PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

1108 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

bama
Posted on: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 - 17:16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,924
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323


QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 11 Jul 2019 - 21:38) *
Why notarised? Why not just certified as a true copy?


validatition from a qualified third party.
and one they can't really argue with, as you know Notaries come under The Court of Faculties.



  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1499594 · Replies: 40 · Views: 1,510

bama
Posted on: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 - 17:12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,924
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323


QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 11 Jul 2019 - 23:12) *
QUOTE (bama @ Thu, 11 Jul 2019 - 20:38) *
end of the day
"guy is parked within the 10m distance from a corner that is specified within Highway Code as Do Not Park."
is meaningless.
'breaking' the H/C is not an offence. H/C can be used in evidence when an RTA offense is prosecuted, on its own it means nothing (and you will struggle to find that 10 metre stuff in the RTAs)


can you point to a definition of obstruction of the highway for me please


surely you can find one. the point was the otiose reference to the H/C
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1499591 · Replies: 50 · Views: 1,781

bama
Posted on: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 - 19:48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,924
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323


seems Saba/govia are on a mission. some wheeze thought up by a revue incented manager I would hazard.
QUOTE
So the Penalty is actually an offered contract - you pay them £60 or £100 and they will promise not to prosecute.

and there is feck all,zero,zilch,nowt, nada in the enabling legislation which allows this (unlike speeding FPNs).
there are firmly in the land of torts-a-plenty (tm pending) IMO
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1499354 · Replies: 4 · Views: 177

bama
Posted on: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 - 19:43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,924
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323


QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 11 Jul 2019 - 14:06) *
If on public land, then what on earth were SAba doing there? They will not have any cotract there.

OP - show the precise location for us.


+1
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1499350 · Replies: 12 · Views: 238

bama
Posted on: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 - 19:38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,924
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323


end of the day
"guy is parked within the 10m distance from a corner that is specified within Highway Code as Do Not Park."
is meaningless.
'breaking' the H/C is not an offence. H/C can be used in evidence when an RTA offense is prosecuted, on its own it means nothing (and you will struggle to find that 10 metre stuff in the RTAs)
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1499346 · Replies: 50 · Views: 1,781

bama
Posted on: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 - 19:32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,924
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323


DVLA loves just loves the statutory presumption that their records are correct.
When license changes (address change, points etc etc) it pays to head off at the pass the usual 'we have no record of..' b/s (of course they have no record of it they changed/deleted it) it pays to pay the small fee to get a properly notarised copy of the licence before you send it in.
Its the only thing I know of that you can use to fight the statutory presumption that they love so much.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1499342 · Replies: 40 · Views: 1,510

bama
Posted on: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 - 19:26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,924
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323


I smell the 'retraining' excuse in the offing....
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1499337 · Replies: 8 · Views: 899

bama
Posted on: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 - 20:23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,924
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323


isn't it SOP for the termimal signs etc to be checked by the enforcement bods before setting up ?
IIRC it used to be. (and was more observed in the breach than in the observance...have known them to eff it up with long term static cameras never mind temporary ones)
  Forum: Technical Discussion of Enforcement Devices · Post Preview: #1498314 · Replies: 7 · Views: 7,397

bama
Posted on: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 - 20:09


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,924
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323


QUOTE (anon45 @ Fri, 5 Jul 2019 - 23:00) *
Reviewing the airport byelaws at: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/1986...e_passthrough=1, it is a criminal offence under byelaw 5(iii)(a) to "drive, park or leave a vehicle elsewhere than in a place provided for that purpose without the permission of the Airport Director".

The question is whether a PPC may offer an (enforceable) civil contract to do that which is a criminal offence. Having reviewed a briefing at: http://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/legal-brief...y-in-contracts/, my own (unqualified) view is that such a contract is void for illegality.


+1

nomerous threads on here dissecting byelaws PPCs, most notably from anon45
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1498311 · Replies: 23 · Views: 1,232

bama
Posted on: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 - 20:06


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,924
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323


they must have 'miracle signs' - quite a few PPCs think that such signs exist - that prevent mechanical failure and breakdowns.
"beyond the driver's control" changes things as per council tickets
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1498309 · Replies: 62 · Views: 8,327

bama
Posted on: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 - 19:58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,924
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323


QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 7 Jul 2019 - 18:40) *
It's funny because I've just had a FOI refusal notice from a council: I asked for some parking enforcement related stuff, and they refused it on the basis of the exemption under section 43(2) of the FOI Act, i.e. that it would prejudice the council's commercial interests because it might reduce their revenues. You couldn't make it up.

shot themselves in the foot.
don't have access top the relvant PC to dig it/them out but big boys court has been very clear that there is no revenue basis for parking as that would be unlawful.
even some council docs say the aim is not revenue it is 100 percent compliance.
clearly the FOI refusal gainsays the law. I will odds the reply is not signed by an individual......
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1498306 · Replies: 8 · Views: 899

bama
Posted on: Sun, 7 Jul 2019 - 16:55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,924
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323


+1
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1497890 · Replies: 14 · Views: 491

bama
Posted on: Sun, 7 Jul 2019 - 16:52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,924
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323


QUOTE (Sheffield Dave @ Sat, 8 Jun 2019 - 21:39) *
As I understand it, the Railway Byelaws contain two relevant powers related to enforcement and penalties:

24 (1) "Any person who breaches any of these Byelaws commits an offence [...] and may be liable for each such offence to a penalty not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale."

