Correct but is the creditor ever going to be in a position to prove this? very doubtful I'd say, it's quite common for a parking ticket to be ignored, and sadly very common for a county court claim to be ignored too. A lack of response from the "driver" will not be of any detriment to the RK as I pointed out earlier that the new legislation does nothing to return liability to the rk in the event the monies are not paid by whatever means of enforcement by the "driver". A failure to collect charges from the named "driver" in no way proves or disproves the integrity of the information supplied by the RK and since we're talking parking tickets not multi million pound fraud I can't see much interest from the authorities in pursuing cases even if fraud is suspected. Fixed penalties and formulaic fines are where the moneys at in the legal system, by failing to make the incorrect supply of driver details a criminal offence subject to a mandatory fine this legislation will be of little interest to the criminal divisions. The denial aspect is food for thought though: I suspect that if A blames B and B denies it then very quickly this will be held that A has failed to incorrectly identify the driver and is thus liable as RK. What makes it really interesting is that B could ignore all demands for money until a court claim is brought. Once a claim is issued B enters a defence: "I was not the driver because I was on holiday in Cornwalll at the time, at work etc." At best claimant has lost the costs of bringing the claim, at worst they could get hit with the defendants costs on top. Either way the loss outweighs the potential gain and might serve to deter the blanket issuance of claims. What the landowners really needed (wanted more accurately) was an IF ELSE statute. What they've got is an IF ELSEIF ELSE where ELSE is a void function. If section 4 as enacted were a computer programme it would be entirely reliant upon the user (the RK) entering the correct data. There is no catchall error routine for bad/erroneous data entry which I as a coder of many years exp can identify as bad logic from a great distance. The statute makers could learn much by studying programming logic, section 4 as it stands will crash frequently

Not entitled to interest or enforcement under the CCA1974 as amended by CCA2006 if they haven't been issuing the relevant notices.

It also fails to acknowledge the existence of the doctrine of Privity in contract law ie a 3rd party cannot be held liable under the terms of a contract to which he is not a party. So there's further ammunition for a defence in the event a claim is brought on the pretext that the driver impliedly accepted the terms of the landowners contract by parking and the driver is not the RK.

Don't forget the monthly payments made between 1998 and 2001 prior to the loan entering default.

The two big flaws I can see with this piece of legislation are: 1) Proving that the "charge" represents an accurate pre-estimate of losses for contractual breach or damages for tort such as trespass and not simply a heavily weighted penalty charge or fine might prove difficult in some instances. Is £75 a fair pre-estimate of loss for say overstaying 20 minutes in an otherwise free car park, a car park which charges £1 per hour, an open car park outside shopping hours etc. 2)The statute awards the right to pursue the RK for unpaid charges thus: (9)2) (f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Now if we look at this a little more closely we can see the word "and" appears right at the end of condition (i) meaning that both conditions must be met for the right to pursue the RK. But if the RK has supplied the name of the driver at the time both connditions cannot be met ergo no right to pursue the RK. Think about it for a moment, what offence civil or criminal will be committed if the RK replies to the notice served under section 9 with something along the lines of "I was not driving the vehicle at the time the name of the driver was John Smith/mohammed patel, Donald Duck and he lives at 20 Park Drive"? Do this with a speeding ticket etc from the police and you're in a whole heap of trouble but do this with a civil notice such as this where no offence for providing false information has been created and it's a different ballgame. I'm not advocating responding with a fabricated name/address just illustrating that if you did then the right to collect from the RK is not awarded under this statute as proving that you supplied the driver details in response to the notice would be a complete defence to any attempt to recover a charge from the RK since both conditions were not met (assuming every other condition was met obviously). There is no provision for returning liability to the RK in the event the driver cannot be traced or made to pay up so it's pretty obvious to me that these parking control companies are going to be inundated with lots of replies naming foreign sounding "named drivers". And what happens if the RK does provide a genuine name and address eg their spouse? These regulations don't actually clarify the current situation one iota where the driver is the one pursued. They certainly do not award the landowner/agent an automatic entitlement to any "charge" such as these regs attempt to confer upon the landowner/agent in instances where the RK is the one being pursued. Nothing has changed legally where the driver is pursued, a fine is still unlawful and penalty charges which do not represent a true pre estimate of cost/losses are still unlawful under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. These regs do not award the landowner any extra recourse against the driver whatsoever, they were too busy looking at punishing the owner to bother about the driver but IMO all the RK has to do is supply the name of the driver, any driver even and the legislation becomes worthless. I'm not advocating telling lies to the parking enforcement companies but I can see it happening with alarming frequency... LOL!!

