers to do the same) For Lockdoctor, have a read through sites like Pepipoo to see how many motorists have been convicted of a S172 offence, by genuinely trying to be honest in claiming that they couldn't identify the driver with 100% certainty. Hence writing to the Police asking them to drop it, is likey to just end up with a conviction of 6 points, large fine etc, when originally a course might have been offered. Provided that the most likely driver is named unequivocally, the requirements of the notice should be satisfied; that's different to knowingly naming the wrong driver, and thus being guilty of PCOJ. OP. since the stakes are now pretty high from your point of view, I really would suggest chasing up the Pepipoo thread, where you will receive advice from those who are genuinely experienced in these matters, and sometimes legally qualified. Not saying there isn't good advice on here, but there is also both poor and judgemental advice as well. Since you are in a position where you feel you need to seek advice on legal matters, you may not be best placed to discriminate between good and bad advice.

What an appalling piece of advice. The Police don't know who was driving, so can't pursue anyone for that offence, hence they will look to prosecute the registered keeper for a S172 offence, if they fail to unequivocally name the driver. That carries 6 points, a hefty fine and a nasty conviction code. Guessing the most likely driver is OK, deliberately naming the wrong one is likely to be PCOJ There is decent advice on this thread/forum, along with lots of poor advice; since you're registered with Pepipoo, I'd use that for advising you on your next action. I believe you have 28 days from service of the S172 to name the driver; you can't be far off that now, or even past it, so start thinking about your next action with some urgency.

Without trawling through the last 22 pages to make sure, I don't think this photo link from The Atlantic has been posted before.

I can remember when I was there in the mid 70's Bar 1 had 3 doors in a row. "Gents", "Ladies", and between them "Switch Room"

Try and make sure you have transport arranged for the far end if you arrive in the early hours. I don't know about your destination, but some taxi drivers have been known to rather overcharge foreign nationals for early morning arrivals. We got seriously stung in Vilnius a few years ago, despite pre-arranging a taxi. Lots of drivers from the relevant firm, all refusing to acknowledge our pre-booking, and charging over the odds by a factor of 10, knowing we had no option at half one in the morning; well known for it apparently according to TripAdvisor.

There's a fair amount of info HERE, see the various objections and the Delegated Officers Report. It's also stated that Planning Permission is not required for the felling of the 4x Plane trees. See also the report on the trees towards the bottom of the previous link 2nd link updated, works OK at the moment 16/3/18 @ 11.15

Good, glad to hear it . Thanks for the info, been out all day, so must have missed it in the news reporting. Just out of curiosity, was the comment in article correct when written?