Expensive Parking in Maidstone

[hayfield]

1 hour ago, mezzoman253 said:

The problem is, we, the motorist, have to go through the appeals procedure, with its attendant problems, because the camera system is a catch all.

 

It doesn't account for legitimate reasons for overstaying the time limit. Such as the car washer above. The staff at the counter have no input to the system as it's run by an independent company.

 

Rob

 

Rob

 

I was told the exact opposite by one supermarket, I left my car reg at customer services and had free parking.

[hayfield]

1 hour ago, stewartingram said:

This is a big issue for me. Punters fill their cars at the pump, then abandon it there whilst they go into the filling station shop to do their shopping/get a coffee or snack. Meanwhile here I am waiting at the pump. As I run on lpg, there is usually a maximum of 1 pump at the garage, so I can't go to another lane - and unlike most punters, I have the sense to know I can stretch the hose to the other side of the car, so use either side, another irk that I've noticed. I've had to wait 15-20 minutes on many occasions at my local Morrisons.

 

Stewart

 

Agree its the one downfall with petrol stations that have mini shops during the busy periods

[mezzoman253]

2 hours ago, hayfield said:

 

Rob

 

I was told the exact opposite by one supermarket, I left my car reg at customer services and had free parking.

The supermarkets are probably not that interested in making money out of the customer, for parking, rather controlling parking so their legitimate customers can in fact park.

 

The petrol stations, in general, don't have a "overstay" problem. But the companies running the cameras approach the stations with an " offer they can't refuse" and both make a few bob.

 

It seems every business now diversifies to get maximum spend, where previously a petrol station was for petrol, and a greengrocer sold fruit and veg'. So patron's stay longer than a splash and dash, or some carrots and a turnip.

 

Rob

Edited December 4, 2019 by mezzoman253
Spelling and punctuation

[SM42]

3 hours ago, mezzoman253 said:

The supermarkets are probably not that interested in making money out of the customer, for parking, rather controlling parking so their legitimate customers can in fact park.

 

The petrol stations, in general, don't have a "overstay" problem. But the companies running the cameras approach the stations with an " offer they can't refuse" and both make a few bob.

 

It seems every business now diversifies to get maximum spend, where previously a petrol station was for petrol, and a greengrocer sold fruit and veg'. So patron's stay longer than a splash and dash, or some carrots and a turnip.

 

Rob

 

What happens is a private parking company convinces them they have a parking problem  (Parking Armageddon) that they can solve by putting up some signs and claiming a contract exists with the motorist and if you don't do what the sign says you owe the parking company a small fortune. How you can agree a contract to do something that the contract does not allow is another matter.

 

The unfortunate landowner gets all the flak and is told by the parking company that they cannot cancel the invoice (it's not a fine, only statutory bodies can issues fines) even though the parking company is working as the landowner's agent

 

The parking companies have to be members of a trade body to access the DVLA database, there are two bodies;, The BPA (who use POPLA) as an appeals service and the IPC who use their own in house appeals service that promises an 85% win rate to its members. The IPC run the appeals service and it all happens to be linked to a firm of solicitors whom the parking companies use to claim through the courts. It is generally conmsidered a waste of time using this appeals service as the incentive is to find against the motorist. The irony being the parking company is charged to proceed with  court case they have little chance of winning if properly defended.  

 

However it is a numbers game. Enough pay up without arguement to make it worthwhile and the Small Claims court  threat works often enough for the harder nuts .

 

It has to be said that the court is always a potential gamble as you never know which judge you will get and how they feel about the issue and about having a non legal defending themelves in their court. Good defences often win, poor ones often fail, but there is always the risk of a really whacky decision.  (Note NCP were stung to the tune of several thousands once, one solictor was told to" bring a toothbrush"  by the judge if they didn't come back with some evidence about the case the next day)

 

The companies have 6 years to start legal action via the small claims system. Some  wait this long in the hope you have moved and won't defend the case and then they can miraculously track you down at your new address and enforce the judgement.

