In which case, it is unlikely to be Council. If it is, then it will state on the ticket which Act is being used to enforce it. It will either be an Excess Charge Notice under the 1864 Act or a PCN under the 1991 Act.

You are not entitled to a refund, as by paying you admitted that you were liable. You need to write and state that since their demand was based on a ticket that has been declared void by the High Court, you are seeking restitution in the sum of £30. If they refuse, then LBA and then Small Claims Court

If it was from the Police, then it is an FPN and this is only an offer to settle rather than attend Magistrates' Court for the alleged criminal offence. Any attempt to argue an FPN will usually be met with "See you in Court"

Sorry Amanda, but that is not true. Read the judgements referred above. This is set at such a level in the legal system as to form binding precedent. It overrules anything a PA or local council may tell you.

No, but your dates don't work

There is no set time allowed for loading/collection of goods or vice versa. These two High Court rulings make that patently clear MACLEOD v WOJKOWSKA In this Scottish case a woman left a van parked in a restricted street in Edinburgh while collecting goods for delivery . The van was left parked for 15 - 20 minutes, the woman was inside the premises for 12 - 15 minutes and the van was left unvisited for about 12 minutes. The delay was caused by her having to wait while a parcel was made up for despatch. The exemption covered waiting “for so long as may be necessary to enable goods to be loaded on to or unloaded from the vehicle...”. The Lord Justice Clerk said “ The proviso in regard to waiting for the purpose of loading or unloading is one which, in my opinion, should be interpreted in a reasonable way. Indeed I did not understand the Crown to contend otherwise and the advocate-depute conceded that it covers more than merely taking goods out of a motor car and putting them on the pavement and taking them from the pavement and putting them into the car . Accordingly the proviso covers not merely the acts of loading and unloading in the narrow literal sense but also the taking of the goods into those premises and putting them in some part of those premises; vice versa it covers the taking of goods from some part of the premises , carrying them to the car and putting them on to it. The matter is one of degree and there may be borderline cases where it is difficult to tell whether the actings of the driver are or are not such as to enable him to pray in aid the provision in question. In the present case the appellant founded strongly on the fact that, for a period of not less than twelve minutes the driver was continuously in the firm’s premises without visiting the van. That makes this an extremely borderline case but, looking at the whole processes which were carried out by the driver......I am satisfied that during the period in question the process of loading and unloading was in fact being carried out.” BULMAN v GODBOLD A van driver left his van with the engine running in a restricted street for 15 minutes whilst unloading frozen fish into a freezer. The relevant exemption permitted a vehicle to wait “ for so long as may be necessary to enable goods to be unloaded from the vehicle”. The High Court held that it was quite unable to say that the Justices finding of fact that the vehicle was waiting only for so long as was necessary to complete unloading was wrong, bearing in mind the load was frozen fish which could not be dumped on the pavement. These two cases clearly show that in the context of an exemption for loading/unloading taking the goods into/out of the premises is covered and in some circumstances the putting away of the goods may also be covered. It seems to me that a fortiori this would apply even more in the case of a delivery/collection exemption PAPERWORK AND OTHER DELAYS It also seems to me that delivery should extend to the completion of paperwork which is reasonably required. To permit the commercial delivery of goods but not to permit the completion of the delivery note or the obtaining of a signature for the goods or whatever it may be, undermines the point of having the exemption for all practical purposes. It is unrealistic to expect deliveries to be made without some form of paperwork and I have no difficulty in regarding this as part of the “delivery process” referred to in Macleod v Wojkowska. Checking the goods is specifically covered by the definition paragraph in the Orders. Difficulties commonly arise where there are delays in this process: The supervisor cannot be found or is engaged; there is some defect in the paperwork requiring correction; the goods have to be located or further enquiries need to be made. At some point there will be a fine line to be drawn between what is acceptable and what is not. It seems to me that the driver should normally be covered during unexpected delays ( as the driver waiting for the parcel was in Macleod v Wojkowska) and It must be stressed that the lack of any delivery /unloading activity at the vehicle does NOT automatically mean that delivery/unloading is not taking place - see above. Nor is it correct to follow a policy that “it was not seen therefore it could not have happened”. Local Authorities often state that “loading or unloading must be continuous” implying that there must be an uninterrupted movement of the goods to or from the vehicle for the exemption to apply. I can find no authority in these terms for this proposition - indeed in Macleod v Wojkowska it was put forward in argument by the Crown and rejected by the decision of the court. It is ,of course correct to say that the exemption only applies whilst the unloading/delivery is taking place but as I have set out above these words cover rather more than simply moving the goods. Furthermore, the exemption applies to all vehicles (from the same ruling) “It means a loading or unloading for some commercial purpose, and I think there is a reason why it is not limited to goods vehicles. I can understand a private motor-car coming along with a load of things inside it; it might be a piece or two of furniture, it might be half a dozen pictures to be reframed or cleaned, I would not even exclude a heavy laundry basket. There may be many cases in which the motor-car would be used for something which it would not be reasonable for anybody to carry in his hand; and therefore it might be said persons putting such things into or out of the car were loading or unloading within the terms of this order.”

