Edinburgh cyclists: Difficulties with "Speedfresh Exotics" van

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Hello,

Anyone else Edinburgh-based get grief from the operators of this
vehicle (reg ?S42 DWC)? Googling reveals the company is based in
Bradford, oddly and the phone number on the back of the van bears this
out (01274 745225).

Anyway, we seem to share the same route in the morning if I'm a bit
late up (up Colinton Road, crossing Morningside at Holy Corner then
down Strathearn Pl/Strathearn Road towards Causewayside). I've had
numerous instances of minor bother over the past few months, usually
agressive and close overtaking followed by hard braking, engine
revving if I happen to be in front of the vehicle while waiting at
lights and suchlike twatty behaviour. Time is usually 0730-0740 but
I'm usually out and about earlier than this so this is by no means a
daily occurrence.

It isn't really the actions themselves that bother me but the fact
that the behaviour is sustained, so I'm considering getting one of
those wee video cameras - anyone else got experiences to share? I
Might ring up the company too.

Regards,

-david

I'd ring the company. A few years ago I'd been having problems
regularly with a builders van, passengers hanging out the window
shouting, and one day when I got home my wife saw that I was
annoyed. I told her about it so she phoned the company. Next day
a manager phoned back to apologise and said that the driver had
been given a warning. I never had a problem after that.
This was in Edinburgh too, Slateford road - Lanark road.

--
Cheers
the.Mark

David Nutter said:

Hello,

Anyone else Edinburgh-based get grief from the operators of this
vehicle (reg ?S42 DWC)? Googling reveals the company is based in
Bradford, oddly and the phone number on the back of the van bears this
out (01274 745225).

You might want to get a better handle on that number plate.

?S42 DWC is not a new (post-2001) license plate, because the number
preceding 2 would need to be 0 or 5. It's not a pre-2001 plate, because
a single letter is followed by 3 numbers. (NB, I'm not a number plate
weenie, so I could be wrong).

Assuming that the S is really meant to be a 5, and the first character
is in the range A-Z, I get hits for B, E, G, K and N, but they're all
cars, not vans.

Sorry.

In news:[email hidden],
Marc Brett <[email hidden]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell
us:

Quoted message said:

You might want to get a better handle on that number plate.

?S42 DWC is not a new (post-2001) license plate, because the number
preceding 2 would need to be 0 or 5. It's not a pre-2001 plate,
because a single letter is followed by 3 numbers. (NB, I'm not a
number plate weenie, so I could be wrong).

Pre-2001 plates could be a single letter followed by 1, 2 or 3 numbers - I
had one with but two.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
I thought I saw his name on a jar of marmalade the other day,
but when I looked more closely, I saw it read 'thick cut'.

Marc Brett said the following on 22/05/2007 11:19:

Quoted message said:

?S42 DWC is not a new (post-2001) license plate, because the number
preceding 2 would need to be 0 or 5. It's not a pre-2001 plate, because
a single letter is followed by 3 numbers. (NB, I'm not a number plate
weenie, so I could be wrong).

You are wrong! S42 DWC is a valid plate. It doesn't have to be three
numbers after the year letter.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

On Tue, 22 May 2007 12:04:00 +0100, Paul Boyd

usenet.dont.work@plusnet said:

Marc Brett said the following on 22/05/2007 11:19:

Quoted message said:

?S42 DWC is not a new (post-2001) license plate, because the number
preceding 2 would need to be 0 or 5. It's not a pre-2001 plate, because
a single letter is followed by 3 numbers. (NB, I'm not a number plate
weenie, so I could be wrong).

You are wrong! S42 DWC is a valid plate. It doesn't have to be three
numbers after the year letter.

I originally parsed it as "unknown character followed by S42 DWC",
rather than "I think it was S42 DWC"

Mind you,the DVLA wotsit doesn't know about it. Not that this means
it doesn't exist of course.

Tim

On Tue, 22 May 2007 12:04:00 +0100, Paul Boyd <usenet.dont.work@plusnet>

Quoted message said:

Marc Brett said the following on 22/05/2007 11:19:

Quoted message said:

?S42 DWC is not a new (post-2001) license plate, because the number
preceding 2 would need to be 0 or 5. It's not a pre-2001 plate, because
a single letter is followed by 3 numbers. (NB, I'm not a number plate
weenie, so I could be wrong).

