Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
I read that already. If it was on here, then it is nice to be reminded.
I think it should be bumped on the 1st of every month.
Trading Standards wants your help
Dubious website businesses Conterfeit alcohol and cigarettes Illegal sales of alcohol, tobacco, knives & fireworks to children Cowboy builders or tradesmen Car clockers Counterfeiters Aggressive selling
Never phone or accept phonecalls from debt collection companies.
If you don't believe you can win, there is no point in getting out of bed.
_________________________ ________________ _________________________ ___________________
Wonder, if taking this article and the one in the Mail On Sunday along to a court hearing is worth the effort? Ok, this does not set a precedent but surely if one judge found this illegal so surely should the other, as the game these crooks play is one and the same.
As you say it does not set a precedent, it is only a county court judgement so it is not binding on other county courts. The legal principles ARE, namely that penalties are not allowed for breaches of contract, only damages, usually restricted to loss.
One good thing about the recent well publicised Excel humiliation is that trolling activities have decreased markedly. That old tired line about a PPC not losing a case when both parties turned up is no longer trotted out.
As you say it does not set a precedent, it is only a county court judgement so it is not binding on other county courts. The legal principles ARE, namely that penalties are not allowed for breaches of contract, only damages, usually restricted to loss.
One good thing about the recent well publicised Excel humiliation is that trolling activities have decreased markedly. That old tired line about a PPC not losing a case when both parties turned up is no longer trotted out.
This case has been discussed in at least 3 threads already. The case is meaningless a judge can just as easily agree with the PPC next time as every case has its own merits. The key point in this case was the signage was wrong if it wasn't who knows what the outcome would have been?
"the signage was wrong" - how one defines that? I have been through the BPA Code and know a couple of private lots where signage is not what it says should be in the Code, but it's voluntary, so no one gives a toss, even when I pointed out to the site manager. There are no clear cut points re signage one can argue in a court.
"On their sign it did say the maximum time limit was two hours. Then below it was a list of things you could face a charge for –– like parking an HGV or caravan or not parking within the lines. But nowhere did it say that if your stayed over two hours you would be liable for the charge."
If there was no signage saying that staying over two hours would incur a charge it was destined to fail in Court.
judge finds excel parking fines illegal
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Conniff
