Just seen this and must correct it. Price swapping IS theft, see R v Morris [1984] AC 320. And of course you can attempt a fraud. The very nature of an attempt is that the actual crime does not happen - it is inchoate

Surely personal remarks are something that should be reported to the site team at first instance? Rather than commented on, especially in a separate thread.

As perp correctly pointed out, criminal damage requires intent or recklessness. The police should at least take some sort of interest. However I doubt much will come from it.

I have not had a proper read. I am off to Manchester for a conference tomorrow so will probably have a proper look at this on Friday. At present, I will answer your question.... Both! I think there are a few arguments that have merit. I also think that there is a high chance that you could be torn a new one on appeal.

From my reading, Section 100(3) seems to suggest that the police may deliver the vehicle to a local authority if they wish to do so. There is nothing in Section 100 which says they must do so - I cannot find the subsection which states that, as you put, "traffic officers must deliver to the secretary of state." The fact that s100(3) goes on to say "with the consent of that authority" seems to suggest that the section does not forbid the arrangements between the police and private contractors since the police may only deliver with the consent of the LA. It would be surprising if s100(3) is interpreted as forcing the police to take cars to the council. I know of at least one case where the Court of Appeal has enforced the arrangement that the police have with private contractors.

I would be interested to hear this good news.

Perjury involves knowingly making false statements. If a letter is delivered to an address and is destroyed before he sees it, he cannot commit perjury if he says he never received it. The same goes for the person who never saw a letter that went missing between the mail room and his desk.

To play devil's advocate, I would argue that whether or not the ticket was left upside down is neither here nor there. Unless the terms and conditions of parking state that some form of intent is required (which I doubt they do), the fact that the ticket was left upside down by some sort of accident is not relevant. The fact is that the ticket was upside down, this contravened the T&Cs and as a result it could be easily argued that the OP was therefore trespassing. Should the OP take the matter to County Court, that is what I can see the other side arguing. On a more helpful note, should the OP wish to view the case which Al27 referred to, Look for Vine v Waltham Forest

I find the fact that the solicitor was turned away very odd. I would be interested in knowing the reason for this.

MightyMouse says: Bring Bookie Back!

I'd second this. Look out for firms that offer a free consultation. If civil action is pursued, while wining in the county court may be likely, recovery of your money may not be so straight forward.

Oh, and as for who caused this... Spending under Labour was reckless. This was made worse by the banking crisis. The banking crisis was, to be fair, international. Also, in the interest of fairness, the bail out of the banks was followed by Europe and the US. A leading economist praised the action, stating that Brown and Darling "may have shown us the way through this crisis."

Wow. Just wow. No one likes the spending cuts. That is the probably the only conclusion that we can reach which everyone will agree with. It is also undeniable that spending cuts are needed - the only question is, how quick/deep should we cut and by being brutal, are we causing more harm than good? No one seems to know and I would submit that even George Osborne himself is slightly unsure as to how it will all pan out. The IFS seems reserved on the plan. It said that the Spending Review is "more regressive than progressive" and pointed out that the review was also unfair - resulting in the poorest and super rich being worse of... and out of those two categories, it is the poorest overall who will feel more aggrieved at the cuts. Of course, when the IFS became public over its concerns, we were told that the government: "fundamentally disagree with the IFS" and that it's findings were "complete nonsense." It's amazing to think that George Osborne once described the IFS as a: "credible independent voice on the public finances, taxation and public spending." How times change eh? I do doubt the speed at which these cuts are being made. I also think that while a lot of the cuts are needed, the Conservatives have also used the economic climate as an excuse to fulfil a deep rooted desire to disrupt the welfare state in all of it's forms. When the chancellor announced the plans, the Tory MPs were shouting for more. For more?! These are cuts that will adversely affect the poorest and most vulnerable. Cuts which Cameron pretends he hates having to make.... yet his backbenchers couldn't get enough!

Sorry If there was any confusion - I was referring to instances of the Police failing to take proper action in criminal cases. To clear matters up, I will amend my post slightly. Sorry again

As an aside - its costs money to prosecute. A conviction is not assured either and this case could involve a question of law which could complicate matters. This goes some way to explaining the police reluctance to proceed properly in criminal cases - something likely to get worse.

The police are correct up to a point. On the 5th Feb, when the car was taken, there was no crime committed - due to the lack of dishonesty. However, as soon as they realised the mistake and refused to set things straight, an offence was committed. In law this is sometimes known as coincidence - i.e. The mental element (intention) must occur when the guilty act occurs. However the theft act deals with situations where the intent is formed after the actual taking. I see that you have emailed the police, I suggest that you consider speaking to your MP. This whole situation is, frankly, ridiculous. I would advise against a public prosecution - it costs. Money would be better spent seeking the advise of a lawyer as to the best way to proceed and ensuring all options (criminal and civil) are looked into.

Just seen the latest post. In that case I suspect that they will be dealt with as two separate instances - worth inquiring though. The only positive thing is that you were not apparently unaware/ not bothered about the speed limit for a whole ten minutes!

If the facts of the incident are that you were on the same stretch of road, it may be that you could ask to be prosecuted for a single continuous offence. It would be up to how the crown feel. The argument that Surfer puts forward wouldn't go far. Since the offence of speeding requires no element of intention anyway. Drivers are expected to be aware of the limits. Driving almost 10mph over the limit for 10 minutes does indeed show a lack of attention.

As others have said, the 3rd party complicates matters. I suspect that in this instance it means that you will probably have to remove the blog. Not because ParkingEye are right in law but because your host wants you to. However, I don't see why you cannot create a new blog entry, maybe providing a link the the BBC watchdog clips.

Mosh, You mention that others - such as Pepipoo have had a similar demand. Do you know what action they are taking?

I'll start with question 2, since it's easier! Yes is the simple answer. A company is a legal person. Question 1: "Can you defame someone that is held in low regard by the public ?" Defamation requires an act that lowers the reputation of another person in the eyes of a third party. If the "victim" has no reputation, than it can be hard for them to make a case - and any damages awarded may be nominal. There is case law for this.

As above. Kraken could not have put it in any more simple form. The DSRs state that they apply to: Regulation 3, Interpretation, states that: Regulation 3 goes on to say that:

Ask for your money back?

Kraken, you forgot the mandatory copy and pasting of some legislation! http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/2334/regulation/3/made And for good measure, a random Act: Explosive Substances Act 1883 I have covered for you this time Kraken, but next time I might not be around to help....

Any chance of getting a picture or paraphrasing what these signs say?