Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×
Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

Spec1

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    37

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1 Neutral
  1. Spec1
    Blocking in to demand a payment is unlawful, however blocking in and going on Holliday, would prove more difficult for the police to charge you with an offence, as if the land was in your possession, what would the charge be, it's ludercrious.
  2. Spec1
    Removing a vehicle is still available using distress damage feasant. The vehicle should be causing damage, however as trespass is actionable without the need to prove damage, this option is still available to a landowner. Distress damage feasant is a medieval remedy which as it is no longer available for use against animals, it can now only be open inanimate objects. Although the remedy use is no longer a basis to clamp, it's use to stop damage is lawfull.
  3. Spec1
    The loss would not be contrived, if the landowner was invoiced for the service, it is a real loss, not a sham, if the landowner takes his responsibilities for his land seriously, they would be prepared to protect against the trespass and a simple claim for trespass, would be a nessessary slight inconvenience, for serious people.
  4. Spec1
    Sorry
  5. Spec1
    The answer is charge the landowner for the services and issue of the notices, this would create a damage to the landowner this would stuff the trespasser as they would have no alternative other than to pay the charge and place the landowners in the same position before the tort occurred, simple rearly.
  6. Spec1
    Old Snowy Ok it might be the same question in a round about way, however previously there was a slightly different slarnt on it if you remember, what is the answer ?. I think the Court will not be able to give the trespasser a layer of protection from a claim, if the damage to the landowner is real and quantifiable. This will also put a spanner in the works for all the soap box heros who think that damage for trespass is only nominal, shame, who needs to protect land by unenforciable penalty based contracts, issuing pointless (penalty) sorry parking charge notices, when tort is on your side hey. I know you were not infering the DVLA would not supply the details to a landowner, I just wanted to bring up the issue of reasonable cause, which if the PPC is paid for the issue of notices or services to the landowner, it would not be the PPC making the enquiry for the loss, it would be the landowner for their damage via a civil claim against the trespasser. it will be very interesting to see if the DVLA and Courts will be able to stop landowners from protecting their land, I very much doubt it. By the way did you find out if Andy ever paid his charge, I think he must of when I visited Felixstowe last week to deliver a load I am sure I saw one of his trucks on the estate, he obviously did not take the advise and ignore ignore ignore.
  7. Spec1
    Hi Old Snowy The reason the DVLA will continue to give information to the owner of land is they are not a PPC, and if the landowner were refused access to that informtion, the DVLA would no only be depriving the landowner from being able to have a remedy against interference of their land, the DVLA are edgy about litigation from powerful landowners who want to retain control over their land. Another interesting subject i wanted to discuss with you again is the issue of damage. Let me ask you your thoughts about this sinaro, if the landowner paid the PCC For their actions carried out against the trespasser, and the contract between the PCC and the landowner was clear the landowner would suffer a loss under this contract, if is was not a sham and the paper trail was clear, would this not be genuine quantifiable damage which could be recovered at Court ?.
  8. Spec1
    Ok you got me ime making it up as I go along, one can only hope, why don't you look it up for yourself, or work it out for yourself, looking at the subject locically should surely make you realise you will never have the upper hand with another's private property, there is to much protection against abuse, which you will never be able to defend. I suppose you could try it out and see what happens, you will though without a doubt be up against it.
  9. Spec1
    Coupon I am not going to get dragged into the old chestnut senario. I have joined to debate this subject, as yet I have not recieved any information to prove me wrong, Old Snowy has been a good source of debate, however the problem is the landowner will always have the right to protect his property from use of abuse. The hurdles that a trespasser will face in the future, as they have faced since the 13th century is, Courts will and must give the labndowner protection form interference to heir property, as without a remedy against a trespasser people will be given licence to abuse. Of course I would not like another to park on my property, as I am sure the same would be for you. The issue is people with respect do not park on anothers property, respect is what all of us expect from another, surely respect to another, is what this forum is designed to achieve. I have not attempted to debate on the rights of people, who trespass by mistake, trespass to another in relation to land is a touchy subject, as we all want to park where it is convenient or cheap, but conveniance and cost effectiveness is not necessarily lawfull, the old chestnut you take a chance, LOL
  10. Spec1
    Ohhh, now now, touchy touchy, stupidity is a way someone shows their true colours, like when they get caught get caught with their trousers down, or parked on another's property without permission.
  11. Spec1
    Was it the shirt that put you off a decent reply, or just the fact there is no reply, and substance to you arguement
  12. Spec1
    really
  13. Spec1
    Old Snowy, This is not a damage to the security company, it is a damage to the landowner he can prove the damage that has occured by the action of trespass, which was warned to the trespasser before he commited the tort, no argument, that is fact. If the landowner is VAT registered, and the trespassr remits the sum before the hearing he is areeeing to pay an out of Court settlement, he will be able to claim the VAT, of course you know at a hearing this will not be the case.
  14. Spec1
    In a nut shell Yes, even if you wanted them to hop across your land while wearing the shirt, if that is your conndition of use land why not ? You must remember if you work on a building site you are required to wear high vis, and you fail to do so, although it is not a trespass it is a condition that you must adhere to, and although it not a trespass it is against the law not to, the same as trespass. THERE IS ALMOST NO DEFENCE AGAINST TRESPASS, one can also accidentally trespass, that Is the landowners power and protection as the master of his land, the laws have been tested and tested, but one thing is for sure you will be up against it, if you take him on.
  15. Spec1
    It is a true loss, what does it matter what I am, I thought you needed debate on this subject, what are you. I have knowledge of this subject, and if you commit trespass you will have almost no defence without authority. All figures are plucjked out of the air like unenforceable parking Notiice fees, which are contract penalties. What i am trying to tell you is private property is not yours or mine to give authority to trespass on, if a landowner does not want you to trespass and he can show the Court why that is you dont stand a hope.

Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...