They often use what is known as the Beavis case to justify their charge ( this was parking case that went all the way to and was lost at the Superme Court by the motorist (Mr Beavis)  but had very specific circumstances)  which in some cases can actually support the motorist's case or is totally irrelevant to the case in question

 

If they comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, (which many seem incapable of doing properly) they can transfer the charge from the driver to the registered keeper.  The Act came about when clamping on private land was made illegal and the trade lobbied hard for the right to claim off the keeper if the driver was not known. The parking industry claimed that parking cases were clogging up the court system and this right would stop that. Once this act was in place the number of cases increased exponentially.

 

Ignoring is not good idea now and using the "no fincancial loss to the parking company" arguement is now a dead end since the Beavis case

 

For help and to get an idea of the dirty tricks they use  to get your money  see the website http://www.pepipoo.com

 

To the OP. Gathering evidence of the signage is a good start. Photograph and map out where the signs are and what they say. They may differ slightly in different parts of the car park.

 

Good luck

 

Andy

 

 

Edited December 4, 2019 by SM42
clarity

[polybear]

In my book the bottom line is to use all the appeal routes, then small claims in order to defend the charge.  Even if the parking company do win, by the time they've done so they will have made zilch profit out of you.

[TheQ]

20 hours ago, mezzoman253 said:

 

 

It doesn't account for legitimate reasons for overstaying the time limit. Such as the car washer above. The staff at the counter have no input to the system as it's run by an independent company.

 

Rob

That certainly wasn't the case at Tesco, in the back office they have a terminal for access to the system, in which all the staff cars are permenantly entered, and any visiting workers, say to repair a fridge , when they sign in, are asked for their number. I have seen it used to cancel possible claims against a car on the day when some incident occurs.

[stewartingram]

4 minutes ago, TheQ said:

That certainly wasn't the case at Tesco, in the back office they have a terminal for access to the system, in which all the staff cars are permenantly entered, and any visiting workers, say to repair a fridge , when they sign in, are asked for their number. I have seen it used to cancel possible claims against a car on the day when some incident occurs.

My daughter has worked at Tesco Huntingdon since before it opened. They have had this system for a while, with anpr cameras. Whenever she borrows my car,m she now doesn't have a problem as it is registered as her 2nd car!

There have been instances of local taxi drivers getting caught out though, with return visits (on legitimate passenger runs) counting as the same visit but outside the limit.

 

Stewart

[TheQ]

3 minutes ago, stewartingram said:

My daughter has worked at Tesco Huntingdon since before it opened. They have had this system for a while, with anpr cameras. Whenever she borrows my car,m she now doesn't have a problem as it is registered as her 2nd car!

There have been instances of local taxi drivers getting caught out though, with return visits (on legitimate passenger runs) counting as the same visit but outside the limit.

 

Stewart

Yes the cameras don't always pick cars up going in or out if they are tailgating or being tailgated, So the taxi drivers plate may be seen once going in but not going out until the next time.  You can fool the system by tailgaitng a car in if you get it right..

[Gibbo675]

20 hours ago, SM42 said:

 

What happens is a private parking company convinces them they have a parking problem  (Parking Armageddon) that they can solve by putting up some signs and claiming a contract exists with the motorist and if you don't do what the sign says you owe the parking company a small fortune. How you can agree a contract to do something that the contract does not allow is another matter.

 

The unfortunate landowner gets all the flak and is told by the parking company that they cannot cancel the invoice (it's not a fine, only statutory bodies can issues fines) even though the parking company is working as the landowner's agent

 

The parking companies have to be members of a trade body to access the DVLA database, there are two bodies;, The BPA (who use POPLA) as an appeals service and the IPC who use their own in house appeals service that promises an 85% win rate to its members. The IPC run the appeals service and it all happens to be linked to a firm of solicitors whom the parking companies use to claim through the courts. It is generally conmsidered a waste of time using this appeals service as the incentive is to find against the motorist. The irony being the parking company is charged to proceed with  court case they have little chance of winning if properly defended.  

 

However it is a numbers game. Enough pay up without arguement to make it worthwhile and the Small Claims court  threat works often enough for the harder nuts .

 

It has to be said that the court is always a potential gamble as you never know which judge you will get and how they feel about the issue and about having a non legal defending themelves in their court. Good defences often win, poor ones often fail, but there is always the risk of a really whacky decision.  (Note NCP were stung to the tune of several thousands once, one solictor was told to" bring a toothbrush"  by the judge if they didn't come back with some evidence about the case the next day)

 

The companies have 6 years to start legal action via the small claims system. Some  wait this long in the hope you have moved and won't defend the case and then they can miraculously track you down at your new address and enforce the judgement.

