Jump to content

Showing results for tags 'protection of freedoms'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • The Consumer Forums: The Mall
    • Welcome to the Consumer Forums
    • FAQs
    • Forum Rules - Please read before posting
    • Consumer Forums website - Post Your Questions & Suggestions about this site
    • Helpful Organisations
    • The Bear Garden – for off-topic chat
  • CAG Community centre
    • CAG Community Centre Subforums:-
  • Consumer TV/Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - Please register
    • CAG library Subforums
  • Banks, Loans & Credit
    • Bank and Finance Subforums:
    • Other Institutions
  • Retail and Non-retail Goods and Services
    • Non-Retail subforums
    • Retail Subforums
  • Work, Social and Community
    • Work, Social and Community Subforums:
  • Debt problems - including homes/ mortgages, PayDay Loans
    • Debt subforums:
    • PayDay loan and other Short Term Loans subforum:
  • Motoring
    • Motoring subforums
  • Legal Forums
    • Legal Issues subforums

Categories

  • News from the National Consumer Service
  • News from the Web

Blogs

  • A Say in the Life of .....
  • Debt Diaries

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Location

Found 2 results

  1. Approx six months ago I started a thread on the forum regarding the dangers for debtors in taking "legal advice" from websites without first checking whether the "advice" is correct. The thread clearly was of great public interest given that it has been viewed over 9,500 times!!! This thread was in relation to a bailiff clamping a vehicle at the debtors property and the advice given out by the websites was that the debtors could safely "take out the bolt cutters" in the (mistaken) belief that the bailiff was acting illegally. The websites in question would inform debtors that if they were arrested they would not be convicted because of Section 54 of the Protection of Freedoms Act. There have been further developments regarding this subject but given that the previous thread has become very long it would be better to start this new thread. If anyone needs reminding, the previous thread is here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?394562-Protection-of-Freedoms-Act-2012-EXCLUDES-bailiffs-!!!!
  2. You may be aware that there is a clause in a bill before parliament at the moment that seems to be going unchallenged. Part 3, Chapter 2, Clause 56 of The Protection of Freedoms is designed to make the registered keeper liable for any private parking fines where it is not possible to identify the driver responsible for the parking infringement. This clause has the backing of, and heavy lobbying from, the British Parking Association due to the revenue stream it will generate for its members. The premis of innocent until proven guilty will be removed from a purely civil matter using heavy handed criminal powers. There is a website that explains our opposition to this clause and how it will affect every driver in the UK: stopclause56.org.uk There is also an e-petition so we can let the government know that we are opposed: epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/6342 Please read, sign up and spread the word. 'tang.
×
×
  • Create New...