A friend of mine recently bought a property in the neighbourhood of an airport. In the past few months they have had issues with a vehicles being parked on their driveway for several days at a time. The suspicion is that a rogue offsite airport outfit is using their driveway to store cars for their clients. He has contacted the cops who said that they can't/won't remove any vehicle and that he commits an offense if he has it moved. I have suggested that the simplest way of preventing this is some form of collapsible lockable bollard(s) to prevent them getting the car on the driveway in the first place. My question is if this happens again, can he raise a lockable bollard or install one to stop a vehicle leaving and can he demand a release fee tom compensate for the trespass - i.e. the old distress feasant route?

Many thanks for the responses. Tallies with the advice I'd already given her which was to ask the police to attend and consult a lawyer.

After a bit of advice. A friend of mine has recently split from her husband. She's moved out but he's being a [removed] and not allowing her back into the flat to get her possessions including clothes and jewellery. Does she have any recourse in law such as obtaining a court order to allow her to recover her possessions?

Just a thought to back up whether he would be considered an employee. Check out the guidance on IR35. Unless the contract has specific terms then it could be for TAX and NI purposes that he is considered an employee. It's not a definitive thing but it would add credence to his argument that he is employed.

You needn't be worried, but they obviously are. Quite apart from offenses under the RTA which themselves could have serious implications for a serving Police Officer, there is the matter of using their position as a serving police officer. If they use their position in anyway that is not relevant to their job, i.e. to give them more status or as an inherent threat that can be deemed as a misuse of their power and may be worth a complaint to the IPCC. In either case the DPS will then get involved. It seems to me they are seeking to be preemptive.

Just to clarify. The bank in question is LTSB. I was informed by the court that the case would be stayed pending the outcome of my application to strike out based on non-compliance with CPR31.14. The expiry of 7 days from their receiving my request was the day before the defense was due to be filed. I only received a response to my CPR request at the end of last month. Thats more or less a year since the request was filed. I am going to suggest to the court that they have behaved unreasonably and request that the case be struckout. I have also claimed for costs against LTSB for the cost of the strikeout. In my CPR request I asked them to allow me more time to file a defense based on the time to respond to the request. I will ask the court for the same timeframe to complete a defense that they have taken to respond. The letter I received from their in-house litigation team looked to me to be an automated job saying they were going to apply for default judgement on the grounds that I hadn't entered a defense I suspect they filed a bunch of claims and then had the computer set to issue payment books and letters based on whether the claim was defended. Given that I received it on the Tuesday after the defense was to have been filed (a friday) it arrived pretty quickly. But the judgement cannot be granted until the application for strikeout is granted.

Hi Blondie, Would rather not say in open forum.

I need some advice on a strikeout application I made under CPR31.14 for a credit case that they are seeking to recover from me. As this is close to court I won't put anything down here that will allow them to identify me. I stopped paying them in the belief that they did not hold the original signed credit card agreement. They had previously sent me correspondence saying that they did not have to show the original to me only a re-constituted copy. They issued me with various threats etc and finally issued proceeding in March last year. The claim was made via MCOL and no documents were received other than the court papers. I acknowledged service but did not get sent the documents to support their claim. I sent a letter to their solicitors requesting dislose of their docs under CPR 31.14. Here is part of the text of letter I sent to them ----- Prior to the issue of proceedings I had delivered a request for the production of the signed agreement mentioned in the Claim Form and on which you rely. Please treat this letter as my request made under CPR 31.14 for the disclosure and the production of a verified and legible copy of mentioned in your Particulars of Claim: 1 the agreement. You will appreciate that in an ordinary case and by reason of the provisions of CPR PD 16 para 7.3, where a claim is based upon a written agreement, a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement should be attached to or served with the particulars of claim and the original(s) should be available at the hearing. Further, that any general conditions incorporated in the contract should also be attached. 2 the assignment 3 the default notice 4 the termination notice You should ensure compliance with your CPR 31 duties and ensure that the document(s) I have requested are copied to and received by me within 7 days of receiving this letter. Your CPR 31 duties extend to making a reasonable and proportionate search for the originals of the documents I have requested, the better for you to be able to verify the document's authenticity and to provide me with a legible copy. Further, where I have requested a copy of a document, the original of which is now in the possession of another person, you will have a right to possession of that document if you have mentioned it in your case. You must take immediate steps to recover and preserve it for the purpose of this case. ------ I sent the letter recorded delivery and awaited their response. As I was unable to file a defense I had no response from them within the 7 days or at any time until after I received notice from the court saying that this was going to a hearing. I did receive a charming letter that as I hadn't entered a defense that a default judgement had been entered and here was a payment book for me to start paying them. However the case was stayed. At the end of last month their solicitors then sent me a copy of the credit agreement which is hardly legible, statements of the account. They refused to send a copy of the default notice and of the formal demand as they don't retain copies. They are intending to attend court and oppose the application. My questions are can I get a strikeout based on their non-compliance of the 7 day rule and should I emphasis this to the court? I think that a year is pretty unreasonable. Should I request time to enter a defense? (If this becomes likely then I will be looking to get help on the defense). Any advice on what I need to say or anything else to support my application would be greatly appreciated.

