Thanks for replying BF. Maybe when the major stuff is all done, the grouping of different forums could be tweaked? For example: As crem says, the "Vehicle-retailers-and-manufacturers" forum is almost impossible to find (unless you know where to look) - maybe it would be wise to have all motor related stuff in the same place? Thanks for the hard work you are doing.... oh, and you will be pleased to know that I like the new icon thingys

With security in cars becoming more advanced, it has become necessary for car thieves to obtain the car keys. In my area, these are called millennium burglaries, it is fairly common to hear about such burglaries in the local courts. It appears that they are often non violent, however in cases where violence has been used against the home owner (ranging from threats, beating, wounding etc) a common factor is that the keys were withheld from the thieves. Advice can be conflicting - some people will say that one should hide keys... others say that doing this increases the risk that the crook will resort to violence to obtain the keys.

Actually, I think that perplexity may be right here. The legislation he quoted concerns cross border claims under a scheme known as the "European small claims procedure." Essentially, it will allow you to take action against this company - usually the country in which the defendant it domiciled will have jurisdiction, but in some instances, the claim may be bought elsewhere - like where you live. Cases where the action can be bought in a Country other than that in which the defendant is domiciled may involve: • a contractual obligation; • actions for damages; • matters relating to maintenance; and • matters relating to consumer contracts, insurance and too individual contracts of employment. • Matters relating to patents and trademarks • Matters relating to ownership or tenancy of immovable property Im a bit busy at present, but for more info, look here: http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/ex725_e.pdf and here: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/consumers/protection_of_consumers/l16028_en.htm

The discussion with Jon was not about enforcing a contract though. It was about possible criminal liability arising where someone enters a car park and does not pay (an attendant for example) the requisite fee.

I didn't think bailiffs could take "tools for your trade"...

When was Judgement served? When did they apply for the set aside?

What case was this!? As Bernie said, a reg number does not always provide a means of contacting someone. Even if the identity of the defendant is known to the victim, there can still be liability under section 3.

Fair enough. Considering Smith and Hogan was rated an "excellent piece of work which elucidates the criminal law for judges..." by The Hon Mr Justice Pitchford, who has been a High Court judge for 10 years, I'd say that it's fairly authoritative. The High Court has made several rulings that concern a failure to pay for a service, further to this - the statute says that failure to pay for a service is an offence.

It is a reasonably interesting point. Bernie said: So, you go to the car park and see that you have to pay £3 to park. You do not pay. This sounds a lot like making of without payment, under the Theft Act 1978. For such an offence to occur, goods must be supplied or "services done." In Smith and Hogan, Prof. Ormerod says: So, in theory an offence is committed... I doubt the police get many complaints though.

JonCris, I take it that you believe that no offence could have been committed?

Could be interesting.

Thanks crem!

Haha, how considerate of Admin! Who is admin anyway? Is there a big boss person here? Maybe we could PM this mystical person a link to this thread... see what they have to say?

Just to say - my post #22 was made because my post (#21) took so long to appear on the thread, I assumed that something had gone wrong. Cor, this new software works a treat!

Most signs in car parks would be effective. It's reasonably well accepted that a sign with some conditions on it can amount to an offer. Acceptance is through conduct - so in a parking case this would be the conduct of parking (obviously.) An invitation to treat is not required to form a contract... Bernie gave a great explanation of some of the troubles PPCs face. Stating that failure to comply with the posted terms and conditions will result in a financial penalty can be problematic. The reason is that it means the PPC will have to go to court asking the Judge to award damages of (say) £100.. or whatever sum the sign and subsequent paperwork said. This amounts to punitive damages - I.E: the PPC is getting more money back in compensation than they lost due to the defendants action. Punitive damages can be awarded for breach of contract. At one stage, the cases for which such damages could be awarded were limited. They have been extended though and in one case it was stated that: It is clear that some judges in parking case are prepared to award such damages. Some do not though. So, the main problem for the PPC would be arguing that the damages they seek should be awarded. This is by no means impossible - but not easy either. The above is also, I would say, an argument for responding to PPCs if one wishes to do so. A defendant who has behaved reasonably before court would probably be less at risk of having punitive damages awarded against them than a defendant who has not behaved reasonably. Interestingly, should the sign say "by failing to comply with this sign, you agree to pay £x" then there could be no arguments about punitive damages etc. However the PPC would be seeking specific performance which may not be successful considering some of their tactics. I don't think "services" is property under section 4 TA 1968. However you are correct, an offence would have been committed. As for the restaurant scenario - that's a whole debate about when the decision to flee the restaurant was made etc

Has anyone had any contact with admin?

I second this. Has anyone here been in contact with admin about this? No one "high up" has commented on this thread. Even if it was to tell us to like it or lump it, some contact would be nice. At present, it seems they just don't care...

Agreed - the new layout is most bizarre. The Parking and Traffic forum is now located between the NHS and PPI forums.... and so on. If the forums were to be split up, as they have been, care could have at least been taken to group similar categories together. At present, the forums look unprofessional and will be confusing to newcomers.

RE: CCTV evidence. Who owns the CCTV? If the clamping company manage it, I would expect that any footage of this incident may have been accidentally deleted...

Only that police officers are human and as such have opinions towards things.

Does not surprise me at all. A while back a whole court day was wasted because proceedings had to come to a halt. The reason? The Chief Prosecutor for the area had not managed to review all the evidence and was not able pass instruction to counsel who wanted to alter the indictment in return for a guilty plea. The evidence had been available to the fool for ages, he just "had not gotten around to it." Judge was not best pleased. I fear that this sort of thing will only get worse with the future cuts.

I have read the PM. Usually, the prosecution will remain impartial throughout mitigation. They are supposedly there to represent public interest and not just the victim.... However, they should object to anything that is a blatant lie (and if there are enough of these lies then a hearing can take place to determine what parts of mitigation are truthful and which pieces are rubbish.) I can only assume that the prosecution was not aware of some of the information in the PM. I agree that the course of conduct recommended by Buzby should be followed. It would be up to the COPFS as to what it does with this information however. Further - it would be up to the relevant court to decide if it should vary the sentence or order. Act fast. I know that in the Crown Court there are time limits as to when a sentence can be varied.

Deferred sentence, nothing too unusual. It usually occurs where the defence has made some rather extravagant claims as to their client's good character. The Judge or magistrates, considering the facts of the case and the mitigation pleas may be unwilling to accept these claims straight away and pass a too lenient sentence. On the other hand, they may not want to dismiss the claims and pass a too severe sentence. In basic terms, the convicted person is released on 'parole'. While on this period of parole, the person is expected to live up to the claims they made in mitigation - usually more is expected: gaining employment, staying of alcohol etc. A date would have been set (in this case in 6 months) and on that date the person will be sentenced, taking into account the time on 'parole.' Just because the person behaved well will not necessarily prevent a sentence being passed. In some cases, despite good behaviour the person was still sent to prison after the deferment period. The person will no longer be on bail. Any offence committed in the next 6 months will mean that the court may pass sentence for the deferred offence as well as the new offence before the 6 months are up. As for the dodgy mitigation; this is not something that can really be rebutted as such. If the mitigation was false, this will probably be revealed at sentencing in 6 months time (or sooner if the guy goes and offends again.) I wish!

The Bill is due in November. It will probably become law next year sometime.

Maybe she would have made sure it was collection day?