Posted on: Thu, 4 Jan 2024 - 14:31 | |
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 Joined: 29 Nov 2005 Member No.: 4,323 |
Questions for Crapcoa/stuff to use The ability to accept a Penalty Notice in order discharge any liability of conviction is enabled in legislation, and rightly so, for example in the case of speeding it is The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, s.89(1). The legislation that ACPO relies upon (citation required) to grant its ability to take payment to create a discharge for any liability of conviction is ? Section 219 of the Transport Act 2000 (as amended) enables the imposition of a penalty for a breach of byelaws by “The conduct of persons while on relevant assets.“. Naturally Byelaws cannot extend all over the country, they are strictly geographically limited. What evidence or facts establishes that the keeper was withing the limiting boundary of the Byelaws ? Notwithstanding that your paperwork states that The Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 Ch 22 may pierce the inherent geographical limitation. On which statutory instrument and/or case law is your assertion founded? POPLA is offered for a final appeal. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Sch4 3 (1) © clearly excludes byelaw controlled land from “Relevant Land”. The legal basis (citation required) that ACPOA includes POPLA is ? |
Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1803481 · Replies: 12 · Views: 752 |
Posted on: Sat, 11 Dec 2021 - 10:27 | |
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 Joined: 29 Nov 2005 Member No.: 4,323 |
Director liability has made many companies introduce a somewhat draconian GDPR policy. i.e always deny it so the boss can't get clobbered. No matter the facts, the merits or the law. |
Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1681717 · Replies: 21 · Views: 2,868 |
Posted on: Thu, 1 Jul 2021 - 16:56 | |
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 Joined: 29 Nov 2005 Member No.: 4,323 |
So they are going to decriminalise these offences ? be interesting to see how this ends up and what the dependant Act is/will be. Of course we all know that no LA sees parking as a revenue stream. Big Boys court has opined that that wold be unlawful as the source Act is not a revenue raising measure. And as Lord Templeman said "no proper Authority would knowingly act unlawfully". Oh hang on, is there a chance they do see it as a revenue rasing thing and just use word games for (not really) plausible deniability. That would mean they were most improper.... (or maybe this is just a conspiracy theory, they seem popular now) |
Forum: Government Policy · Post Preview: #1646656 · Replies: 13 · Views: 4,502 |
Posted on: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 - 11:36 | |
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 Joined: 29 Nov 2005 Member No.: 4,323 |
This. I think he was lucky to get 'first one free'. You may not like it but from experience I would have them come onto your property and fit the meter as near to the house as is possible. My dad had one on the property boundary and a few years ago the supply to the house sprung a leak causing the bill to rocket to such a level that the water company informed him of a possible leak when they read the meter. The leak was not visible and god only knows where all the water went but it was repaired and the bill amended to reflect an average of previous bills. He was then informed that you get the first leak free, further leaks would be charged at full cost as any pipework after the meter was now his responsibility. He eventually took out insurance to cover all his pipework with them which was handy as the pipe went again last year about 5' from the previous leak, again undiscovered until the bill came in as there wasn't any visible wet marks or waterlogged patches of garden. Ultimately the closer to the house the meter is the lower your potential risk. |
Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1618377 · Replies: 40 · Views: 10,099 |
Posted on: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 - 15:25 | |
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 Joined: 29 Nov 2005 Member No.: 4,323 |
|
Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1592391 · Replies: 10 · Views: 833 |
Posted on: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 - 21:32 | |
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 Joined: 29 Nov 2005 Member No.: 4,323 |
have they (in fact) repealed (as opposed tomerely saying they 'don't use them') the airport byelaws ? if not then byelaws means POFa does not apply |
Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1512527 · Replies: 29 · Views: 3,079 |
Posted on: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 - 21:10 | |
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 Joined: 29 Nov 2005 Member No.: 4,323 |
Dig out the TRO (not from that godawful on-line TRO repository) |
Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1512521 · Replies: 20 · Views: 6,421 |
Posted on: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 - 17:16 | |
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 Joined: 29 Nov 2005 Member No.: 4,323 |
|
Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1499594 · Replies: 40 · Views: 9,150 |
Posted on: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 - 17:12 | |
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 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) 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: 9,927 |
Posted on: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 - 19:48 | |
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 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: 1,660 |
Posted on: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 - 19:43 | |
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 Joined: 29 Nov 2005 Member No.: 4,323 |
|
Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1499350 · Replies: 12 · Views: 1,081 |
Posted on: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 - 19:38 | |
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 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: 9,927 |
Posted on: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 - 19:32 | |
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 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: 9,150 |
Posted on: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 - 19:26 | |
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 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: 2,551 |
Posted on: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 - 20:23 | |
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 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: 14 · Views: 20,584 |
Posted on: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 - 20:09 | |
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 Joined: 29 Nov 2005 Member No.: 4,323 |
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: 3,523 |
Posted on: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 - 20:06 | |
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 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: 11,985 |
Posted on: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 - 19:58 | |
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 Joined: 29 Nov 2005 Member No.: 4,323 |
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: 2,551 |
Posted on: Sun, 7 Jul 2019 - 16:55 | |
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 Joined: 29 Nov 2005 Member No.: 4,323 |
+1 |
Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1497890 · Replies: 16 · Views: 1,975 |
Posted on: Sun, 7 Jul 2019 - 16:52 | |
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 Joined: 29 Nov 2005 Member No.: 4,323 |
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: 12 · Views: 5,685 |
Posted on: Sun, 7 Jul 2019 - 16:35 | |
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 Joined: 29 Nov 2005 Member No.: 4,323 |
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: 2,551 |
Posted on: Sun, 7 Jul 2019 - 16:28 | |
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 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: 2,021 |
Posted on: Wed, 8 May 2019 - 17:49 | |
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 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: 2,082 |
Posted on: Sat, 6 Apr 2019 - 16:42 | |
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 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: 2,544 |
Posted on: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 - 09:43 | |
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 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: 521 |
New Replies No New Replies Hot Topic (New) Hot Topic (No New) |
Poll (New) Poll (No New) Locked Topic Moved Topic |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 17:39 |