Sorry no edit button any more.... Was going to continue to say that to me this term implies that you are still within your contractual rights to serve them the notice of cancellation as per 4.4.2. You have after all given them enough time to remedy the lack of service by the alternative method as per 4.4.1

ps 19.11 from the above t&c's looks like it could be useful to your predicament: 19.11 If either party delays or does not take action to enforce their rights under this Contract this does not prevent either party from taking action later.

LOL I like it!!!!!

As DBC what appears to be a tidying up exercise has simply created an entirely new mess for all concerned parties. Can see the Judges loving it though as it gives them a good opportunity to interpret the law themselves. Perhaps I should be writing to Asda now and asking them for a breakdown of their pre-estimated loss for a 5 minute, 60 minute and 24 hour overstay on their free car park so I can decide for myself if these are a fair and accurate pre-estimate of losses incurred or just a penalty charge. Impliedly accepting the land owners offered contract does not mean that I would become bereft of the protections afforded me by the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 for example in fact I would become better protected in the event a Judge deemed I had impliedly accepted the contract for the contract itself is then open to scrutiny. I smell some very bad publicity coming up for some big name land owners such as Tesco, Morrisons, Sainsburys, Asda if they start to take their customers to Court over car parking. It was after all the deliberate ploy of plentiful and free car parking offered by the big names that drew the consumer away from the high street to the retail parks in the first instance. If I have to wait 20 mins to be served at a till after putting £150 of product in a trolley and am then taken to court by the supermarket for overstaying the 90 minutes permitted I suspect I'll try and get a run for my money through the legal system including making that fine as expensive as possible for the landowner to pursue. Technically possible assuming protocol strictly followed. "Not worth the candle" where the amount claimed is a genuine pre-estimate of costs.

Good for you this is a positive start. Now you must get onto Orange, remind them of the pledge they made when under investigation by Watchdog, spell out to them that there was zero reception in your new home and that you tried to resolve this with them but were reduced to cancelling the contracts as Orange simply were not interested in helping you. Exactly what pay monthly contract were these two phones taken out on? This makes for interesting reading: "terminating your Contract because Orange is no longer able to provide access to the Network 4.4 If, for reasons beyond our control, we are no longer able to provide the Services, we will at our discretion either: 4.4.1 make arrangements for you to be supplied with equivalent Services by another network at no extra cost to you, or 4.4.2 accept written notice from you that you wish to terminate your Contract. In such cases we will refund any pre-paid Charges that have not been used up." http://www1.orange.co.uk/terms.html/pdfs/PAYM-terms-and-conditions-for-the-supply-of-Orange-Network-Services-20110215.pdf

It's good to learn thanks for flagging this it's something new that I wasn't aware of. It wont affect my current ticket though but I'll have to be more careful come October.

I would write to Orange reminding them of this Public statement they made to BBC Watchdog and asking them just exactly how their total unwillingness to resolve the problem of zero coverage in your new home followed by their aggravated pursual for £2000+ in charges for a service they were not able to provide was in your best interests. "In terms of Mr Prescott's contract, while we do not offer an option for customers to break their contract for moving house, in exceptional cases where a customer clearly has no network coverage at a new home of residence and has been unable to make calls, we will look to resolve in their best interest". Source http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/watchdog/2009/03/mobile_charges_but_no_signal.html

you miss the point, TCP have FINED me £60. They clearly refer to the charge as a fine not damages or costs. Had they invoiced me for breach of contract of the parking regulations then they might just might have stood a chance in court. Or the landowner (ASDA) might have been able to pursue me for losses incurred but since it was a free car park and ASDA was closed at the time they might struggle to put such a case together. But they've called it a fine so there is no balance of probabilities involved as these are prohibited by a Constitutional law.

I refer you to The Bill of Rights 1689: "That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;" the companies involved will know this. Stupidly if you log into the TCP website as though you want to pay the parking ticket it refers to the charge as a "fine". Game over for TCP.

If only..... An undefended claim = default judgment, there is no hearing in the absence of a defence, it is assumed that the claimant is entitled to whatever it is they're claiming full stop.

fantastic, best of luck down under mate!!! (ps just before you leave I would write to them letting them know your house is sold and you're emigrating, if they really are monitoring they might serve county court papers on you at your old address and gain a default judgment without your knowledge otherwise).

