Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • We need to see the actual document from the IAS where it is written - "The Operator's evidence shows no payment for the Appellant's vehicle, or anything similar. It does show two payments for the same registration in quick succession. I would take a reasonable guess, based on the circumstances described, that the person paying has paid for the registration of the person they assisted again." You can't just type it up yourself. At the hearing in July or August or whenever the judge will have two Witness Statements. One from Bank's director says you never made a second appeal. You say you did make a second appeal and the IAS concluded that payment was made. The judge will immediately twig that either you or the director is lying.  But who? Fail to show the documentation form the IAS and instead just produce something you've typed yourself will make it look like you just made up the appeal and you are lying and you will lose the case. Please let us see what the IAS adjudicator sent.
    • I used to have a retail outlet in London selling my husband's photography.  We also had a co-op with staff so they weren't directly employed by me, but I paid for the other overheads etc.  When my husband died, I carried on as usual for a while but then I became ill and moved quite far away so logistically was becoming very difficult.  I came to an arrangement (verbal) with one of the guys I trusted, that I would send him the images to print and sell as normal, and I wouldn't take any money, as a short term solution until I got back on my feet and worked out the best way to do things. He would pay all the  rent, insurance etc... Over a year later, not able to give things away for free anymore,  I drew up a contract as a wholesale agreement, so I would get everything printed and sent to him and I would invoice his for what he ordered. I noticed form the beginning that he wasn't ordering enough or frequently enough to be making any money, and was suspicious he was doing his own orders on the sly and ordering just enough from me to keep my happy.  I checked with my printer, which I've been with for 20 years, and he sad he wasn't getting orders for my images from anyone else. I emailed a few other printers to ask them to keep a look out for some images but I soon realised this would be impossible to police.  The only option really would be to buy a print from him and check the stamp on the back of it.  I finally managed to get hold of on the prints on sale, and sure enough, he did not order it through me.   In the contract he signed in 2022 it explicitly states that he must destroy all files I had previously sent him etc etc so e is in breach of that.  When I drew up the contract, I was careful to make sure it was legally binding, but before I let rip at him, I need to know where I stand.  The contract is here: PARTIES This WHOLESALE AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made effective as of 30th June, 2022, by and between ############################## The Supplier and the Client, collectively referred to as the "Parties," hereby agree to the following terms: TERMS AND CONDITIONS SALES OF GOODS The Supplier agrees to provide the following goods to the Client (“Goods”): Description of Goods ################################# Doc ID: 3d54c1d336d8780243801e0e068ebd33114b088b BOTH PARTIES AGREE: The Client purchases the Goods through the Supplier directly, and agrees to delete/destroy any previously held digital images (Goods) owned by the Supplier, and agrees not to use any such files for monetary gain, outside of this agreement, either directly or through a third party from immediate effect of this agreement. The Client purchases the other materials necessary for resale of the Goods independently of this agreement. The Client shall have exclusive rights for resale of Goods at ###########, and also with permission, as a retailer of the Goods elsewhere, provided that there is no conflict of interest between the Supplier and the Client. The Client is free to decide their own retail prices, for the Goods. The Supplier shall use #####  to provide the printed Goods on Fujifilm Crystal Archive paper, with Lustre finish, and will not use any other Printer unless #### cease to trade, without prior approval from the Client. The Supplier shall not impose restrictions on size or frequency of orders made by the Client. The prices provided by the Supplier shall not increase for a minimum of 3 years, unless the prices of the raw materials rise, in which case the client will be informed immediately. Any discounts/promotional prices of raw materials shall be passed on to the Client by the Supplier, and the invoice will show adjustments for this, as well as credit for return postage of any damaged goods. This agreement can be terminated by the Client without notice; the Supplier must give notice of no less than 90 days, unless the terms of the agreement are breached, in which case, the agreement can be terminated with immediate effect. PAYMENT Orders must be paid for upon receipt of invoice, via Bank transfer: ######### Doc ID: 3d54c1d336d8780243801e0e068ebd33114b088b DELIVERY AND INSPECTIONS All orders received by 12.00am (midnight) shall be processed by the Supplier the following working day and delivery of order shall arrive in accordance with the Royal Mail schedule, or DPD, should express delivery be requested. The Client shall be liable for the delivery charge which shall be added to the invoice. The Goods will be delivered to the address specified by the Client. The Client shall be provided with order tracking, and should any problems arise with the ordering system or the couriers (Royal Mail, DPD), the Client shall be informed without delay of any such issues. The Client will inspect the Goods and report any defects or damage to the Goods in transit as soon as possible upon receipt of Goods, and will retain damaged Goods for return to Supplier for refund/replacement. GENERAL PROVISIONS CONFIDENTIALITY The prices of the Goods and other information contained in this Agreement is confidential and will not be disclosed by either party unless with prior written consent of the other party. INDEMNIFICATION The Client indemnifies the Supplier from any claims, liabilities, and expenses made by any third party vendors or customers of the Client. GOVERNING LAW This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with UK Law. ACCEPTANCE Both parties understand and accept the wholesale arrangement stipulated under this Agreement. Doc ID: 3d54c1d336d8780243801e0e068ebd33114b088b IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Parties has executed this Wholesale Agreement as of the day and year set forth above.   Signed by us both electronically.   I haven't broached any of this yet, and I am looking for some advice about what action to take.  The main issue I've got is that he has still go those images.  If I terminate the contract, I will need to know that he no longer has those images and I can't think of a bulletproof way to do this. I'm thinking I might tell him I will continue with the contract but ask for a  sum in damages and say that if I find out he's still doing it down the line I will terminate the contract and sue him for damages. The damages side of things I'm not sure how it would work as he is self employed, and I'm positive he doesn't declare all of his earnings to HMRC, in order to find out how much I have lost, would the court demand to go through his tax self assessments?  I'm not sure how to proceed with this, I don't want to lose that place as an outlet as it is in a prime spot in London, which is why I let him have those images in the first place as I would have had to pull out altogether at that point.  I am regretting it somewhat now though.  Please help.
    • I cannot locate anything in my paper work that states 2 payments were made? Perhaps you could point this out? In reply from IAS it states "The ticketing data has been attached" nothing was sent to me. I made a response to the IAS all this was done online
    • Thanks again for your responses. The concern I have here, is that freeholder of the land (a company, who presumably would have been the ones to have initially instructed PPM to manage the parking here), will have proof of exactly how long the vehicle was on site for, as the driver was meeting operatives from that company on a separate matter. On this basis, if the matter was to get to court, I feel all the other technicalities about signage, size of signage/font, lack of start/finish times, will not be enough to have any case dropped? This PCN was brought up to the freeholder but they have advised that PPM will not waive this charge. 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Help - I think RBKC staff is trying to con me into paying PCN