You are wrong! S42 DWC is a valid plate.

....except that it's not in the DVLA database.

Tim Hall said:

On Tue, 22 May 2007 12:04:00 +0100, Paul Boyd

usenet.dont.work@plusnet said:

Marc Brett said the following on 22/05/2007 11:19:

Quoted message said:

?S42 DWC is not a new (post-2001) license plate, because the number
preceding 2 would need to be 0 or 5. It's not a pre-2001 plate, because
a single letter is followed by 3 numbers. (NB, I'm not a number plate
weenie, so I could be wrong).

You are wrong! S42 DWC is a valid plate. It doesn't have to be three
numbers after the year letter.

I originally parsed it as "unknown character followed by S42 DWC",
rather than "I think it was S42 DWC"

Mind you,the DVLA wotsit doesn't know about it. Not that this means
it doesn't exist of course.

It's entirely possible that the plate number is wrong. Unfortunately I
didn't write the plate number down and the one photo I've managed to
take was lamentably fuzzy so I needed to fall back to the Mk. 1 Human
Brain which isn't particularly reliable. The '?' was meant to indicate
uncertainty - I intended to flesh this out before sending the message
but forgot. Sorry!

Regards,

-david

--

David Nutter wrote on 22/05/2007 09:44 +0100:

Phone the company. I've done it twice. The first one (P&O RORO) the
Chairman wrote to say that they had several complaints about the driving
of that subcontractor and they had terminated their contract. On the
second the Operations Manager got back to me and apologised and said the
driver had been given a written warning. The company is far better
placed to sort it than anyone else - these days the behaviour of their
drivers affects how their potential customer view them.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

Marc Brett said the following on 22/05/2007 12:56:

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 22 May 2007 12:04:00 +0100, Paul Boyd <usenet.dont.work@plusnet>

Quoted message said:

You are wrong! S42 DWC is a valid plate.

...except that it's not in the DVLA database.

I meant 'valid' as in 'correct format' :-)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David Nutter wrote on 22/05/2007 09:44 +0100:

Phone the company. I've done it twice. The first one (P&O RORO) the
Chairman wrote to say that they had several complaints about the driving
of that subcontractor and they had terminated their contract. On the
second the Operations Manager got back to me and apologised and said the
driver had been given a written warning. The company is far better placed
to sort it than anyone else - these days the behaviour of their drivers
affects how their potential customer view them.

If it's a biggish company then I agree, but if it's a small outfit (e.g.
family business) or a one man band I'm not so sure it would work.
--
peter

Cheap train tickets database
http://www.petereverett.co.uk/tickets/

Email sent to this address is generally deleted upon arrival
Visit website if you want to contact me

naked_draughtsman said:

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David Nutter wrote on 22/05/2007 09:44 +0100:

Phone the company. I've done it twice. The first one (P&O RORO) the
Chairman wrote to say that they had several complaints about the driving
of that subcontractor and they had terminated their contract. On the
second the Operations Manager got back to me and apologised and said the
driver had been given a written warning. The company is far better placed
to sort it than anyone else - these days the behaviour of their drivers
affects how their potential customer view them.

If it's a biggish company then I agree, but if it's a small outfit (e.g.
family business) or a one man band I'm not so sure it would work.

If it's a small outfit, then it could just as easily work in their favour.

And if they're unsatisfying in their response, perhaps the Fresh Produce
Consortium would be happy to follow it up.

--
A

Marc Brett said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

?S42 DWC is not a new (post-2001) license plate, because the number
preceding 2 would need to be 0 or 5. It's not a pre-2001 plate, because
a single letter is followed by 3 numbers. (NB, I'm not a number plate
weenie, so I could be wrong).

You are wrong! S42 DWC is a valid plate.

...except that it's not in the DVLA database.

S542DVC, however, is in the DVLA database. It belongs to a red Peugeot
Partner 800 van. Was the van red?

B

Arellcat said the following on 22/05/2007 15:24:

Quoted message said:

S542DVC, however, is in the DVLA database. It belongs to a red Peugeot
Partner 800 van. Was the van red?

