Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Fair-Parking

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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

  7. Reverting to the use swear words and answering your own questions (before allowing any reply) are sure signs of a lack of co-ordination, but for the benefit of those who can't (or wont) read, the High Court case number was HX12X02808 and was heard before Justice Owen on 18 July 2012. The local authority appealed but without success.


    Further the law that requires a local authority (and NO other party) to prepare a warrant is CPR 75.7.3.The rules requiring a bailiff to carry a warrant are Department of Transport statutory guide to local authorities 10.68. These points were accepted by Justice Owen.


    All smart phone 'warrants' show is that the bailiff company sent it to the bailiff usually after rapidly printing one in its own office a few minutes earlier. A classic example of smoke and mirrors, because the thing that can never be shown is that the source of the 'warrant' lies with the local authority. The trail always goes cold in the bailiff company's office

  8. The last poster appears to have little or no understanding of parking enforcement which aligns perfectly with the 'we've always done it this way, so it must be right' misnomer prevalent within the bailiff industry. Of course no matter how many you enforce unlawfully, it will never become lawful.


    It helps to if you read my posts more carefully. I made it quite clear that if (and only if) a local authority and not its back office company or appointed bailiffs had prepared a warrant. then you most certainly can use a smart phone to show the COPY. However what I did make clear (twice) is that there was NO warrant in this case.Thus no copy.


    As I say it will come from Marstons when it finally sees the light of day. The local authority will not be aware of its existence, which would be odd if it had prepared it.


    Yes I suspect that there is an element of humour in all this for those making money out of not conforming with the law as it is written

  9. Had this Marstons bailiff had a 'warrant' with him then surely he would not have waltzed off with a van whose make and registration number would not have tallied with said 'warrant'.


    Now why would any bailiff leave the one overwhelming legal document at home when its production at the scene would have given him (on the surface at least) the authority and credibility to effect a legal seizure?


    As I said - there was no warrant.

  10. I might have know DB would be the first to criticise. Only the ignorant who have no idea how PCN enforcement is carried out (even the Ministry of Justice admit that it relies on a 'presumption of guilt') would make a stupid comment like that. In the decade I have been helping the public I have seen hundreds of Marstons' 'warrants', but I have NEVER seen a local authority prepared one.


    Indeed Marstons have stood up in court on more than one occasion and argued that they are entitled to issue warrants.


    Incidentally I also have the High Court on my side having prepared a case in July 2012 whereby the same points were put forward and the case was won with the client who came to me being awarded over £4000 costs. It is rare indeed fro parking cases to go to the High Court -indeed the Judge summed the case up by adding that the local authority and their bailiffs were terrorising their own community The only difference here is that the bailiff company was not Marstons, but they used the same misguided principle.


    Why don't you wait and see where this 'warrant' comes from before trying to belittle others when frankly you have no idea what you are talking about?

  11. There is no warrant in this case - not even one yet unlawfully prepared by Marstons who no doubt produce something that looks like a warrant by using the commercial software template that they purchased from One Step Solutions.


    Except that that bailiff companies have no legal authority to prepare warrants - which is not the same as copying one that has been already prepared lawfully by the local authority concerned. That IS allowed - but if the local authority ever prepared a genuine warrant in this case, I'll give you the money mesself.


    The TEC authorisation almost certainly went to the local authority's back office agents who then passed an electronic transmission of the name of the person, the address and the registration number (and probably several hundred others ) to Marstons under what is known as a 'batch'. This operation almost certainly bypassed the local authority as well.


    But passing on names. addresses and registrations by back office companies to bailiff companies is NOT the same as preparing a warrant which the back office companies also cannot legally prepare.


    So I expect any 'warrant' that might appear here to come from Marstons no doubt with invented times of TEC authorisation and the passing on the 'enforcement agent' written into it.


    If anybody doubts that Marstons and no other party will print the 'warrant' if the OP asks for one, then they need to ask themselves why Marstons and other bailiff companies purchase this software - if not to use it.


    One Step Solutions will not doubt be at Parkex at the Ricoh Arena later this month with up to a dozen bailiff companies also in attendance


    Go check them and their services out.

  12. Given that I apparently am fairly central to the incoherent and wholly imaginary ramblings of the person on another forum, it would have been nice to have read what was said here and to have the chance to place on record what did happen all those years ago. I was out for most of yesterday and have been deprived of being acquainted with whatever was being portrayed as' fact' before it was flushed down the toilet.


    As WD observed there is difference moderation and censorship - indeed a vast difference. This constant interfering censorship by those who run this forum is the reason that I rarely post here any more. This is supposed to be the Consumer ACTION Forum


    This forum must understand that we are quite capable of defending ourselves and that the only thing that has been achieved by deleting this thread is that the opportunity for those who did know the facts of the case to place them on record has been once again denied.


    The lead has been forfeited to somebody who is fighting to save the credibility only he and his foolish inner circle believe he possesses when the description 'pathetic little object' may be considered to be vastly more apt

  13. 'Persistent evader?' A wonderful term that immediately places the accused into a position of 'offender' but which in reality has no meaning whatsoever.


    Persistent evader of what? Three or more accusations of alleged contraventions all based on a presumption of guilt?


    To those reading - you all owe me £10 - because i say so.


    Proof? How imperious of you to ask as my accusation is quite enough in law. Ignore me three times and you automatically become a persistent evader of nothing more than an unproven accusation, however the law is with me


    Perhaps we should stand up to that.

  • Create New...