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4822 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Except Parking is decriminalised so there is no fine and no conviction, its a civil debt. I think you will find all County Courts including Northampton do have Judges besides you do not need a Judge to get a criminal conviction you can be convicted at Magistrates Court not that its relevant here but if you are going to have crack pot theories its always good to be factually correct.

 

Hi,

 

What this is, is DPE (Decriminalized Parking Enforcement) but the wording surrounding this was debated in the Transport Committee and was decided that "to call it a Parking Charge Notice, Excess Charge, Fine, Surcharge, whatever it is, it is a fine and the different names were a play on words". It is a civil penalty but it is still a fine and the Bill of Rights does not distinguish criminal from civil. Here, Lord Justice Laws created an impasse. The legal test for this is in section 62 and 63 of his Metric Martyrs judgement where he said laws were made willy-nilly down the centuries with no regard to laws with special status, i.e. Magna Carta and Bill of Rights which cannot be repealed impliedly. For a law to repeal the Bill of Rights it must expressly mention the Bill of Rights in the text of the new law or it must repeal it.

 

The Road Traffic Act 1991 makes for fining people outside of the Court but does not mention the Bill of Rights 1689 so must fall by the wayside as a fine can only be imposed by a Magistrate or a Judge. I have read up on the law surrounding this and have used it successfully so keep your uneducated "crackpot" remarks to yourself. Further, this site is not here for the purpose of snide remarks.

