Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


181 Excellent

1 Follower

  1. You can resurrect what you like, it ain't gonna goad me into playing your pathetic games.
  2. My view were also upheld by DJ Andrew Thomas in Bromley County Court and DJ Baker in Birkenhead County Court. I shall not be adding any more. Those reading this can please themselves whether they wish to believe my posts.
  3. My response is advice or the OP and thus remain within the confines of the thread. Nor are my views 'unique' as they have been upheld by Mr Justice Owen in the High Court. I have supplied details before.
  4. Utter dangerous and misleading rubbish DB. Parking enforcement is not subject to rules that only apply to judicial courts who have issued warrants themselves. Further if there was a warrant in this case, I'll give you the money mesself. The OP is better office filing a out of time stat dec as per BA
  5. Whenever I read this misnomer - 'Persistent Evaders' - I am always left with the same question - persistent evaders of what exactly? A PCN is no more than an allegation - it even states on it that the person who issued it 'believes' that a contravention has taken place. Believes? Since when has that been proof of guilt? Being a 'persistent evader' of an unproven allegation is something we are all rightly guilty of.
  6. And no it isn't important that others accept your views when placing them before a judge. It is for you to prepare a case that convinces His Honour. Do bear in mind that as parking enforcement is administered completely outside of the judicial courts this is why judges and other legally trained people are unaware of the procedures. It only takes one person to explain it to them.
  7. Then those who quickly criticise others for holding different views to them should be aware that the person criticised is most likely to respond. I for one will not be involved in a discussion thread about illegal 'warrants' and schedule 12. I've made my views quite clear. If people do not wish to accept them, then that is their choice.
  8. Awfully sorry if my rare postings on this forum have detracted from your belief that you are enititled to say what you feel even when it is offensive to others, whilst others should criticised from voicing their views. The fact that I may well be only person quoting these views does not make those observations incorrect. If you think they are then any proof to the opposite is more than welcome.
  9. I'm sure he is getting confused, but my original point was that there is no warrant in this case. It is the persistent negative comments relating to my credibility by some that has steered this thread away from its objective. One should not be expected to allow such wholly informed comments to go unchallenged
  10. Slight error in that the word 'not' should have been part of the last line of the first paragraph. It might interest others to learn (if they do not know already) that the High and County Courts plus the Magistrate's Court do not involve themselves in parking enforcement to be any position to issue warrants in order to kick start Schedule 12.
  11. Sorry that should have read Traffic Management Act 2004. TCE 2007 and particularly Schedule 12 does not apply to parking enforcement with its reliance of a presumption of guilt. Thus the courts listed which are the High Court, the County Court and a Magistrates Court cannot and do not issue warrants for parking as this falls below their required legal minimum standard of proof which in the first two is 'on the balance of probabilities' and 'beyond all reasonable doubt t' in the latter. Presumptions of guilt by an administrative court (TEC) which does not issue any warrants simply do cut the mustard. I have explained this before and like this thread none of protagonists have been able to produce any proof to the contrary, their comments being limited unsupported doubts and personal abuse. That is a compliment.
  12. Once again, people are not carefully reading what I have said. I have made no reference to paper warrants. I'm well aware that warrants can be prepared on computers and transferred electronically - my website has covered this point for years - but this does NOT happen and no completed warrant prepared by a local authority is ever transferred to a bailiff company and thus whatever appears on a smart phone is NOT a copy. It is document generated by bailiff companies and thus fails to comply with CPR 75 7 3, Lord McNally's comments and the judgment of Mr Justice Owen. As I have said because bailiffs have always done it this way does not make this illegal procedure any more lawful.
  13. As I have said in the past decade I have NEVER come across any local authorities who have prepared a warrant but have seen hundreds prepared by bailiff companies and presented as 'genuine'. Perhaps the comments of Lord McNally speaking in the House of Lords on 19th July 2011 might when added that as far as the preparation of warrants is concerned 'bailiffs are not applicants to the proceedings' - source Hansard 20th July 2011 might be considered. In short they have no legal authority to prepare warrant and if they do it has no authority
  14. And by the way - I did not claim to have 'won'. I merely prepared the case for others to argue in court and the judge accepted the arguments in what was a 49 paragraph submission.
  • Create New...