You definitely have some grounds to challenge this towing away. If a car is clamped or towed then once an offer to pay is made then release should be in a reasonable amount of time - problem is the case law doesn't say what a reasonable time is but it does indicate that the means to obtain release should be available for 24X7. I definitely agree that you should not be penalised by the management company or their agents for using land which you own. Clamping/towing is essentially about permission to park and implied consent to allow your vehicle to be clamped/towed if you park without permission providing there is a clear signage or notification. As you have clear rights to the space they should not have towed you and indeed should have released and returned your vehicle without charge. I would be talking to the management company and attempting to resolve this matter without the need for court. Try phoning and make your points in a calm and collected way. (Its worth speaking to an organ grinder not a monkey) Make it clear that you hold them liable and that you did not agree to the permit system. Warn them that they will face court action if they refuse to budge. Send a letter containing all your points and ask them to pay your charges. If they argue that they will have to obtain a refund from the clampers or that they are indemnified by the clampers point out that you are not a party to any agreement they have with the clampers and that you hold them jointly liable. If they aren't forthcoming then I'd issue them with a letter before action and a county court claim if they still won't play ball. Also have a read of the clamping guide in the stickies section. Towing is covered as "immobilisation activity" under the Private Securities Industry Act and regulations and the case law around clamping is highly relevent and pertinent. I also wrote the appendix with this sort of scenario in mind.

FWIW the EE CEO has changed recently. The new CEO is now Olaf Swantee. I would suggest that you ask them to substantiate their claims. Tell them in writing that you want proof (they should put up or shut up.)

My understanding of contract law is that a court can order: 1) Specific performance - where the party is forced to complete their part of the contract 2) The award of damages to put you in the position you would have been in had the breach not occurred The usual position in torts is that their should be no enrichment from the damages. They've made an offer to refund and compensate, which you are at liberty to refuse. Specific performance is usually used in real estate but is a possible action. I would consult a lawyer and get their opinion.

I use CDBurner XP (Free) or InfraRecorder. Both are dead easy to use and you don't have to use Microsofts garbage.

Just continue to ignore. Hopefully they'll give up after this.

Sorry BF you're a little out of date with this. As of July last year Orange UK and T-mobile UK were merged to form a joint venture company known as Everything Everywhere which now operate the Orange and T-mo brands. The JV company is 50% owned by France Telecom and 50% owned by Deutsche Telekom. Customer experience and Service is very high on the agenda for the new JV. I'm not suggesting that attitudes will change overnight but neither is it as bad you are suggesting.

Good result!!! OPC give it up your business model is flawed.

I guess that would satisfy case law but a judge might be pedantic and require it to be on the sign. With regard to the disclosure of the registered name of the company this might be of interest (see section 10: http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/business-law/company-and-partnership-law/company-law/company-law-faqs/stationery-website-and-signs#6

Hi, A couple of points for your consideration: The receipt is in breach of the The Companies (Trading Disclosures) Regulations 2008 in that the registered office of the company is not given nor is the company number on the receipt. Ditto for the sign. In addition the sign is not compliant with case law - Arthur vs Anker: There is no phone number or any other means of communicating an offer to pay on the sign.

You're right BF. The following is lifted off the petitions website This page shows the procedure: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/how-it-works Despite all that I think it's worth signing it. It's a pro-active way at hitting back at the PPC muppets and the BPA.

I don't remember Civil Enforcement ever doing anything beyond the standard threat-o-grams. As others have told you ignore what is a speculative invoice for an alleged breach of contract. They have obtained the Registered Keepers details from the DVLA and written to them in an attempt to either get the RK to name the driver or in the hope that the RK will pay up. You should do neither of these. You aren't obligated to tell them anything and even if the RK was the driver they still fail on a number of elements of contract law. This guide is a few years old but most of it is still valid. http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/pages/PJ.html. The best advice is to ignore them.

I thought where perky was concerned it more the muppet show.

Not to mention CPUT.

You'd need to up date this a bit. AIUI The UTCC 1999 have been superseded by the Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUT).

If they employ clamping or any trespass remedy and you have a letter from Lidl stating that you have permission to park their then they are cream crackered. The area of trespass and permission is covered in the clamping guide. That said I suspect the best way to avoid any unpleasantness is to send a copy of the permission letter to Athena and Magna with a covering note stating that as per your agreement with Lidl you intend to keep parking their and that you will not expect to receive any invoices etc.

My lease company received a Traffic Enforcement Notice from TPS. Being the muppets that they are they have e-mailed me today saying they intend to deduct the amount from my salary as per our agreement. I have put them straight on the enforcabilityof this speculative invoice. I have instructed them to ignore anything further from TPS. As there I've seen a few threads recently about TPS I thought I'd attach a copy of this Speculative Invoice (which they have the cheek to call a notice to owner.) so that anyone interested can see it and recognise it for what it is (toilet paper:smile:). Sorry TPS, details removed and another punter who won't be paying. It safe to say that I have safely ignored this shower in the past and will continue to do so. TPS Enforcement Notice.pdf

No they don't normally. Bailiffs wouldn't get involved until they had a decision from the courts and as this shower don't normally do court then you won't see the,m. They may hassle your son with Debt Collectors who have absolutely no power to enforce a debt. The usual form is letters as they can't usually get a phone number. FWIW I've had a couple of letters from another muppet outfit (PPC) which I have successfully ignored. Haven't seen hide nor hair of Court Don't try to nip it in the bud. Tell your son what happened and tell him to ignore their crap. The more you ignore the sooner they go away.