 

Notwithstanding, you cannot be made to pay a fine for parking on a line without T ends as I saw mentioned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi,

 

What this is, is DPE (Decriminalized Parking Enforcement) but the wording surrounding this was debated in the Transport Committee and was decided that "to call it a Parking Charge Notice, Excess Charge, Fine, Surcharge, whatever it is, it is a fine and the different names were a play on words". It is a civil penalty but it is still a fine and the Bill of Rights does not distinguish criminal from civil. Here, Lord Justice Laws created an impasse. The legal test for this is in section 62 and 63 of his Metric Martyrs judgement where he said laws were made willy-nilly down the centuries with no regard to laws with special status, i.e. Magna Carta and Bill of Rights which cannot be repealed impliedly. For a law to repeal the Bill of Rights it must expressly mention the Bill of Rights in the text of the new law or it must repeal it.

 

The Road Traffic Act 1991 makes for fining people outside of the Court but does not mention the Bill of Rights 1689 so must fall by the wayside as a fine can only be imposed by a Magistrate or a Judge. I have read up on the law surrounding this and have used it successfully so keep your uneducated "crackpot" remarks to yourself. Further, this site is not here for the purpose of snide remarks.

 

Notwithstanding, you cannot be made to pay a fine for parking on a line without T ends as I saw mentioned.

 

Apart from which, many PCNs end up being dealt with at the Northampton County Court Bulk Center and, NO, they didn't have a judge when I purposely asked! It was court officers who decided who should pay the fine and without a hearing...totally unlawful!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I have read up on the law surrounding this and have used it successfully so keep your uneducated "crackpot" remarks to yourself. Further, this site is not here for the purpose of snide remarks.

 

Notwithstanding, you cannot be made to pay a fine for parking on a line without T ends as I saw mentioned.

 

You must have read a lot then because the High Court disagrees with you as does both adjudication services they obviously must have not read the same books as you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have missed the point. The Bill of Rights does provide the right of challenge but it does not protect people from lawbreaking, but it does ensure that "the accused" does get a say in his defence.

 

The reason the example case was lost was, whilst he used the Bill of Rights to quash the RTS 1991, he lost his case because he DID park on the footpath. That was the reason for the offence being upheld. However, a Parking Adjudicator cannot revoke a Parliamentary Act. Lord Justice Laws did provide the legal test. You cannot appeal an infringment on the Bill of Rights alone. You must have an appropriate defence. The Magna Carts also says "due process". The RTA 1991 makes for fining people outside the court but the Bill of Rights doesn't. An adjudicator can't decide that one either. The statute is wrong here. It is a contract between citizen and state. I won my cases without the use of an adjudicator which cannot be dismissed but I did have a proper defence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi just got in and catching up with the posts, but when we recieved the notice to owner (she stays at my flat sometimes and she brought over the NTO), we replied using my gf's email address and under her name - ... later i followed up again using her address and name...they kept saying they didnt get any of the emails (this is the same email address they had previously replied to before the NTO was issued).

 

Eventually i forward the email from my email address signing it with: (my name) on behalf of (gfs name)

 

which they said they had received, put the pcn on hold, then sent a new letter saying that the charge notice still stands...my gf is bringing the new letter over tonight but from what i can remember it said we had 14 days left to pay (that was last friday i think)...I can add further details of this letter when i have it if that helps.

Edited by Alchemist07
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi just got in and catching up with the posts, but when we recieved the notice to owner (she stays at my flat sometimes and she brought over the NTO), we replied using my gf's email address and under her name - ... later i followed up again using her address and name...they kept saying they didnt get any of the emails (this is the same email address they had previously replied to before the NTO was issued).

 

Eventually i forward the email from my email address signing it with: (my name) on behalf of (gfs name)

 

which they said they had received, put the pcn on hold, then sent a new letter saying that the charge notice still stands...my gf is bringing the new letter over tonight but from what i can remember it said we had 14 days left to pay (that was last friday i think)...I can add further details of this letter when i have it if that helps.

 

Thats a relief I was worried you had maybe the mistake of making your own reps. I assume the last letter was the charge certificate in which case the next one should be along at the end of the month.

