Congratulations! Enjoy that cup of coffee!

Well that is bad news. I am sure it was against the rules too... I hope we won't get into a situation like we saw on the RLP forum - where one member took it upon himself to privately contact members with advice. The result? No one else knows what to do and the outcomes of cases are not always clear. I would encourage the admin team to call for such discussions to occur on the open forum.

TWOC is slightly different to theft and so long as the car was driven away, is the correct offence for this situation. Twoc isn't a "modern" thing either - it appears in the same 1968 Act as the offence of theft! To the OP: Tell the solicitor in no uncertain terms that you want the car back. Ask him for a detailed explanation of your options.

Thanks for the picture. How did you hit the island? One assumes you strayed outside of your lane?

How did it happen, when (at night/during the day)? One assumes that the traffic island was in the middle of the road and you somehow managed to strike it? More details needed please.

Thinking back to my equity days (which is a painful memory).... The trustees should act in the beneficiaries interest only. I think. Hopefully this post will prompt others to come along and correct or agree with me!

I have heard from the member concerned that the thread is under review. The shocking thing is that the OP had evidence and the issue affected more than one person. It is a shame that someone such as Mr. K could run such a shoddy business and then the Consumer Action Group helps him by silencing those who warn of his bad practices. Fighting for justice isn't usually easy or cheap. But it is well worth it. It is a wonder this site can exist at all if threads are pulled just because someone shouts defamation!

Oddly enough, In the email notifications I have been sent, the OPs user name shows as PPC s cambuster.... (without the space)

It's not a parking thread. It was the thread concerned with a particular seller of fresh veg...

How did they force you back into the store?

Maybe the PPCs have threatened CAG with court action? In the past week, at least one rather large and informative thread has been deleted because the subject of the thread threatened legal action.

I doubt it. There are a few parking/storage cases concerning easements. There are criteria that must be fulfilled for a right to become an easement. One is that the servient owner (the person who the land belongs to) is not excluded from the land. It would therefore depend on the size of the land and the interference caused by your parking. Adverse possession claims may be difficult - the possession must be "adverse" and this is something where there has been much dispute in the past. Land disputes (especially between neighbours) are always best avoided.

Exactly. 1st we are told that the appeal has been concluded and the judgement is out. Now we are told that there is still ongoing litigation!

Well, If they are married, there is no conspiracy due to the Criminal Law Act 1977 s2(2). I would think that if it went that far, than rather looking at conspiracy (which is more of an inchoate thing I think) the crown may look at joint enterprise.

What would the grounds for divorce be? At any rate, as has been mentioned - we do not know if the OP is married, and if he is, whether he would be able to apply for divorce.

Well the paper part is the most important part since that is the bit that is physically endorsed. Make sure you take some other ID - passport etc. Take more than one item of ID. I cannot imagine there being a problem - but don't quote me on that. Let us know how you get on.

A county court case is not binding. Can be persuasive though. The rumours are that it was a set up. I am not too sure personally. As for case law - There is none on PPCs as such. There is case law on principles - I.E - contract, trespass etc.

Of course it can. Then it would be a mere Edit away. All the content is in the public domain anyway. I bloody hate censorship.

Exactly. Plus it is not 'stealing' as Al27 said.

Why do we attract weirdos.... they told me I was the last one allowed in! Have you got a link to this judgement?

Can you elaborate on that?

Real life?! What on earth is that! I accept that people have things to do. But it doesn't take long to make a quick post saying "we lost" or "we won". Especially when we consider that JonCris used to live in the RLP section of this site. He now seems to have vanished without trace. I have a very heavy workload - I have just finished writing a report on a legal conference last week and I am now opening my criminal practice books... I doubt they will shut before 12 tonight. Despite this I still find time to come on here.... though I think they call that procrastination..

Perplexity, While I agree with what you say about the caution - I.E: It is an admission of guilt. I do believe that maybe we should refrain from speculation on this thread. At the moment, we are all interested in trying to find out what the result is.

I agree with Bernie and G&M Car parks do have to be managed and the PPCs will lobby for private control to be legitimised. So, how long for the PPC's? Longer than we think probably.

I would have to disagree. The hearing was on the 8th. We were told by JonCris that the appeal had concluded and Judgement was expected the next week (w/c: 11th Oct). On the 12th, JonCris tells use that the Judgement is being "considered" before commenting - whatever that means. We then here nothing, despite the fact that JonCris last logged in some 2 weeks after his last post on this thread. They original parties have had ample time to give an update. If the posters were happy to come on the forum at a time of stress to seek help, the least they could do would be to return and tell us the outcome.