It is prosecuted in the same way as any other charge notice. of course County courts are used under cpr 75. The law is made under the acts quoted, the ticket itself says, there has been a "contravention "not a breach of contract, really how much more do you need. I could copy lots of guides which confirm also, There is a basic misunderstanding regarding civil proceedings which underpins al your misconceptions, I will explain it if you like.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3483/contents/made Get someone to read this for you. Then this http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/14 Then the 81 act, then common sense. The parking restriction is there by law, not as a civil contract. That is why it is contained within all this legislation. BN asked the right question above is the reply.

No its the road traffic 1981 and the 2004 act. Recent Moddifications. do you want the section, dont mind putting them up for you, but to avoid criticism's for putting stuff up no one understands, you will have to request No they are not they are sanctioned by the legislations, read the kin ticket for gods sake. I did not create this thread, nor will it prevent me from protecting the OP.

Dx. I really dont care, but your advice is pathetic, based on heresy and rhetoric. You refuse to even consider regulation or other more enlightened input , but just barge your way through, completely unaware of the damage you do because you knowledge is so poor. Now someone made you a team member. I have been posting on here since 2006, you have always been regarded as an also-ran, because you knowledge is so poor, now someone made you a team member. Makes me weep when I think of the mods of the past some of whom must be turning in their grave at your remarks. No one is hijacking or ruining threads , you have gotten away with that excuse for long enough. Just correcting nonesense, if you chose to disagree, then it is incumbent for me to explain, nothing more.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3483/note/made Part 5 is concerned with the enforcement of penalty charges. Regulations 19 and 20 provide for the service of a notice to owner by an enforcement authority in respect of an unpaid penalty charge and specify the contents of a notice to owner and the time limit for service. Provision is made by regulations 21, 22 and 23 for the service of charge certificates in respect of unpaid penalty charges (where a notice to owner or penalty charge notice under regulation 10 has been served and the avenues of appeal have not been pursued or have been pursued unsuccessfully), for charge certificates to be enforced through a county court and for county court orders to be set aside where the respondent serves a witness statement stating one of the matters mentioned in regulation 23(2). Anyway SORT YOURSELVES OUT

That was quick. So firstly the ticket which the OP posted says" for contravention", so it is not a contractual issue it is a breach of legislation. However, are not these pursued under section 75 0r the civil procedure roles, in such a case the civil court will issue a judgement which , if no one attends will be in default?

No I am sorry but it is a breach of regulation nd nothing to do with contract law. This is what the guides say and thw legislation backs it up. There is obviously something else going on here, I will explore further.

Hi and I am sorry I dont have a clue what you are talking about, my fault. As I said I have never followed parking issues, just looking at the law. Much of what is said seems to be unclear to me. I will say that in this case the claimant has right to pursue under legal instruction?

Hmm yes thanks dx. Here is the LEGISLATION which brings the action. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/17 I will find the specific regulation if you wish. It is not about a contract in the case, It is a penalty charge brought about by breach of regulation. As I say parking is not one of my interests but law is.

Well they would under a civil offence or a contractual breach. Please show me a case and I will illustrate.

There is no contract Eric, it is a warning sign, not an invitation to treat. There is an argument about it not being clear enough, but that is all. Also the 10 minute leeway applies to car parking, not no stopping zones. Provision to enforce is in regulations and the agency is operating under a permission to enforce given by the authority. Not some parking shyster.

Well DX. I think that this, just about sees to what little was left of your credibility.

A little more digging through the regs and company house. The enforcement company who presented this are absolutely in locus standi, at least they are employed by the relevant creditor to enforce the collection of certain traffic offence charges. So really the OP just has the identification of driver issue.

It would also be able to demonstrate who should have enforced the contravention, local authority I suppose. An area I have never had an interest in. I would be very surprised if there was no rational for their actions, however false. So in fact the sign has nothing to do with making a contract, The purpose of traffic signs and road markings is to ‘adequately inform’ drivers of the stopping restrictions on the red route. This means that, provided drivers are not misled, the sign or road marking is valid. We regularly survey our signs and road markings to ensure they are properly maintained. We will always allow drivers time to check the signs but their priority must be to do this as soon as they have stopped "The purpose of traffic signs and road markings is to ‘adequately inform’ drivers of the stopping restrictions on the red route. This means that, provided drivers are not misled, the sign or road marking is valid. " Pointless arguing about the creation of a contract. That Which also said this There is a 10 minute grace period before a PCN can be issued The grace period only applies to vehicles stopped in a parking bay. If a vehicle is parked legally in a designated parking bay when it is first parked, the ten minute grace period applies from the moment it becomes parked illegally. This means for example that, if a vehicle is parked in a bay that allows between 10am and 4pm, we may issue a PCN if the vehicle is still parked at 4.10pm. Remember that not all bays allow general parking and times may vary so always check the signs

Thank you BN hey are v naughty indeed, So what legislation should section 46 be enforced under? One of the decriminalised parking acts?