Link to post
Share on other sites

uh...there is some conflicting advice here...anything more info i can provide to clear up the situation...and what should be my next step...?

 

I was thinking of calling them up tomorrow and asking why an email which i forwarded showing that my gf had sent represenations responding to the NTO within the correct time limit isnt being considered? And surely it is not our responsibility if they didnt get the email, when i have a record of it being sent...Surely we cant be responsible if they deleted or junked the email or something?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats a relief I was worried you had maybe the mistake of making your own reps. I assume the last letter was the charge certificate in which case the next one should be along at the end of the month.

 

 

Ok should i just wait for the next letter then...guess i should read the latest letter again in case there is anything important i'm missing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have missed the point. The Bill of Rights does provide the right of challenge but it does not protect people from lawbreaking, but it does ensure that "the accused" does get a say in his defence.

 

The reason the example case was lost was, whilst he used the Bill of Rights to quash the RTS 1991, he lost his case because he DID park on the footpath. That was the reason for the offence being upheld. However, a Parking Adjudicator cannot revoke a Parliamentary Act. Lord Justice Laws did provide the legal test. You cannot appeal an infringment on the Bill of Rights alone. You must have an appropriate defence. The Magna Carts also says "due process". The RTA 1991 makes for fining people outside the court but the Bill of Rights doesn't. An adjudicator can't decide that one either. The statute is wrong here. It is a contract between citizen and state. I won my cases without the use of an adjudicator which cannot be dismissed but I did have a proper defence.

 

I haven't missed the point at all and if you want to argue this further I suggest you start you own thread. The OP is worried about baliffs arriving and you are suggesting refusing to recognise the law or the Courts which will be of little use when they are towing away his partners car!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't missed the point at all and if you want to argue this further I suggest you start you own thread. The OP is worried about baliffs arriving and you are suggesting refusing to recognise the law or the Courts which will be of little use when they are towing away his partners car!!

No good you having a swipe at me and I don't have to justify myself to you either. Law? Lord Justice Laws, Transport Committee, RTA 1984 (General directions) adjudicators are low down the line. Constituional Law and Ordinary Law, I won't start on Common Law. You don't know everything, you only think you do, you must be a Londoner!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said you did I was simply pointing out that quoting the Bill of Rights or Magna Carta to the 'gorilla' loading your car on the back of a truck is not going to get very far.

 

What I was saying was that if you start with the material in the defence, using ordinary statutes, then have contact with the authority making the claim (as in PCN) you stop any unlawful actions. You don't let it get to the "bailiff on the doorstep" stage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I was saying was that if you start with the material in the defence, using ordinary statutes, then have contact with the authority making the claim (as in PCN) you stop any unlawful actions. You don't let it get to the "bailiff on the doorstep" stage.

 

Maybe you should try reading the thread and you will see the Council are refusing to accept anymore representations as it is at the Charge Certificate stage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill of rights has been argued to death. It is a dead end, of no use as an argument against a PCN, and will not help the OP or anyone else. That being so, can we move back to the matter at hand?

 

The problem here is that the case his timed out for a rep. Therefore the situation cannot be remedied by resubmitting the one the council say they didn't have.

 

There is a mechanism for setting things back. Wait for the Order for Recovery. Have the Registsred keeper make a statutory declaration/witness statement, and on completion of the process, a new NTO will be sent to her.

 

Therafter, she can resubmit the represntation. Do it in her name. Phone the council a week or so later to confirm it is in hand. This should resolve the issue. (Of course there's no way of knowing what they will rule once they get it, but that's a different matter...)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill of rights has been argued to death. It is a dead end, of no use as an argument against a PCN, and will not help the OP or anyone else. That being so, can we move back to the matter at hand?

 

The problem here is that the case his timed out for a rep. Therefore the situation cannot be remedied by resubmitting the one the council say they didn't have.

 

There is a mechanism for setting things back. Wait for the Order for Recovery. Have the Registsred keeper make a statutory declaration/witness statement, and on completion of the process, a new NTO will be sent to her.

 

Therafter, she can resubmit the represntation. Do it in her name. Phone the council a week or so later to confirm it is in hand. This should resolve the issue. (Of course there's no way of knowing what they will rule once they get it, but that's a different matter...)

