Parking on Private Land - Trespass Notice

[DBC]

But what is the actual loss? Not some hypothetical figure.

 

Could I ask you Spec1 what are your motives for registering on this forum and posting here. Are you connected to any private parking company, are you a lawyer or law student or are you just reading all this in books?

[Spec1]

But what is the actual loss? Not some hypothetical figure.

 

Could I ask you Spec1 what are your motives for registering on this forum and posting here. Are you connected to any private parking company, are you a lawyer or law student or are you just reading all this in books?

 

Please read my posts again, you do not have to prove loss in an action for trespass, the loss to the landowner is posted on the sign, this is what he will have to pay the company for issuing the notice,

I can not see why a Court would have a problem in awarding this loss to the landowner, as he has to be placed in the same position before the tort of trespass occurred. My motives are simple I am trying to point out you can continually attempt to talk about a subject where there are objections to actions, however if your action creates a damage in trespass which you have recieved clear warning not to do, it is an almost impossible to defend, that is where the problem lies,.

[DBC]

So what are you. A PPC stooge, a lawyer or law student and why did you specifically join this forum to comment on this issue?

 

Regarding the loss. It has to be a true loss , not some figure plucked out of thin air.

[Old Snowy]

Please read my posts again, you do not have to prove loss in an action for trespass

Correct. However, unless you can quantify the loss caused directly by the trespasser then whilst you may well obtain judgment you are only going to be awarded nominal damages. The fact that a figure of £100 is posted on a notice does not transmute them magically into damages simply because they are there. You must be able to prove that this expenditure or loss was caused directly by the trespasser concerned.

 

Do you provide VAT invoices for the charges you levy?

[Spec1]

So what are you. A PPC stooge, a lawyer or law student and why did you specifically join this forum to comment on this issue?

 

Regarding the loss. It has to be a true loss , not some figure plucked out of thin air.

 

It is a true loss, what does it matter what I am, I thought you needed debate on this subject, what are you. I have knowledge of this subject, and if you commit trespass you will have almost no defence without authority. All figures are plucjked out of the air like unenforceable parking Notiice fees, which are contract penalties. What i am trying to tell you is private property is not yours or mine to give authority to trespass on, if a landowner does not want you to trespass and he can show the Court why that is you dont stand a hope.

[DBC]

So if a put up a notice saying that if anyone wearing a red shirt walks up my driveway they have to pay me £200 it would be as valid as your so-called "damages" notice?

 

You also mention "contract penalties" and private parking companies. It's because they are penalties and not the true loss that they are unenforceable.

[Spec1]

In a nut shell Yes, even if you wanted them to hop across your land while wearing the shirt, if that is your conndition of use land why not ?

You must remember if you work on a building site you are required to wear high vis, and you fail to do so, although it is not a trespass it is a condition that you must adhere to, and although it not a trespass it is against the law not to, the same as trespass.

 

THERE IS ALMOST NO DEFENCE AGAINST TRESPASS, one can also accidentally trespass, that Is the landowners power and protection as the master of his land, the laws have been tested and tested, but one thing is for sure you will be up against it, if you take him on.

[Spec1]

Old Snowy,

 

This is not a damage to the security company, it is a damage to the landowner he can prove the damage that has occured by the action of trespass, which was warned to the trespasser before he commited the tort, no argument, that is fact.

 

If the landowner is VAT registered, and the trespassr remits the sum before the hearing he is areeeing to pay an out of Court settlement, he will be able to claim the VAT, of course you know at a hearing this will not be the case.

[DBC]

This thread gets stranger and stranger. I think you may be living in a parallel universe

[Spec1]

really

[Spec1]

Was it the shirt that put you off a decent reply, or just the fact there is no reply, and substance to you arguement

[DBC]

You say you "know about these things", so just tell usl about your legal training and experience so we can all bow to your superior knowledge. On the other hand, if you are just making this up as you go along, we will know we won't have to believe a word you utter. It's as simple as that.

Edited August 17, 2012 by DBC

[DBC]

Was it the shirt that put you off a decent reply, or just the fact there is no reply, and substance to you arguement

 

No , it was yet another stupid answer from you.

[esmerobbo]

Spec1 can you show us or point us to one case were a charge posted on a sign has been upheld in a case for trespass?

[Conniff]

Old Snowy,

 

This is not a damage to the security company, it is a damage to the landowner he can prove the damage that has occured by the action of trespass, which was warned to the trespasser before he commited the tort, no argument, that is fact.

 

If the landowner is VAT registered, and the trespassr remits the sum before the hearing he is areeeing to pay an out of Court settlement, he will be able to claim the VAT, of course you know at a hearing this will not be the case.

 

I'm a bit bemused here, what sort of 'damage' are we talking about, it sounds like physical ??

[Spec1]

No , it was yet another stupid answer from you.

 

Ohhh, now now, touchy touchy, stupidity is a way someone shows their true colours, like when they get caught get caught with their trousers down, or parked on another's property without permission.

[DBC]

Ohhh, now now, touchy touchy, stupidity is a way someone shows their true colours, like when they get caught get caught with their trousers down, or parked on another's property without permission.

 

So you think your are correct and everyone on here is wrong. I ask again - just tell us about your legal training and experience so we can all bow to your superior knowledge. On the other hand, if you are just making this up as you go along, we will know we won't have to believe a word you utter. It's as simple as that.

[Coupon]

Ohhh, now now, touchy touchy, stupidity is a way someone shows their true colours, like when they get caught get caught with their trousers down, or parked on another's property without permission.

 

 

Showing your true colours indeed now.

 

All we are waiting for now is the old chestnut about 'how would you like it if someone parked on your drive?' Go on, let's have a laugh..

[Spec1]

Showing your true colours indeed now.

 

All we are waiting for now is the old chestnut about 'how would you like it if someone parked on your drive?' Go on, let's have a laugh..

 

Coupon

 

I am not going to get dragged into the old chestnut senario. I have joined to debate this subject, as yet I have not recieved any information to prove me wrong, Old Snowy has been a good source of debate, however the problem is the landowner will always have the right to protect his property from use of abuse. The hurdles that a trespasser will face in the future, as they have faced since the 13th century is, Courts will and must give the labndowner protection form interference to heir property, as without a remedy against a trespasser people will be given licence to abuse.

 

Of course I would not like another to park on my property, as I am sure the same would be for you. The issue is people with respect do not park on anothers property, respect is what all of us expect from another, surely respect to another, is what this forum is designed to achieve.

 

I have not attempted to debate on the rights of people, who trespass by mistake, trespass to another in relation to land is a touchy subject, as we all want to park where it is convenient or cheap, but conveniance and cost effectiveness is not necessarily lawfull, the old chestnut you take a chance, LOL

[DBC]

Still waiting for your answer regarding your legal knowledge and training (if you have any at all).

[Spec1]

You say you "know about these things", so just tell usl about your legal training and experience so we can all bow to your superior knowledge. On the other hand, if you are just making this up as you go along, we will know we won't have to believe a word you utter. It's as simple as that.

 

Ok you got me ime making it up as I go along, one can only hope, why don't you look it up for yourself, or work it out for yourself, looking at the subject locically should surely make you realise you will never have the upper hand with another's private property, there is to much protection against abuse, which you will never be able to defend. I suppose you could try it out and see what happens, you will though without a doubt be up against it.

[DBC]

So you still haven't answered my question. Why is that?

 

Why is it that you think you are right and everyon eelse on this forum is wrong?

[Conniff]

This thread seems to have run it's course and no tangible information is being offered, so I am closing it.