Indeed, I would do precisely as BA advises.

Why not just ring and ask if there is an outstanding warrant on you, when it was issued and if you are still able to set up a payment pan. (if that is what you want to do. This may just settle the matter and would kill the possibility of further fees being added.

If a NOE has been sent the warrant must have issued in the high court. The warrant is the instruction for he bailiff to act. It is not that the bailiff cannot force entry without one. He cannot even be instructed without one, he cannot act on the matter at all. When the warrant has been issued the bailiff can(after compliance) call and recover goods belonging to you, either from your live or anywhere you live or work, as long as he does not have to use force. It seems that you have now passed the compliance stage and have incurred a £90 fee. Now the bailiff under normal circumstances could call. The legal situation is that the statutory period ended last Wednesday, so if anyone was bloody minded enough they could go back. Also I have not seen any additional legal instruction which says otherwise. We heard what the PM said about going back to work, if you cannot work from home. S o personally with due respect, without sight of something that says we will not be working, I would not be keeping my car at home. Perhaps I am being over cautious.

Incorrect, they can gain entry through an open door and they can take anything in your garden even for a civil debt, they can also clamp cars on the road. Again flagrantly incorrect. The section you miss quote refers to other people properry A question I have just seen on MSE? Why is cag giving such awful inaccuraciescurate advice? Thoughts DX

Ahh Good job.

I dont think this is correct if you look back. Now I see there is mention ok section K requests, which by the way can result on an equitable charge on one parties beneficial interest. I dont mind debunking random comment made. if they are in error

If this is a HCEO enforcing judgement . He has to call on the debtor if the debt has gone past the first stage. He cannot make a payment arrangement without securing the debt. The HCE would not be enforcing the Charge, (if there is one. we still haven't had the answer to that one). The only way you can enforce a Charge is through repossession order, and that has nothing to do with anything your discussing. As for which appplication they would use, welI am not even sure if we are talking about a final charge in this case, so who knows.

Well obviously there is an agreement for a loan and a default notice/Demand Notice is also required fo both You said the above. Firstly there is no default notice required to terminate a tacit overdraft, these are the ones you agree over the phone usually, or sometimes they come with the account. Section V does not apply to these agreements so there Is no written agreement, so no DN.(section 74) You then indicated that sections 76 and 98 act as default notices and can replace section 87. This is completely wrong These are not a repudiatory default termination notices and are generally applied when a creditor wants to sell the agreement, or if there has been a minor contractual breach which triggers a term prescribing an action. This is my response Yes indeed, on an overdraft there is no requirement regarding the form of the agreement, hence no DN. However under FCA rules a notice of the state of the account should be sent, in the case of excessive drawings.. Before the FCA no notice at all required for the reasons above. ou mention section 74 of the CCA, and you are right in stating that a default notice cannot be issued on an overdraft, unless it is subject to its own separate agreement. However as I would put them up but they seem to anger people on here. It seems Andy, you have had a problem accepting, or understanding this for some time Dear Mr .... Your Account with HSBC Bank plc Outstanding Balance £573.07 We have been asked by HSBC Bank plc to reply to your letter dated 14th January 2008. With regards to the deed of assignment, as we are in-house debt recovery for the HSBC Group this is not required. Please find enclosed a copy of your Default Notice issued to you on 30th January 2007. However in respect of your requesting a copy of your agreement we can confirm that as this is a current account it is not regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the "Act") does not apply to current accounts. The current account is not a regulated agreement because it provides no credit. The overdraft agreement provides the credit and this sits separately from the current account agreement. Credit agreements normally have to comply with the Part V of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Part V covers the form and content of agreements, signing of agreements and duty to supply copies of unexecuted and executed agreements. However, current account overdrafts are given specific exemption from all the Part V formality requirements by section 74(1)(b) of the Act. This exemption applies only when the OFT grant a Determination under section 74(3) and this was given for overdrafts on 21 December 1989. The consequence of this is that there is no executed agreement for a current account overdraft and so section 78 (right to demand copy of executed agreement) does not apply. We trust this clarifies matters. Oh and "of course" overdrafts are not reduced to wring, so there is no agreement either.

Another why are you so blasé about the charging order? Another, why at one minute you a poor poster just asking for help, then the next a know it al expert. Me, I am an expert on enforcement.