Wow 31 minutes that was pretty quick, hope they choked when they read you've sold your house. Must be soul destroying for them coming on here, haven't they anything more productive to do like supplying proper paperwork and complying with the law? LOL

Dear new DCA. 12 months ago I challenged my liability for any amount claimed by the MIB directly with the MIB. Despite a lengthy wait I have yet to receive anything of substance from the MIB or any third party purporting to represent the MIB in respect of proving this alleged debt. I feel a lapse of twelve months is sufficient to be considered "reasonable" and therefore must assume in the lack of any evidence to the contrary that as I originally and always maintained, no such debt lawfully exists. I therefore consider this matter to be closed and I suggest you refer this "account" back to the originator. I refer you to the OFT guidelines on debt collection particularly referencing the section on disputed debts. Any further demands for money from yourselves will likely constitute a reportable breach of these guidelines and further may constitute an act of harassment. xx

I understand your caution but I'm completely unable to help you without some very basic information. I'd be careful using the word "dangerous" as a quote from other builders in any litigation as this is open to challenge and proof and sadly you'll find a large percentage of "builders" aren't qualified to build a garden shed if push comes to shove. Materials choice is a greater science than many realise as such there are numerous standards applicable all of which are well documented. Start with the manufacturers data sheets for whatever was used. Structural timber must be graded and stamped, using non structural in a structural situation is quite easy to identify and would certainly be apparent at time of installation (assuming operatives know their onions). FWIW you've submitted your claim and the defendant has entered a defence therefore you are now just effectively looking to pad out your POC's with a good witness statement and evidence. Disclosing what's in the POC will not prejudice anything now as the defendant already has it. (But if you aren't already aware of exactly what was wrong with the choice of materials then the chances are that the claim is defendable IMO eg "the defendant used non structural softwood timber instead of the specified C16 rated structural timber in locations x,y,z of the structure contrary to the requirements set out in BS EN 1995-1-1 Eurocode 5: Design of timber structures. Part 1.1............" hits harder than "the defendant used the wrong timber for the structure". Of course if a mat is interior grade eg MDF and is used externally (it does happen) proving it is a non brainer and doesn't need a special report. Bricks, blocks aggregate mixes are all subject to standards as are obviously electrical and plumbing installations. Fibreglass roofs are the new bone of contention as there's a fibreglass roof and a proper fibreglass roof and it's sometimes hard to tell them apart until the one starts to leak). I am intrigued by the claim of sabotage though. Thought I'd heard every excuse under the sun and I have actually seen a case of sabotage involving a very disgruntled neighbour meticulously removing the cavity wall ties each night then tipping off building control that no ties were used when the gable ends reached ridge height. That was expensive.....

What BB says! Add to your letter that had anybody bothered contacting you prior to the settlement by mib then any such claim would have been stoutly defended and supported by evidence including but not limited to the witness statements of all the other occupants of the car at the time of the incident. MIB are being used as a cash cow and will continue to be such beast until they learn to establish the facts and defend claims wherever possible. This would of course involve contacting the malfeasor, something mib seem particularly reluctant to do until fait accomplit!!

What type of work was involved? What exactly was wrong with the materials? Is the complaint in any part based on the quality of workmanship or simply upon the materials used?

With the (retrospective) exception of the four breeds named in the DDA's, the Animals Act 1971 specifically abolished the common law strict liability in tort "on the ground that the animal is regarded as ferae naturae or that its vicious or mischievous propensities are known or presumed to be known" I therefore suggest it would be difficult to get a court civil or criminal to prosecute a case under whatever legislation which is primarily based upon grounds that have been specifically abolished by an act of Parliament. In the event the plaintiff opted to argue liability, Secs 5 (2) and (3) would provide a defence if the plaintiff had been warned and voluntarily chose to ignore such a warning and/or if the dog is a pet as opposed to a guard dog.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jan/18/dangerous-dogs-act-in-spotlight The law offers delivery workers even less protection. Coleman got his meagre compensation because he was attacked in the street. If anyone is savaged by a dog in a front garden – on private land – the owner cannot be prosecuted under the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act. The only recourse is to the 1871 Dogs Act, a feeble piece of legislation that cannot trigger serious penalties or proper compensation. Forseeability would seem to be an American thing.

Whats your problem DX? whats with the disclaimer and the earlier "sometimes just sometimes your 'advice' is questionable..." My advice is always put out here on the open forum for questioning. Thing is it isn't questioned very often though I will happily engage in educational debate when it is. Come at me with "because it is" and I will ask "why it is? And you can retract the "grow up" throwaway if you'll please.

The only "legislation" concerning the posting of dog warning signs on domestic property failed at second reading stage on June 20th 1969, the bill was actually proposing to make it mandatory for property owners to display such warning signs. I'd love some links to examples of people being prosecuted for having these signs, it is a legal requirement for me to assess all the risks at work and thrust my findings upon all and sundry, I've assessed the risks at home and decided that my Yorkshire terriers yapping might startle the unsuspecting so have posted a risk assessment in the form of a sign on the front gate.