 

In which case that will be a procedural impropriety as it should be referred to adjudicators.

********************************************

Nothing in this post constitutes "advice" which I may not, in any event, be qualified to provide.

The only interpretation permitted on this post (or any others I may have made) is that this is what I would personally consider doing in the circumstances discussed. Each and every reader of this post or any other I may have made must take responsibility for forming their own view and making their own decision.

I receive an unwieldy number of private messages. I am happy to respond to messages posted on open forum but am unable to respond to private messages, seeking advice, when the substance of that message should properly be on the open forum.

Many thanks for your assistance and understanding on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill of rights has been argued to death. It is a dead end, of no use as an argument against a PCN, and will not help the OP or anyone else. That being so, can we move back to the matter at hand?

 

The problem here is that the case his timed out for a rep. Therefore the situation cannot be remedied by resubmitting the one the council say they didn't have.

 

There is a mechanism for setting things back. Wait for the Order for Recovery. Have the Registsred keeper make a statutory declaration/witness statement, and on completion of the process, a new NTO will be sent to her.

 

Therafter, she can resubmit the represntation. Do it in her name. Phone the council a week or so later to confirm it is in hand. This should resolve the issue. (Of course there's no way of knowing what they will rule once they get it, but that's a different matter...)

 

In which case that will be a procedural impropriety as it should be referred to adjudicators.

********************************************

Nothing in this post constitutes "advice" which I may not, in any event, be qualified to provide.

The only interpretation permitted on this post (or any others I may have made) is that this is what I would personally consider doing in the circumstances discussed. Each and every reader of this post or any other I may have made must take responsibility for forming their own view and making their own decision.

I receive an unwieldy number of private messages. I am happy to respond to messages posted on open forum but am unable to respond to private messages, seeking advice, when the substance of that message should properly be on the open forum.

Many thanks for your assistance and understanding on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In which case that will be a procedural impropriety as it should be referred to adjudicators.

 

ugh...so i think i get what is going to happen next...basically if the council refuse to acknowledge my representations, then i have to wait for the order for recovery, then fill out the statutory declaration - under the grounds of:

 

"I made representations about the penalty charge but did not receive a rejection notice"

After which it should go to the adjudicator if it is succesful declaration (why wouldnt it be succesful?)

 

does this sound right?

 

and also am a little concerned as it sounds like it could some money to make the statutory declaration:

 

Your Statutory Declaration must be witnessed by an authorised person. This could be a solicitor or Commissioner for Oaths, Justice of the Peace at your local magistrates court, or an officer of the local county court who is appointed by the Judge to take affidavits. (A fee will usually be charged!)

 

Has anyone had any experience with this...what kind of costs should I expect, and are any of these options free? :S ?

 

many thanks everyone for the replies! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do we attract weirdos.... they told me I was the last one allowed in! :razz:

 

Have you got a link to this judgement?

 

I hope you are not suggesting I am a weirdo! Dangermouse!

 

Anyway, it was of February 18 2002, against Sunderland City Council. Section 62 and 63 and the legal test by Lord Justice Laws.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ugh...so i think i get what is going to happen next...basically if the council refuse to acknowledge my representations, then i have to wait for the order for recovery, then fill out the statutory declaration - under the grounds of:

 

"I made representations about the penalty charge but did not receive a rejection notice"

After which it should go to the adjudicator if it is succesful declaration (why wouldnt it be succesful?)

 

does this sound right?

 

and also am a little concerned as it sounds like it could some money to make the statutory declaration:

 

Your Statutory Declaration must be witnessed by an authorised person. This could be a solicitor or Commissioner for Oaths, Justice of the Peace at your local magistrates court, or an officer of the local county court who is appointed by the Judge to take affidavits. (A fee will usually be charged!)

 

Has anyone had any experience with this...what kind of costs should I expect, and are any of these options free? :S ?

 

many thanks everyone for the replies! :)

 

When I was dealing with my Westminster PCNs which is the same system, I went into town, saw the Clerk of the Court, he got the Magistrate to sign it (free), it took ten minutes, no hearing, and it gets sent back to the Council. No questions asked. I got all these PCNs cancelled.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope you are not suggesting I am a weirdo! Dangermouse!