14 (4) (i) "The owner of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance used, left or placed in breach of Byelaw 14(1) to 14(3) [parking etc] may be liable to pay a penalty as displayed in that area."

The first applies to the "person in charge of the vehicle", i.e. usually the driver. The second applies to the owner.

The bye-laws are enabled by Railways Act 2005, which in Schedule 9.2 allows the Bye-laws to include fines on conviction up to level 3, but doesn't empower the byelaws to include what amounts to council-style decriminalised penalties.


plus check what the enabling act allows the byelaws to regulate.
"persons while on the premises"
Bylaws have limited geographical application, they can not reach out beyond their boundary to reach the owner (should the owner not be the driver. so they need to prove to the criminal standard of proof who was driving)
Barrister advice is spot on.

Sounds to me that a challenge to jurisdiction is on the cards for this latest wheeze by the parking company.
I would odds that they are firmly in the land of torts-a-plenty (tm pending) with this wheeze.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1497889 · Replies: 11 · Views: 1,503

bama
Posted on: Sun, 7 Jul 2019 - 16:35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,924
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323


QUOTE (Incandescent @ Sat, 29 Jun 2019 - 10:02) *
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48809174

No surprise to see the usual suspects drawing in millions every year ! However, the figure is total surplus so there is no split between parking charges and penalty charges, but you can bet your bottom dollar it is the London councils getting the most from penalties when one considers the penalty charges are double the rest of the UK.


As the 1984 Act which is the basis for the charges is not a revenue raising measure (as found in big boys court) then this is prima facie evidence that the charges are too high.
As per Lord Templeman (and a raft of Admin law) I believe that no proper authority would knowingly act unlawfully, in this instance using parking as a reveue raising measure.
This coin only falls on one of two sides, either they are knowingly acting unlawfully or they are overcharging.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1497886 · Replies: 8 · Views: 899

bama
Posted on: Sun, 7 Jul 2019 - 16:28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,924
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323


"whether:
1) the police are as independent from Government control as they would have us believe;"

err Miners strike.

what has changed.....
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1497884 · Replies: 3 · Views: 624

bama
Posted on: Wed, 8 May 2019 - 17:49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,924
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323


the 'owner liability' part is lies, complete and utter lies.
byelaws have a geographical limit i.e they only apply within a boundary and not all over the country.
thats why the enabling legislation only allows byelaws to regulate 'persons while on the premises' - see the Transport Act(s)
if the owner doesn't enter the boundary there is no jurisdiction on the owner.

railways and airports lie through their teeth about this - Kerching !
I am sure they commit torts-a-plenty (tm pending) with this blatant lying. For certain they know fullwell that any byelaw is limited by geography. Bye;aws are just byelaws they are not Acts of Parliament.

  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1483564 · Replies: 18 · Views: 599

bama
Posted on: Sat, 6 Apr 2019 - 16:42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,924
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323


weren't they in a rush to get the 737 finalised due to a competitor having a model that would eat Boeing's lunch of they didn't finish by a certain date ?
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1476439 · Replies: 12 · Views: 679

bama
Posted on: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 - 09:43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,924
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323


isn't that a byelaws location ?
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1474271 · Replies: 2 · Views: 174

bama
Posted on: Sun, 10 Mar 2019 - 15:05


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,924
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323


IIRC only if the people being warned are provably breaking the speed limit

or has that changed.
  Forum: Government Policy · Post Preview: #1469661 · Replies: 10 · Views: 941

bama
Posted on: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 10:34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,924
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323


retests ?
surely the chain of evidence is somewhat questionable
  Forum: News / Press Articles · Post Preview: #1443095 · Replies: 17 · Views: 907

bama
Posted on: Sun, 18 Nov 2018 - 15:55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,924
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323


Dft, TOCs and PPCs will never give clear answers on this - way too much money being taken on the back of the misleading statements confusion.
Indigo makes clear on their website that they are mere agents of the TOC
https://uk.parkindigo.com/en/railway-byelaws-terms-of-use

domino.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1435080 · Replies: 28 · Views: 2,223

bama
Posted on: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 - 14:01


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,924
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323


The mess there wnt way way further than that.
soggi, check ALL the paperwork, CPE applications, TROs, Notices of Making etc.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1433084 · Replies: 10 · Views: 660

bama
Posted on: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 - 10:41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,924
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323


QUOTE
Why did the letter mention mitigating circumstances?


because mitigation it is a plea for leniency and is thus an admission.
Standard PPC tactic to trick people
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1427683 · Replies: 15 · Views: 819

bama
Posted on: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 - 13:41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,924
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323


get
The Notice Of Making
as well. they have been known to stuff them up.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1423053 · Replies: 2 · Views: 819

bama
Posted on: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 - 13:36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,924
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323


QUOTE
IoT is another disaster waiting to happen


FTFY
the architecture the devices is a horror story and their 'uses' are manifold.

when everything is connected everything is vulnerable
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1423052 · Replies: 38 · Views: 2,702

1108 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

New Posts  New Replies
No New Posts  No New Replies
Hot topic  Hot Topic (New)
No new  Hot Topic (No New)
Poll  Poll (New)
No new votes  Poll (No New)
Closed  Locked Topic
Moved  Moved Topic
 

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Sunday, 21st July 2019 - 14:19
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.