Was the seller registered as a business seller on ebay?

Thank. If I read it right, then a constable can seize a vehicle from someone's driveway if, say, someone's unlicensed child had driven it in the previous 24 hours. Wow. Is there any appeal process? Or can the owner / RK effectively be fined without any due process?

Entering for the purpose of searching / arresting. As a MOP, I can walk into any unlocked door, and not be charged with any criminal act (unless I damage something, or intimidate someone). A police officer also has that ability. It's semantics and quibbling, I know.

Is this the RTA? [Edit] Found it. If I read it right, then a constable can seize a vehicle from someone's driveway if, say, someone's unlicensed child had driven it in the previous 24 hours. Wow.

As can anyone (except for Crown property etc. which would be a criminal offence). They might still be trespassing, and the landowner / occupier could require them to leave, even to the extent of using force, if the police are not there lawfully. (The police do, of course, have far more powers that enable them to be somewhere lawfully.) The only difference between indoors and outdoors would be down to whether entry was forced - The police have powers to force entry under certain conditions.

I'm not questioning the constable's authority to stop the vehicle in the carpark. I'm questioning the the police's authority to remove it.

It looks as though the company were blackmailing you. "Give us £300, or we will tell the police". It doesn't matter that the action of calling the police was lawful. What did you solicitor say about that?

The police towed his car from private land? Do they have that authority?

The DVLA do not have the authority to enforce failing to display.

My mistake - I didn't read the post correctly. Try asking in the DVLA forum.

Under what authority were NSL clamping your vehicle?

Yes. But - Facebook are well within their rights, and are not diminishing the OP's rights, by not allowing the photos to he hosted on their servers, however misguided that decision may be. The only option available to the OP is to lobby Facebook to allow such picture to be hosted - there is no remedy available in law. There's nothing wrong with breastfeeding. There's nothing wrong with photographs of it. There's nothing wrong with showing those photos. There is, however, something wrong with compelling someone to display those photos on your behalf, against their wishes.

I was just about to post the same. I'm curious as to how the Home Office and ACPO are going to ignore this recent ruling.

Likewise, they are open to legal action if they do not. How is this relevant in this thread? Which legislation & regulations would those be then? Which rights would those be then? That's sort of true. In this regard, the owners of the forum could be construed as being publishers. A precedent was set with Demon Internet, whereby liability for defamation was incurred once the publisher neglected to act on notification that defamatory material had been published. There is also a school of thought (per Justice Eady) that defamation on a forum, such as this, would be slander, not libel. Again - which rights? How has this happened in the example given at the top of this thread? How is anything that you have written relevant?

The absence of any formal agreement makes the whole thing messy. A formal agreement might have granted ownership of the footage, and associated rights, to the organiser (copyright cannot, in itself, be transferred). There might also have been a clause as to the quality of the work - the service itself must be of a reasonable quality and fit for purpose. Any action in copyright would likely cost far more that the contract value, and net pretty much nothing, unless there is significant commercial value in the footage. For practical purposes, the only options appear to be pay up and take the footage, or cut the footage and claw the money back.

The fact that the clampers will "indemnify the client against all claims" just means that the client (the landowner) will need to claim from the clamper for any losses.

It doesn't matter that they are bespoke. The Sale of Goods Act applies, whereby the goods need to be of satisfactory quality, and fit for purpose. Have a look at this link for a quick precis of SOGA. A moderator might want to move this to the general consumer issues forum.

Handwritten or not, it means that the clamper was acting as agent for the landowner / occupier, and that you can go ahead and make a claim against the landowner.

As I pointed out earlier, there is a puritanical streak in Facebook - it originated in Massachusetts, one of the puritan strongholds of the 17th century.

If you're going to arbitrarily remove posts, at least show some consistency in how you do so. This post is blatantly abusive: And has already been deleted once.

No, they are not. Although that is not relevant here. No they cannot. But this is not relevant. By and large, yes. Although this is not relevant here. There's no such right in law in the UK by constitution, although you might claim that right exists by convention. Irrespectively, that right only extends as far as the rights of others. In this case, it extends as far as the right of Facebook to not have to host those photos. They have every right. In fact, they have the same rights that you state in the paragraph above this one. No - that the OP can feed her child as she sees fit goes without saying. However, she enjoys no right by default of using someone else's service to host photos of her doing that.

They exist because enough people pay up to make it worthwhile, and because it is not illegal to do what they do. Landowners have every right to manage and control parking on their property, but they seem to go about it in a half-arsed, lazy manner. Writing to them is your prerogative, but experience dictates it will get you nowhere.

Although there is nothing wrong with challenging those Ts & Cs if they are stupid (which, in this case they are). Nor if they are in any way illegal or unlawful (which, in this case, they are not).

It doesn't matter. The wording is arbitrary nonsense. Point your OH in this direction, and she will be told exactly the same thing. All that writing to them achieves is to encourage them to send even more letters, with further demands. And read the stickied posts - they explain why these unsolicited invoices should be ignored.

There's nothing to defend. There is no such thing in law as a "civil parking charge notice".