They often use what is known as the Beavis case to justify their charge ( this was parking case that went all the way to and was lost at the Superme Court by the motorist (Mr Beavis)  but had very specific circumstances)  which in some cases can actually support the motorist's case or is totally irrelevant to the case in question

 

If they comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, (which many seem incapable of doing properly) they can transfer the charge from the driver to the registered keeper.  The Act came about when clamping on private land was made illegal and the trade lobbied hard for the right to claim off the keeper if the driver was not known. The parking industry claimed that parking cases were clogging up the court system and this right would stop that. Once this act was in place the number of cases increased exponentially.

 

Ignoring is not good idea now and using the "no fincancial loss to the parking company" arguement is now a dead end since the Beavis case

 

For help and to get an idea of the dirty tricks they use  to get your money  see the website http://www.pepipoo.com

 

To the OP. Gathering evidence of the signage is a good start. Photograph and map out where the signs are and what they say. They may differ slightly in different parts of the car park.

 

Good luck

 

Andy

 

 

Hi Andy,

 

You are correct that the so called fines are nothing of the sort, they are as you state invoices. The same goes for parking charge notices and even speeding tickets issued by traffic wardens and the Police.

 

What needs to be looked at is the Bills of Exchange Act for it states that for a contract to be valid both parties must be in agreement as to the terms and conditions of the contract and also that full disclosure of contract is given before any such contract is to be considered binding or the issuance of an invoice. This is pretty obvious or any one could just wander about issuing invoices to anyone else for any amount that they fancy.

 

 The Bills of Exchange Act also states that for a contract to be binding then it requires the wet signature of both parties for it to be valid, the parking companies rely upon tacit acceptance, as you state 'a numbers game'.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/45-46/61

 

The other thing to do is to request, using your own paperwork and not theirs for that is tacit acceptance in itself, that you will most certainly consider their offer of service upon condition that the send a full VAT invoice and proof of contract, ie signature. Guess what, they can't because there is no contract and they don't pay VAT on the monies collected !!!

 

The name upon your birth certificate is your corporate name and also that name is held as Crown copyright, it is NOT your name to use without permission of the copyright holder. Just remember only corporations may engage in commerce and so should you remain in the human capacity you are not ever liable for any charge made by a corporation.

 

I am am well aware that most reading this will tell me that what I have written is utter nonsense but I can assure you that I have used the above principals and rebutted all claims made so far. Do your research and think carefully before taking any action, they can't touch you, fact.

 

Gibbo.

[SM42]

8 hours ago, stewartingram said:

My daughter has worked at Tesco Huntingdon since before it opened. They have had this system for a while, with anpr cameras. Whenever she borrows my car,m she now doesn't have a problem as it is registered as her 2nd car!

There have been instances of local taxi drivers getting caught out though, with return visits (on legitimate passenger runs) counting as the same visit but outside the limit.

 

Stewart

 

The double dip is a a classic. the ANPR picks up a visit at 10am,, you leave 30 minutes later.

 

You return at 1800hrs and leave 30 minutes later.   The Parking Co claim you were there for 8hrs 30 mins.

 

One motorist was accused of overstaying the 2 hours free parking at a motorway service station, depsite only  stopping for a few minutes at the southbound in the morning and the north bound on the way home later that day. The parking company claimed it was one long visit

 

One campaigner deliberately double dipped at two car parks with different operators. He then appealed to each operator using the Parking Charge Notice from the other to prove he was not there when they claimed he was.

 

Both  appeals were turned down despite the overwhelming evidence.  They only want your money after all

 

He won at POPLA.

 

As an aside, the parking companies have to pay £2.50 to the DVLA to get your details, I believe they still have to pay POPLA for any appeals heard and if they go to small claims that's another £25 to register the claim.

 

Andy

 

 

[royaloak]

It depends what is actually written on the notice and what regulations they are working too, if its a private company then it is normally nothing more than an invoice with an invitation to pay, you are under no obligation to pay it and as they appear to be in the wrong they wont pursue you through the Courts so get your pictures and then I would just ignore them.

