The law relating to penalty clauses being unenforceable is common law.

Both good questions. The Law Society will not answer your question and will probably direct you to a solicitor.

Just to mention, there are more exemptions than s. 35. The one relating to the prevention and detection of crime and apprehension and prosecution of offenders is s. 29, for example. See Part IV of the DPA. Also, which criminal law are you suggesting they're in breach of? Which section under DPA?

Don't forget, all you are legally entitled to under contract is actual damages and consequential loss. Mere inconvenience is not usually recoverable under contract. That is more of a tort action.

Jesus...anyway, there's a difference between telling someone to lie and telling someone not to admit something. There is nothing wrong with putting the parking company to proof to prove who was driving.

Guess you'd better leave out the bit about the Parking Attendants (Wearing of Uniforms) (London) Regulations 1993 as well if you're in Bristol.

Sweet. I must have missed the bit where the judges exempted parking contractors.

Of course they have to prove their case. What's you point?

Ask them to prove who the driver was. Ask them to show how much money was lost. A penalty is not enforceable under contract law.

A lot of banks don't keep any records for more than 6 years. However, I do believe Abbey keep records on microfiche for at least ten.

There's no easy way of defining reasonable force. It's whatever is both reasonable and necessary in the circumstances as you perceived them to be. Sorry I can't be more precise but it's a (deliberately) inexact science.

"you win". Feel better?

Do we know he had not entered before? If the bailiff believed he had a right of forceful entry his mistaken belief will muddy the waters sufficiently that the CPS would not proceed with a charge.

Certainly from what has been written here which is only one side of the story I'd be looking at investigating for assault. I think the burglary issue is dead in the water as there would be no chance of proving a theft since the bailiff will argue he believed he was acting lawfully in attempting to recover the goods. Criminal damage would be iffy as well since the bailiff will again claim lack of intent or recklessness since he will have believed he was acting lawfully. The best course of action is to sue the bailiff.

Well, you could try arguing the following with them: 1. Sale of Goods Act 1979, s. 13 stipulates that goods sold by description (i.e. sold to you on the basis of your measurements as a fitted dress) must match the description. It seems the dress does not. 2. s. 14 stipulates that goods must be of a reasonable quality and free of minor defects and of a reasonable standard and finish. I'd argue this is not the case with your dress. 3. Point out to them s. 48A(3). This states that if goods do not conform to standard within 6 months of sale, they are deemed not to have conformed from delivery. Their 5 day limit is meaningless. 4. Under s. 48B the seller is required to repair, replace or refund. 5. Under common law there is a breach of contract entitling you to cancel the contract and obtain a refund. 6. The rights contained in ss. 13 - 15 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 cannot be restricted, as per s. 6 of the the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. 7. The attempted restriction of 5 days is an unfair term within the meaning of Regulation 5 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.

Precisely. So orders for final sums from both courts can be enforced, albeit a CC one has to be registered at the HC.

As far as I can see a PCSO has no powers to issue an FPN under s. 54 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 except for an offence of cycling on the footway, s. 72 of the Highway Act 1835. So, I'd suggest you ask under what lawful authority the PCSO issued the FPN.

Funny, I've enforce a County Court judgment in the Isle of Man.

Right, thanks for the police bashing. It's appreciated. The chances are that the police regard it as a civil matter because as far as they are aware the bailiff was there executing a court warrant. So, as far as they are concerned his actions were lawful. If you had assaulted or obstructed him you would have committed an offence. Hence them telling you that you'd have been arrested. This is perfectly true as long as the warrant was correct. Now, remember that the police will assume the warrant was lawful until it was shown that it was not. So don't get too angry about the police because from their point of view this is a civil matter. Anyway, I'm not going to get into a debate regarding the rights and wrongs of the police's actions. Now, you can sue the bailiff. Him being employed by a company does not take away his personal responsibility for his unlawful actions. Also, please don't name police officers on public forums. It leads to all sorts of trouble.

It's got nothing to do with the Road Traffic Acts. Caught fairly, perhaps, but not lawfully. Penalty charges imposed under contract are unlawful and as such unenforceable.

What are peoples' views on injunctions? Has anyone applied for one against a bank, either seperately or as part of a claim for damages, to prevent the bank from applying unlawful charges in the future? Anybody think it is worthwhile?

49.94%? They having a laugh? Sounds awfully close to being extortionate to me.

Be interesting to see what evidence the PCSO has of obstruction. Personally I'd challenge it. I'll have to go look at what delegated powers they have because I seem to remember the only FPN they can issue is cycling on a footpath.

Since you can only recover your losses once why don't you sue the person most responsible, i.e. the bailiff.

Both County Court and Crown Court Orders for final sums can be enforced in the Isle of Man or Channel Islands under the Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933. See County Court Rule 35.CCR ORDER 35 -- ENFORCEMENT OF COUNTY COURT JUDGMENTS OUTSIDE ENGLAND AND WALES