Well, as to the alleged criminal damage to the car it'd need to be proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the damage was caused by the clamper and that he intended or was reckless as to the damage caused. Reckless here means that he actually knew there was a risk of damage and carried on regardless. Of course, you then have the problem of s. 5 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 which says, amongst other things, that damage can be caused to protect a right or interest in property. Here, that would be the right relating to the land owned. Any prosecution would have several hurdles to overcome.

I'm making no comment as to the ins and outs of this particular case. What I'm doing is advertising the fact that cutting a lock off a clamp or otherwise damaging it is criminal damage, even if you do replace the lock.

If you go for default judgment the company can have it set aside if they can show they did not receive the papers.

No, you are wrong. You are still guilty of criminal damage, even if you do make full restitution afterwards.

Please stop quoting the Human Rights Act at private companies. It doesn't apply to them as it only applies to public bodies, see s. 6 HRA 1998. Has anybody actually gone to court and obtained an order to have their data removed from a CRA?

Let's try not to use angle grinders. I don't like seeing people arrested for criminal damage like that.

Try to word your complaint in terms of blackmail and obtaining property by deception since extortion isn't a crime in English law.

It would depend on whether the customer wanted it back. You have no power to seize the note. It's up to negotiation between you and the customer as to who wants to hand it back. Personally, I'd be telling the customer to go hand it in.

Don't worry, you have an excuse for possession of the note. As long as you take it to the police.

s. 35(2) of the Data Protection Act 1998 allows the release of personal data for the purposes of legal proceedings or contemplated legal proceedings. They tell DVLA they want to sue you, DVLA makes a release under s. 35(2).

It will refer to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 as this is the law under which the council makes its Traffic Regulation Orders. The offence is therefore contrary to the RTRA 1984. The Road Traffic Act 1991 introduced decriminalised parking enforcement.

Oh, are we do insurance as well as tax?

Naturally Innocent possession is almost always never a crime though.

I agree. My query is (and I'm not sure of the answer myself) is the fact that he is being contacted my a DCA "personal data" within the meaning of s. 1 of the Act?

That would depend on what they intend to do with the note. Don't forget, there has to be an absence of lawful authority or excuse. If they intended to take it to the police, to their bank to hand in etc then they have an excuse.

Yes...we tend to use "unlawful obstruction of the highway" or local bye-laws. It does not, however, provide a power of removal unless there is some danger involved. A specific offence would be nicer rather than having to use obstruction every time.

Plumbien v Vines was quoted to show the judicial interpretation of "use" to be "has use of". The case did not turn on it's particular facts and thus has a general interpretation. The point it that at any time the RK has use of a vehicle he is deemed to be using it on a road. Whether the RK has use of it is a matter of fact but the fact that the RK did not place the vehicle on a road is immaterial. This is where the issue of a strict liability offence arises. If the statute wished only to impart liability where the RK had placed the vehicle on the road or had allowed it to be so then the statute would say something along the lines of "caused or permitted". It does not. It simply says "keeps or uses". Now, I brought my authority into it because it demonstrates that I know what I am talking about because I have studied the law and applied it, many, many times. To dismiss my authority is the same as saying that a doctor cannot pronounce accurately on a medical matter "just because he's a doctor". It's absurd. I am by no means saying I am always right but I am more likely to be right than the man in the street when it comes to a matter within my area of expertise. This argument really is pointless now.

Hmm...you might get it home on that one. s. 1 of the Data Protection Act 1998 says "personal data" means data which relate to a living individual who can be identified- (a) from those data, or (b) from those data and other information which is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controller, and includes any expression of opinion about the individual and any indication of the intentions of the data controller or any other person in respect of the individual; I'm just not convinced that simply saying who is calling is in breach of the DPA.

I'm not so sure. The DPA only applies to "personal data". How can the name of the company they work for be personal data?

The important wording is "which he knows or believes". So, simple (innocent) possession, which is what we're talking about here, is not an offence. You must know or believe it to be counterfeit.

I agree. However, we must work with the laws we're given. If Parliament decided to make it an offence to park in front of a dropped kerb and gave me a power to remove an offending vehicle, I would. As to the other issue, I have no idea how to solve it.

That's the whole point. If there wasn't adequate signage to that effect, no contract could have been entered into.

It is, so long as it is not on a road maintainable at public expense.

Good lord. I don't want to enter into a general defence of the police service, because some of what we do is indefensible. However, I'll try to address your points. There's absolutely no way, in this day and age, that I could do anything to someone who's left their car across your drive for breach of the peace. If anything, it'd be your actions in remonstrating with them that would cause a breach of the peace. As to town centres on a weekend night (and any night, increasingly) there just isn't the manpower. If a crew of two locked up a person for drunk and disorderly, they'd be off the street for a good few hours. So what? you might say. Well, what happens when a real, honest to God emergency happens and all officers are in custody? And being drunk in itself (whilst a crime in a public place) does not necessarily equate to being drunk and disorderly. Are you "noisy, violent and quarrelsome" every time you've had a few too many? There's no simple answer to the problem, but the simple answer to your question is that there aren't enough front-line police officers to lock up every person who's disorderly, nor would it necessarily be lawful and proportionate to do so.

No, Crown Property is land belonging to the Crown as of right. A school is owned by the Local Education Authority.