Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


lamma last won the day on November 28 2012

lamma had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

590 Excellent

1 Follower

About lamma

  • Rank
    Platinum Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I explicitly referred to CPE. that means TMA. 1991 Act is irrelevant. I have no idea why you brought it up. Especially as this is about the analysis of Sch 12. We can progress if posts focus on the matter without sidetracks. So let us proceed with the correct focus. In a nutshell. My initial two points - as yet unrebutted, are:- 1) Sch 12 does bite for CPE (the "as if" is all important) 2) Bailiff can't sell on a seized vehicle that is subject to HP as they cannot pass good title. (What is more they must know they cannot pass good title in that circumstance as they are qual
  2. 104 2 (b) enables TCE through the CPE enforcement S.I.s which as quoted, use "as if"
  3. 1) I have at no time contended that the TCE does not permit enforcement of CPE Penalties. ("Traffic penalties" is the wrong term, we need accuracy of expression or it becomes rather Queen of Hearts). As a matter of plain fact I quoted the paragraph that enables this in my first post. It is 104 (2) (b). And added a specific paragraph to explain how it engages - the reference to the "as if" in the enforcement regs. So that you and other readers may be clear, double quotes denotes a exact quotation, single quotes denote an expression of doubt. You may have simple inferred something that was not
  4. That contention has not been raised in this thread. Operative word is "analysis".
  5. Exactly my point. The EA selling the car would be a stupid thing to do. They would be doing it knowingly being trained in this area.
  6. Enclose proof with the appeal letter. You must evidence your claim to the exemption (should it exist) or the council will bat the appeal away in the blink of an eye.
  7. Thread titled "analysis" for that reason. Subject has potential impact enough to warrant it being bottomed out.
  8. Much has been spoken of this. I have not (yet) done any detailed analysis but the ball needs to start rolling. So I 'kick off' with these two (extremely) cursory observations:- 1) 104 (2) means that the Act bites for parking tickets viz:- “judgment debt” means either of the following— (a) a sum which is payable under a judgment or order enforceable by the High Court or a county court; (b) a sum which, by virtue of an enactment, is recoverable as if it were payable under a judgment or order of the High Court or of a county court (including a sum which is so recoverable
  9. I must look into Fair Parking's point re applicability as if it holds then the EA is acting in a private capacity and could be in a world of hurt. Although the courts do protect their own.. To the issue:- Was it slipshod draftsmanship ? Errata do occur... or intentional (chaos) ? Either way its deep waters. e.g. 955. Hire purchase etc. Goods let to a hirer on hire purchase remain the property of the owner1 but they are not thereby necessarily protected from distress2. Goods bailed under a hire purchase agreement3 or a consumer hire agreement4 or agreed to be sold under
  10. I agree wholeheartedly that the Stat Dec should not be abused. And in the instance of the case in this thread it seems that a Stat Dec is validly called for. As for the new multi £100s "criminal charges" I dare not vent my spleen in public. I will for now merely say that the name says it all - they ARE criminal charges. But let us focus on this case.
  11. The revised procedure - immediate retrial - is somewhat disconcerting to say the least. A Litigant In Person (LIP) has no chance of seeking and obtaining advice in an hour. I would argue that the LIP does not understand the paperwork - and frankly they won't - and needs time. For the same reasons an informed plea is impossible. And where is the witness for the re-trial ? Interestingly, to me at least, the British Transport Police (BTP) are paid for by the Train Operators. I know of cases being dropped after fifteen minutes or so of astute questioning of t
  12. Thank you for this mickeymack. It will take time to digest but one thought springs to mind immediately. What about instances of ANPR equipped bailiff vans enforcing CPE where the bailiff is acting in their private capacity ? Of course there is a tendency for the courts to 'overlook' many bailiff issues....
  13. yes, but the recipient does not want this public, even anonymised, at this stage. But will provide you a suitable copy. Probably doable tomorrow. tt, your box is full.
  • Create New...