 

 

We have an ongoing case with the Council about the Mother in Laws care home fees, at the time she went into care we were told we couldnt give up her Council house otherwise if she wasnt taken in full time she would be homeless so she carried on paying the rent for 18 months until such time as she was taken in full time, so the house was immediately given up. A year later she got a letter saying she owed £8,000 for the fees for the home over the previous 18 months, we took the case on (she has since passed away) and we keep getting letters about it despite giving them the relevant information 4 times, their case rests on the fact she was misinformed by the housing officer so she is/was liable. We eagerly await our day in Court although it has been going on for 5 years now. Threats are one thing, action is quite another.

[SM42]

10 minutes ago, Gibbo675 said:

Hi Andy,

 

You are correct that the so called fines are nothing of the sort, they are as you state invoices. The same goes for parking charge notices and even speeding tickets issued by traffic wardens and the Police.

 

What needs to be looked at is the Bills of Exchange Act for it states that for a contract to be valid both parties must be in agreement as to the terms and conditions of the contract and also that full disclosure of contract is given before any such contract is to be considered binding or the issuance of an invoice. This is pretty obvious or any one could just wander about issuing invoices to anyone else for any amount that they fancy.

 

 The Bills of Exchange Act also states that for a contract to be binding then it requires the wet signature of both parties for it to be valid, the parking companies rely upon tacit acceptance, as you state 'a numbers game'.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/45-46/61

 

The other thing to do is to request, using your own paperwork and not theirs for that is tacit acceptance in itself, that you will most certainly consider their offer of service upon condition that the send a full VAT invoice and proof of contract, ie signature. Guess what, they can't because there is no contract and they don't pay VAT on the monies collected !!!

 

The name upon your birth certificate is your corporate name and also that name is held as Crown copyright, it is NOT your name to use without permission of the copyright holder. Just remember only corporations may engage in commerce and so should you remain in the human capacity you are not ever liable for any charge made by a corporation.

 

I am am well aware that most reading this will tell me that what I have written is utter nonsense but I can assure you that I have used the above principals and rebutted all claims made so far. Do your research and think carefully before taking any action, they can't touch you, fact.

 

Gibbo.

 

Unfortunatley this will not work as acceptance of conditions and contract by conduct is well established. 

 

Do you sign the reciept at the supermarket?  No? So why did you pay for your groceries if you didn't accept the contract

 

Do you sign for car insurance bought over the internet? Are you driving uninsured? Do you sign a contract for anything bought at distance?

 

The Beavis case also blows this approach  out of the water as the contract on the signs and the terms were deemed accepted by Mr Beavis as he did not leave site. If he didn't like them he could park elsewhere. This was a Supreme Court appeal and so the decision is binding on the lower courts.

 

The Beavis case judges were very particluar about the specific circumstances of the case and were at pains to highlight them and that can provide a good defence and make the decision irrelevant for the lower courts if the exact circumstances of a particular case differ. For the parking companies this is a detail that doesn't matter as they quote the case to give their unsolicited invoice credence and scare people into paying up.

 

The VAT angle has been tried but AFAIK has not been a very persausive argument

 

Enough people have used the methods you describe and have come unstuck. Judges will roll their eyes and think, "Oh no not another one". Claimant's legal teams will rub their hands with glee at the prospect of punitive damages under the court procedure rules  around unreasonable behaviour. Prison time for contempt is a possibility too.

 

Look up Freeman of the Land defences and see how successful they aren't

 

You are treading a dangerous path my friend and if they have worked so far then you have been lucky and  managed to baffle someone enough for them to drop the case.

 

What can be used is  basic consumer law that any clause in the contract that is unclear can be interpeted in a way most favourable to the consumer. The signs in car parks are usually have some of these.

 

Andy

 

 

[hayfield]

45 minutes ago, Gibbo675 said:

Hi Andy,

 

You are correct that the so called fines are nothing of the sort, they are as you state invoices. The same goes for parking charge notices and even speeding tickets issued by traffic wardens and the Police.

 

What needs to be looked at is the Bills of Exchange Act for it states that for a contract to be valid both parties must be in agreement as to the terms and conditions of the contract and also that full disclosure of contract is given before any such contract is to be considered binding or the issuance of an invoice. This is pretty obvious or any one could just wander about issuing invoices to anyone else for any amount that they fancy.