I actually think that The Warden is (or was) a parking attendant. If he were a TW, he would not be taking pictures etc. and would niether know nor care about council guidelines. He would be issuing FPNs and leaving drivers to argue in the Magistrates' Court were he a TW

I think that you are over-reacting. I am assuming that these are delivery vehicles - which have to park somewhere to unload. Are you suggesting that they shouldn't park against the kerb in a bus-lane, but in the normal traffic lane (in the middle of the road)and then have to cross the bus-lane on foot.

No they are not and yes it is

It's actually the Bill of Rights 1689. It is not an Act, and cannot therefore be repealed in its entirety by Parliament.

Immaterial. The OP states quite clearly in the first post that the friend was added to the OP's insurance on a temporary basis and a cover note issued.

If you have been illegally clamped, this is a tort and no court in the land would convict you of criminal damage for committing the lesser tort of damaging the clamp to remove it as a method of self help. IOW, illegal clamping ypur car unlawfullly deprives you of your vehicle worth several 100s/1000s pounds. Destroying a padlock worth £10 is insignificant by comparision.

This is not a PCN from a council. You do not have the same timescales, informal application, NTO, formal application, NPAS/PATAS adjudication. This is an FPN issued by the police and cannot be ignored until they contact you. If you wish to defend an FPN you must take positive action to reject it and request a court hearing (Magistrates' Court) within the timescales specified on the ticket. The two date issue, etc. is irrelevant here as an FPN is merely an offer to accept a fixed penalty for a criminal offence instead of attending court. If you do nothing within the timescales, it is a default conviction and the fine can (and will) be pursued like any other criminal court fine. I suspect that if it is 3 months old, you are far too late to request a court hearing to use the massively incorrect time as a defence.

Just to contnue OT for one more post. The thing that really ****es me off when I have purchased a film DVD is being forced to sit through trailers for other films and all the anti-piracy notices. FFS I have bought a legal copy of a film - I don't need all this crap

They do not have to keep tapes at all since there is no obligation to record. I know of businesses with an 8 hour loop. If something happens that means that the tape is required for evidence, then it is replaced by another - otherwise at the end of 8 hours it is overwritten. Many businesses don't keep tapes beyond a week (ie the tapes are one a weekly cycle). This is simply to reduce staff time searching tapes when (or if) a SAR is recieved

It matters not a jot how widely it is processed - it is still, legally speaking, personal data.

Who issued the ticket and where? Do they quote any legal authority on the ticket?

I'm sorry, but this quote actually reinforces my point. Loading/unloading is not restricted to certain classes of vehicle. The quote merely points out in parenthesis that NCP would not look for evidence of activity for commercial vehicles (a term, btw, that has no legal standing) We come back to boroughs and counties having different rules 1) there is NO scope whatsoever to have different rules beyond the granting of non-statutory guidance and allowances (e.g. 5 minutes grace); 2) Counties do not operate DPE. There is no case of DPE operating across an entire county.

In your letter to head office, I would suggest that you require individual written apologies from both the security guard and the duty manager. Also, confirmation that any necessary disciplinary/retraining action has taken place for these two individuals. If they should fail, then inform them that you will make public their company's failings in an attempt to ensure that nobody else has to be humiluiated in this way. Store security fuards or staore detectives have no power of arrest beyond that of a normal citizen - who cannot arrest on suspicion. They have no power whatsoever to require that you return to the store and if they physically attempt to restrain you, they are committing common assault.

Whilst not directly Xbox, it is perfectly possible for a CD/DVD drive to crack a disk and once cracked, the extremely high rotational speeds - especially when it is accelerated to be read can cause a CD to shatter. Research Machines (RM) put out a safety notice to schools after a CD shattered in a drive to such an extent that bits broke through the front cover and flew into the room. The slighest damage at the CD/DVD centre will be magnified by the drive acceleration as it will allow the disk to 'chatter' on the drive hub.

No, one who has been properly trained in the law regarding the powers of PAs I'm sorry, but a car is not a different story. Loading/unloading is NOT restricted to certain class(es) of vehicle. PATAS's own published cases make this point very, very clearly Which is the problem with the whole system. It relies on the ignorance of motorists who simply pay up without question. The more who find out about this ongoing fraud, the sooner it will stop.

He is not insuring the car; he is insuring himself to drive it. It is a subtle difference, but in UK we insure the driver, not the car. The car is merely a factor of risk.

It comes from a recommended document retention schedule that is published on a DfES-sponsored website.

Yes and no. Yes it would be cheaper just to replace the pipe. However, it may not be possible to separate the joint between the pipe and the rear box, so both need replacing as a pair. If they are any good, they should attempt a pipe only repair and only replace the rear box if it becomes damaged. Of course, if they are cowboys, the rear box will becone damaged anyway.

However, since the parking adjudicators are the appeal path for council PCNs, thier views trump those of any local authority. For evidence of the arrogance and wrongheadedness of LAs, you have only to look at the whole matter of the necessity for there to be two dates on a PCN. Despite losing cases at appeal and despite the parking adjudication service contacting councils following Moses v Barnett, councils still attempted to enforce void tickets.