How are you people finding this info? Sounds like a ringer's paradise
to me if it's publicly available!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Arellcat said:

Marc Brett said:

Quoted message said:

> ?S42 DWC is not a new (post-2001) license plate, because the number
> preceding 2 would need to be 0 or 5. It's not a pre-2001 plate, because
> a single letter is followed by 3 numbers. (NB, I'm not a number plate
> weenie, so I could be wrong).
You are wrong! S42 DWC is a valid plate.

...except that it's not in the DVLA database.

S542DVC, however, is in the DVLA database. It belongs to a red Peugeot
Partner 800 van. Was the van red?

Bigger. Possibly a LWB Mercedes Sprinter. I think I've seen it parked on
the Cowgate near the bottom of Infirmary Street during the day.

Arellcat said:

Marc Brett wrote:

*snip*

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

...except that it's not in the DVLA database.

S542DVC, however, is in the DVLA database. It belongs to a red Peugeot
Partner 800 van. Was the van red?

No, black with green lettering. Some kind of large hi-top van.

Regards,

-david will make sure he gets a closer look next time

On Tue, 22 May 2007 16:19:58 +0100, Paul Boyd

usenet.dont.work@plusnet said:

Arellcat said the following on 22/05/2007 15:24:

Quoted message said:

S542DVC, however, is in the DVLA database. It belongs to a red Peugeot
Partner 800 van. Was the van red?

How are you people finding this info? Sounds like a ringer's paradise
to me if it's publicly available!

Need to know basis I'm afraid. Can't say any more. You ain't seen me,
right.

OK then:

<http://www.rac.co.uk/web/vehiclechecks/status_checks/>

Tim

"Tim Hall" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 22 May 2007 12:04:00 +0100, Paul Boyd

usenet.dont.work@plusnet said:

Marc Brett said the following on 22/05/2007 11:19:

Quoted message said:

?S42 DWC is not a new (post-2001) license plate, because the number
preceding 2 would need to be 0 or 5. It's not a pre-2001 plate, because
a single letter is followed by 3 numbers. (NB, I'm not a number plate
weenie, so I could be wrong).

You are wrong! S42 DWC is a valid plate. It doesn't have to be three
numbers after the year letter.

I originally parsed it as "unknown character followed by S42 DWC",
rather than "I think it was S42 DWC"

Mind you,the DVLA wotsit doesn't know about it. Not that this means
it doesn't exist of course.

The 42 year indicator won't be used until 2042, S42 DWC is perfectly valid
between 1983 and 2001

I have an "I-Spy On the Motorway" book somewhere that lists the Licencing
centres pre-2001 (probably early 90s)

Looking at
http://www.regtransfers.co.uk/main/stories/cracking2.asp

Under the old system

WC is an Essex Plate and CW is a Burnley Plate, S reg vehicles are now 9
years old, which is good going for a van.

It could possibly be a van that has slowly made its way north and the
lettering on the side does not relate to the current operator.

Deliberatly stop somewhere on that road around that time, a post box or
phone call would be an excellent diversion.
And pretending to use a "camera"Phone makes photography of the offensive
vehicle easier.

Niall

"Tim Hall" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 22 May 2007 16:19:58 +0100, Paul Boyd

usenet.dont.work@plusnet said:

Arellcat said the following on 22/05/2007 15:24:

Quoted message said:

S542DVC, however, is in the DVLA database. It belongs to a red Peugeot
Partner 800 van. Was the van red?

How are you people finding this info? Sounds like a ringer's paradise
to me if it's publicly available!

Need to know basis I'm afraid. Can't say any more. You ain't seen me,
right.

OK then:

<http://www.rac.co.uk/web/vehiclechecks/status_checks/>

[censored] on the limitations the DVLA gives through its website of needing ot
tell it what make of vehicle it is before you can search.

Comes up with a positive result on my old car which is probably sitting on
someones kitchen shelf as a tin of beans.

Niall

In article said:

Comes up with a positive result on my old car which is probably sitting on
someones kitchen shelf as a tin of beans.

And with my old Renault 6 "Year of manufacture 1974".