 

 The Bills of Exchange Act also states that for a contract to be binding then it requires the wet signature of both parties for it to be valid, the parking companies rely upon tacit acceptance, as you state 'a numbers game'.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/45-46/61

 

The other thing to do is to request, using your own paperwork and not theirs for that is tacit acceptance in itself, that you will most certainly consider their offer of service upon condition that the send a full VAT invoice and proof of contract, ie signature. Guess what, they can't because there is no contract and they don't pay VAT on the monies collected !!!

 

The name upon your birth certificate is your corporate name and also that name is held as Crown copyright, it is NOT your name to use without permission of the copyright holder. Just remember only corporations may engage in commerce and so should you remain in the human capacity you are not ever liable for any charge made by a corporation.

 

I am am well aware that most reading this will tell me that what I have written is utter nonsense but I can assure you that I have used the above principals and rebutted all claims made so far. Do your research and think carefully before taking any action, they can't touch you, fact.

 

Gibbo.

 

 

Gibbo

 

I have a friend at my old place of work who got everyone off their parking tickets without fail, I did not believe it until I saw the process work, he used a very bad (on purpose) letter of about 6 pages which I believe gave notice to the party who issued the ticket with a specified time limit. Once the legal people saw it no further action was ever taken. 

[Gibbo675]

2 minutes ago, SM42 said:

 

Unfortunatley this will not work as acceptance of conditions and contract by conduct is well established. 

 

Do you sign the reciept at the supermarket?  No? So why did you pay for your groceries if you didn't accept the contract

 

Do you sign for car insurance bought over the internet? Are you driving uninsured? Do you sign a contract for anything bought at distance?

 

The Beavis case also blows this approach  out of the water as the contract on the signs and the terms were deemed accepted by Mr Beavis as he did not leave site. If he didn't like them he could park elsewhere. This was a Supreme Court appeal and so the decision is binding on the lower courts.

 

The Beavis case judges were very particluar about the specific circumstances of the case and were at pains to highlight them and that can provide a good defence and make the decision irrelevant for the lower courts if the exact circumstances of a particular case differ. For the parking companies this is a detail that doesn't matter as they quote the case to give their unsolicited invoice credence and scare people into paying up.

 

The VAT angle has been tried but AFAIK has not been a very persausive argument

 

Enough people have used the methods you describe and have come unstuck. Judges will roll their eyes and think, "Oh no not another one". Claimant's legal teams will rub their hands with glee at the prospect of punitive damages under the court procedure rules  around unreasonable behaviour. Prison time for contempt is a possibility too.

 

Look up Freeman of the Land defences and see how successful they aren't

 

You are treading a dangerous path my friend and if they have worked so far then you have been lucky and  managed to baffle someone enough for them to drop the case.

 

What can be used is  basic consumer law that any clause in the contract that is unclear can be interpeted in a way most favourable to the consumer. The signs in car parks are usually have some of these.

 

Andy

 

 

Hi Andy,

 

The Freeman on the Land movement really do have the wrong end of the stick despite noble intention against what both they and I regard a criminal cartel masquerading as government.

 

I have previously stood a revenue collector (rozzer) on his oath to uphold the law and refused his private debt notice Via Coactus. As you say we on thin ice when dealing with these psychopathic criminals,  no charge paid and no points on my licence though !

 

Gibbo.

[SM42]

6 minutes ago, royaloak said:

It depends what is actually written on the notice and what regulations they are working too, if its a private company then it is normally nothing more than an invoice with an invitation to pay, you are under no obligation to pay it and as they appear to be in the wrong they wont pursue you through the Courts so get your pictures and then I would just ignore them.

 

 

We have an ongoing case with the Council about the Mother in Laws care home fees, at the time she went into care we were told we couldnt give up her Council house otherwise if she wasnt taken in full time she would be homeless so she carried on paying the rent for 18 months until such time as she was taken in full time, so the house was immediately given up. A year later she got a letter saying she owed £8,000 for the fees for the home over the previous 18 months, we took the case on (she has since passed away) and we keep getting letters about it despite giving them the relevant information 4 times, their case rests on the fact she was misinformed by the housing officer so she is/was liable. We eagerly await our day in Court although it has been going on for 5 years now. Threats are one thing, action is quite another.

