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

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Spec1

  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.
  16. Spec1
    Please read my posts again, you do not have to prove loss in an action for trespass, the loss to the landowner is posted on the sign, this is what he will have to pay the company for issuing the notice, I can not see why a Court would have a problem in awarding this loss to the landowner, as he has to be placed in the same position before the tort of trespass occurred. My motives are simple I am trying to point out you can continually attempt to talk about a subject where there are objections to actions, however if your action creates a damage in trespass which you have recieved clear warning not to do, it is an almost impossible to defend, that is where the problem lies,.
  17. Spec1
    Why not ? It is the trespassers fault, if he did not act outside the permission he would not get the notice, I don't know what you mean how could the landowner avoid the loss, the trespasser causes the loss through their action., the landowner is mitigating the loss by warning, his need to do this is to stop the impending loss to himself.
  18. Spec1
    Old Snowy, I apologise. If a location is saturated with warning signs, accompanied by double yellow lines, althought meaningless on private land, if it is clear trespass is not accepted, this as I see it this is enough of a deterrent, and warning as to the condition of use of the land, that is expected by the landowner. Trespass ab initio the common law doctrine, if a person enters land lawfully then does an act (ignores the warning signs) inconsistent with his rights , then the entry is deemed unlawful from the beginning, despite his lawful entry. As you will know there is very limited defence against a trespass, when the condition of warning is met. In relation to the need to prove damage for trespass this is not the case, in an action for trespass no damages need to be proved, sufficient damage can be shown by the impending threat of loss, even if that loss is not imminant. As I see it I relation to the charge for a tortefessors actions by not adhering to the warning signs, when a landowner needs to have a remedy against it, is if there is a cost to the landowner to pervent the impending threat of loss, for the service to issue the notice this will be accepted by a Court as a damage. Public roads do not nessarily have commercial ecomonic consequences when somebody parks where they are not permitted, private locations do however, and impending loss, will always be the answer to a claim, and by protecting the masters property by warning somebody not to carry out an act he is mitigating HIS possible loss.
  19. Spec1
    Old Snowy, Privity of contract, this has nothing to do with the tortfeasor commiting trespass, as the tort is not a contract he commits the Tort by his actions which creates a damage to the landowner. The contract between the landowner if the security company are only paid for the issue of the notice is payment for that specific action which if he remits to the securitry company and the tortfeasor does not pay the requested sum by the landowner, this will without doubt be his loss and damage. With regards trespasss there is no need to prove the risk of inconveniance or obstruction, the mater of interference is enough which is actionable, and if the landowner wants to stop interference, he has the right as the master of the land.
  20. Spec1
    A plaintiff might well have a duty to take reasonable steps to minimise his loss, however he also has the right to protect his property from trespassers, if he has warned clearly not to park then the person that commits the trot of trespass creates the damage to him by way of the contract with the security company, which he instructs to protect his property . If a persons entry was lawful, he then acts outside the permission of use of the land, they become a trespasser, his entry then becomes unlawful from the start. The fee is a loss if the landowner has to protect his property, as they could be open to damages from tenants for not keeping the roads and access clear. Of course the fee is the trespassers fault, as if he simply did not act outside permission of use there would be no need for the enforcement. Why can he not pay the shyster a fee in contract to minimise his potential loss from unhappy tenants, the question was can a fee in the contract due for the issue of the notice, become the landowners damage?
  21. Spec1
    What if the company acting on behalf of the landowner was not paid for their services, but within their contract they invoiced the owner for each notice they issued, as it is the landowner that can only issue proceedings, if the matter went to Court with the landowner as the claimant the security companies fee would become a loss to the landowner and is then a loss to the landowner for the tort of trespass which he must be reimbursed for in the action ?
  22. Spec1
    What if you give imlied consent to the issue of the charge, in same way you give implied consent to the issue of a clamp, which we all know has been taken out of the equasion, in the Protection of Freedoms Act with regards to issuing a clamp but not a charge. Schedule 4 of the protection of Freedoms Act gives the PCC the option to persue a claim for Tort or Contract, can they chace the fee if you give implied consent ?
  23. Spec1
    What would happen if the sign at the site stated If you park here you agree to enter into a contract with the landowner to pay the associated fees, even if you were not entitled to park ?
  24. Spec1
    If their contract for service charge was in the region of £500.000 per anamun, a reasonable sum to protect their interest in the land I would imagine, the signs at the premises would act as a deterrent if the figure was in the region of £200 but it would depend on what efforts were needed to protect the property. The issue here is that it is private property and if commercial business and landowners want to protect their interest in their land by warning users of their conditions of use all the user of the land has to do is resect their requests to avoid reproach.
  25. Spec1

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...