 

Anyway, it was of February 18 2002, against Sunderland City Council. Section 62 and 63 and the legal test by Lord Justice Laws.

 

And subsequently trumped in the case of parking penalties by the judicial review in the matter of De Crittenden v National Parking Adjudication Service the judgment of which is here:

http://keycases.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/docs/De_Crittenden.pdf

 

And also addressed here:

http://keycases.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/docs/Henney-v-Camden.pdf

 

And here:

http://keycases.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/docs/RobinTownsendvTFL.pdf

 

And this final case specifically refers to the Sunderland case this is an appropriate quote:

I have had regard for the extract of Judgement of the Divisional Court of the Queens

Bench dated February 2001 ( Thoburn -v-Sunderland City Council et al ) to which

Mr Townsend refers. However the Court was not there dealing with the provisions

herein or considering the meaning of the 1689 Act . In any event I entirely accept the

proposition that, as a constitutional statute, the Bill of Rights Act 1689 is not subject

to the principle of implied repeal.

 

It seems to me that to pursue the Bill of Rights Act in relation to parking offences will require considerable resources. It may be the sort of approach to indulge in if one were to win the lottery. Absent that, I suggest that pursuit of this avenue is a flight of fancy equivalent, perhaps, to the notion of winning the lottery!

********************************************

Nothing in this post constitutes "advice" which I may not, in any event, be qualified to provide.

The only interpretation permitted on this post (or any others I may have made) is that this is what I would personally consider doing in the circumstances discussed. Each and every reader of this post or any other I may have made must take responsibility for forming their own view and making their own decision.

I receive an unwieldy number of private messages. I am happy to respond to messages posted on open forum but am unable to respond to private messages, seeking advice, when the substance of that message should properly be on the open forum.

Many thanks for your assistance and understanding on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Notwithstanding, you cannot be made to pay a fine for parking on a line without T ends as I saw mentioned.

 

Yes you can!

 

Minier -v- London Borough of Camden

http://keycases.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/docs/Minier,%20T-bar,%20effect%20of%20absence%20edited%20version.pdf

********************************************

Nothing in this post constitutes "advice" which I may not, in any event, be qualified to provide.

The only interpretation permitted on this post (or any others I may have made) is that this is what I would personally consider doing in the circumstances discussed. Each and every reader of this post or any other I may have made must take responsibility for forming their own view and making their own decision.

I receive an unwieldy number of private messages. I am happy to respond to messages posted on open forum but am unable to respond to private messages, seeking advice, when the substance of that message should properly be on the open forum.

Many thanks for your assistance and understanding on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And subsequently trumped in the case of parking penalties by the judicial review in the matter of De Crittenden v National Parking Adjudication Service the judgment of which is here:

http://keycases.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/docs/De_Crittenden.pdf

 

And also addressed here:

http://keycases.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/docs/Henney-v-Camden.pdf

 

And here:

http://keycases.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/docs/RobinTownsendvTFL.pdf

 

And this final case specifically refers to the Sunderland case this is an appropriate quote:

 

 

It seems to me that to pursue the Bill of Rights Act in relation to parking offences will require considerable resources. It may be the sort of approach to indulge in if one were to win the lottery. Absent that, I suggest that pursuit of this avenue is a flight of fancy equivalent, perhaps, to the notion of winning the lottery!

Worked for me though! I used it to a great end. 11 tickets issued (not all mine) 11 cancelled, non had to be paid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And good luck to you for that!

 

If anyone wants to use that argument though they deserve to have the full picture.

********************************************

Nothing in this post constitutes "advice" which I may not, in any event, be qualified to provide.

The only interpretation permitted on this post (or any others I may have made) is that this is what I would personally consider doing in the circumstances discussed. Each and every reader of this post or any other I may have made must take responsibility for forming their own view and making their own decision.

I receive an unwieldy number of private messages. I am happy to respond to messages posted on open forum but am unable to respond to private messages, seeking advice, when the substance of that message should properly be on the open forum.

Many thanks for your assistance and understanding on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...