 

 

Unfortunately somewhere in the region of 100,000 small claims cases for parking notices would say otherwise.

 

Some companies won't.  One in particular is very rapacious in its use of the court system

 

Andy

[SM42]

11 minutes ago, Gibbo675 said:

Hi Andy,

 

The Freeman on the Land movement really do have the wrong end of the stick despite noble intention against what both they and I regard a criminal cartel masquerading as government.

 

I have previously stood a revenue collector (rozzer) on his oath to uphold the law and refused his private debt notice Via Coactus. As you say we on thin ice when dealing with these psychopathic criminals,  no charge paid and no points on my licence though !

 

Gibbo.

 

 

Maybe he'd had a long day and just couldn't be bothered with the hassle and the paperwork and took the easy way out. 

 

You are sailng very close to Freeman of The Land hokus pokus

 

Andy

Edited December 5, 2019 by SM42

[Gibbo675]

1 minute ago, SM42 said:

 

 

Maybe he'd had a long day and just couldn't be bothered with the hassle and the paperwork and took the easy way out. 

 

Andy

Hi Andy,

 

Now that is not a sensible answer is it !

 

Everything upon this Earth is done via consent and I did not give it. He even threatened violence and arrest despite my being most polite, yet did not get my consent. No consent no contract.

 

I put him in his place verbally by not allowing him the office of the police (policy), by stating Pealian Principal number seven that as a constable he had no more rights in law than I did and also that he could not prove that I had committed any crime because I hadn't committed any crime.

 

If you wish to live your life upon your knees as a slave to the system then I take it that must have consented to do so. I prefer that I have a birthright to the entire Earth equal to everybody, including you, else and not just some selfish criminal cartel masquerading as government.

 

Gibbo.

[SM42]

1 hour ago, Gibbo675 said:

Hi Andy,

 

Now that is not a sensible answer is it !

 

Everything upon this Earth is done via consent and I did not give it. He even threatened violence and arrest despite my being most polite, yet did not get my consent. No consent no contract.

 

I put him in his place verbally by not allowing him the office of the police (policy), by stating Pealian Principal number seven that as a constable he had no more rights in law than I did and also that he could not prove that I had committed any crime because I hadn't committed any crime.

 

If you wish to live your life upon your knees as a slave to the system then I take it that must have consented to do so. I prefer that I have a birthright to the entire Earth equal to everybody, including you, else and not just some selfish criminal cartel masquerading as government.

 

Gibbo.

 

Interesting that you refer to the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 and Peelian principles  ( products of the criminal cartel masquerading as government) as justification for not being beholden to the cartel. 

 

But we are digressing

 

Each to their own

 

Andy

Edited December 5, 2019 by SM42

[Gibbo675]

21 minutes ago, SM42 said:

 

Interesting that you refer to the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 and Peelian principles  ( products of the criminal cartel masquerading as government) as justification for not being beholden to the cartel. 

 

But we are digressing

 

Each to their own

 

Andy

Hi Andy,

 

That would be a clear example of using their own nasty rules against them, its called remedy.

 

If it is good enough for us to follow their nasty little rules then they also need to do the same or else that may be seen as corruption, perish the thought, how did you not see that way ?

 

Gibbo.

[SM42]

3 minutes ago, Gibbo675 said:

Hi Andy,

 

That would be a clear example of using their own nasty rules against them, its called remedy.

 

If it is good enough for us to follow their nasty little rules then they also need to do the same or else that may be seen as corruption, perish the thought, how did you not see that way ?

 

Gibbo.

 

Ok one last go.

 

The Pealian principles are about the way the country is policed, by consent. That is not the consent of the indivdual, but the implied consent of society as a whole. 

 

An individual cannot withdraw their consent from the law. Principle 7 states it is incumbent on every citizen to act in the interests of society. the police paying particular attention to it.

Without rules there can be no interests of society as no-one would know what they are.

Are you suggesting that murderers, rapists and child molestors can opt out of justice? Are lynch mobs acceptable because they believe they are acting in the interests of society?

 

Policing by consent is about all of us recognising the police's power to uphold the law with integrity and without favour in the interests of society as a  whole .

