Jump to content


Warrants of Control (Parking) Discussion thread


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1953 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

Slight error in that the word 'not' should have been part of the last line of the first paragraph.

 

It might interest others to learn (if they do not know already) that the High and County Courts plus the Magistrate's Court do not involve themselves in parking enforcement to be any position to issue warrants in order to kick start Schedule 12.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to be mindful that this thread is very quickly turning into a 'discussion' thread (and a good one at that).

 

We must remember that the original poster may well be getting very confused by the posts.

Perhaps ploddertom or someone else from site team could transfer the "discusssion posts" to a new discussion thread so the OP can have best advice clear and concise? Say Sch 12 TEC and Parking Enforcement.

Edited by brassnecked
added parenthesis.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't be trivial, given that it authorises seizure of goods if payment is not made.

 

There has to be a proper legal procedure, where an employee authorised by a local authority has gone through a process of conducting relevant checks e.g has a complaint been received or payment been made. After checks are made, they then sign off on the warrant being issued, with date/time being recorded.

 

It can't just be an electronic process, with details added to a spreadsheet and sent out for enforcement. The council should have a separate record and be able to print off a copy of the warrant they authorised.

 

This has all been done by the TEC, the authority just prepares the warrant on their instruction.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure he is getting confused, but my original point was that there is no warrant in this case. It is the persistent negative comments relating to my credibility by some that has steered this thread away from its objective.

 

One should not be expected to allow such wholly informed comments to go unchallenged

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps ploddertom or someone else from site team could transfer the "discusssion posts" to a new discussion thread so the OP can have best advice clear and concise? Say Sch 12 TEC and Parking Enforcement.

 

Yes i resisted that some time ago.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure he is getting confused, but my original point was that there is no warrant in this case. It is the persistent negative comments relating to my credibility by some that has steered this thread away from its objective.

 

One should not be expected to allow such wholly informed comments to go unchallenged

 

I haven't questioned your credibility FP just your conclusions, I do have a problem in that no one else seem ot arrive at the same ones.

Also I am mystified as to why you start these discussions on a main forum thread thereby hijacking it, when there is a discussion area designed for the purpose.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Awfully sorry if my rare postings on this forum have detracted from your belief that you are enititled to say what you feel even when it is offensive to others, whilst others should criticised from voicing their views.

 

The fact that I may well be only person quoting these views does not make those observations incorrect. If you think they are then any proof to the opposite is more than welcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Awfully sorry if my rare postings on this forum have detracted from your belief that you are enititled to say what you feel even when it is offensive to others, whilst others should criticised from voicing their views.

 

The fact that I may well be only person quoting these views does not make those observations incorrect. If you think they are then any proof to the opposite is more than welcome.

 

Free speech is allowed on the forum but what the site tries hard to avoid, is the 'discussions' taking over from the subject of the enquiry. This particular subject is an important one and almost certainly is one that should be in the 'discussion' part of the forum and given its own title.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Awfully sorry if my rare postings on this forum have detracted from your belief that you are enititled to say what you feel even when it is offensive to others, whilst others should criticised from voicing their views.

 

The fact that I may well be only person quoting these views does not make those observations incorrect. If you think they are then any proof to the opposite is more than welcome.

 

I see but it is quite important that someone else shares you view when you are representing a client, at least that the judge does.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Request made.

 

Hope you are more successful with yours.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then those who quickly criticise others for holding different views to them should be aware that the person criticised is most likely to respond.

 

I for one will not be involved in a discussion thread about illegal 'warrants' and schedule 12. I've made my views quite clear. If people do not wish to accept them, then that is their choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And no it isn't important that others accept your views when placing them before a judge. It is for you to prepare a case that convinces His Honour.

 

Do bear in mind that as parking enforcement is administered completely outside of the judicial courts this is why judges and other legally trained people are unaware of the procedures. It only takes one person to explain it to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I for one will not be involved in a discussion thread about illegal 'warrants' and schedule 12. I've made my views quite clear. If people do not wish to accept them, then that is their choice.

 

To me personally you have made your views very clear about 'Schedule 12' but viewers and other posters on here will not be aware why you consider that Schedule 12 has no relevance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes given the thousands of people who have had bailiff visits for unpaid notices, i think they would be desperate to know.

 

.Also the bit about the enforcment being outside the judicial system.

 

PART 75 - TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT

 

75.2

(1) Proceedings to which this Part applies must be started in the Centre.

(2) For any purpose connected with the exercise of the Centre's functions –

(a) the Centre is deemed to be an office of the County Court; and

(b) any officer of the Centre, in exercising its functions, is deemed to act as an officer of the County Court.

 

Also section 82 (1) of the 2004 act.

 

Be very interested to know why you think these do not apply.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi

I have resurrected this thread so that Fair Parking can continue to explain why parking tickets are unenforceable, and why the thousands of the issued every week should be ignored.

 

Apparently he has judicial support for these views.

This thread gives him the opportunity to show how this works without damaging user threads.

 

Lets hope he takes the opportunity offered, personally i would love the chance to see why he think argument has any merit.

 

I put it on record that there has never been any case ever which support the idea that all traffic enforcment cases carried out under the TEC procedure has ever been made.

So lets see if Fair Parking can prove me wrong.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unsure what you mean here.

Are you saying that your ideas will not stand up to a civilized debate. Or as is mor likely are you saying that your purpose is to get threads closed down(trolling).

 

I see on here that I already debunked your previous ideas regarding the warrant not being enforceable under the TCE. Is it because you know I will do the same to the current nonsense.

 

Dont worry FP I will be gentle with you.

 

You could start by posting these cases which you say prove your point.(fat chance):)

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...