 

You are not using their own rules against them You are twisting or misinterpreting the rules / laws to try and wriggle out of your duty to act in the interests of society. I'm surprised you haven't used the Bill of Rights from 1688 or Cestui Que Vie Act 1666. I'm pretty certain the  law has moved on since then. 

 

Taking the logic further, if you do not consent to paying for your groceries or model trains or whatever, then there is nothing anyone can do and you can live your life taking what you want and doing what you want without any regard  to the effect on others.

Is that a society you want?

 

Saying you don't recognise or consent to the law won't fly in court.  It may bamboozle at front line level and yes too much hassle is a sensible answer. In your case you failed the attitude test, no matter how polite you were, but there is a lot of paperwork to do when you arrest someone and sometimes you just can't be bothered or have bigger fish to fry.  Who knows you may have been convicted in your abscence. Have you checked?

 

As I said, each to their own

 

This is not adding to the discussion about private parking companies and their questionable practices to try and winkle cash out of the motorist with minimal effort and as such I  think we should leave it at that and agree to disagree on this

 

Best

 

Andy

 

 

 

[Gibbo675]

18 minutes ago, SM42 said:

 

Ok one last go.

 

The Pealian principles are about the way the country is policed, by consent. That is not the consent of the indivdual, but the implied consent of society as a whole. 

 

An individual cannot withdraw their consent from the law. Principle 7 states it is incumbent on every citizen to act in the interests of society. the police paying particular attention to it.

Without rules there can be no interests of society as no-one would know what they are.

Are you suggesting that murderers, rapists and child molestors can opt out of justice? Are lynch mobs acceptable because they believe they are acting in the interests of society?

 

Policing by consent is about all of us recognising the police's power to uphold the law with integrity and without favour in the interests of society as a  whole .

 

You are not using their own rules against them You are twisting or misinterpreting the rules / laws to try and wriggle out of your duty to act in the interests of society. I'm surprised you haven't used the Bill of Rights from 1688 or Cestui Que Vie Act 1666. I'm pretty certain the  law has moved on since then. 

 

Taking the logic further, if you do not consent to paying for your groceries or model trains or whatever, then there is nothing anyone can do and you can live your life taking what you want and doing what you want without any regard  to the effect on others.

Is that a society you want?

 

Saying you don't recognise or consent to the law won't fly in court.  It may bamboozle at front line level and yes too much hassle is a sensible answer. In your case you failed the attitude test, no matter how polite you were, but there is a lot of paperwork to do when you arrest someone and sometimes you just can't be bothered or have bigger fish to fry.  Who knows you may have been convicted in your abscence. Have you checked?

 

As I said, each to their own

 

This is not adding to the discussion about private parking companies and their questionable practices to try and winkle cash out of the motorist with minimal effort and as such I  think we should leave it at that and agree to disagree on this

 

Best

 

Andy

 

 

 

Hi Andy,

 

According to Blacks Law Dictionary there are only five laws, will the first page of a Google search flash them up for you ? All else is contract.

 

As for being a member of society, I'm not aware that I joined it. Can you prove that I have a membership of this so called society ?

 

Have a look at this, if it proves anything at all:

 

 

One - nil to Gibbo it would seem.

 

You will 'notice' that it says invoice/claim number, this is proof, should you need any, that it is nothing more than a commercial contract in that by way of the Bills of Exchange Acts states you need to have consent between parties to form a contract.

 

No consent - no contract, therefore no contract can be broken hence no attempt to defraud. It is the fraud that is the crime along with the claim of the copy- righted name that is used in commerce, it is found on the birth certificate.

 

I deal in facts not opinion.

 

Good day,

 

Gibbo.

 

[chris p bacon]

1 hour ago, Gibbo675 said:

 

Have a look at this, if it proves anything at all:

 

 

All it proves is that 5+ years ago you had a claim cancelled.  So what, I had one cancelled a few weeks ago for my brother in law, in his case he had a defence as he'd died in the interim.

 

In the 5 years since your 'win' the law has moved on, I have a feeling you'll have another day in court and while there you'll have another XXXXXXXX torn in you.

Edited December 5, 2019 by chris p bacon

[Gibbo675]

2 hours ago, chris p bacon said:

 

 

All it proves is that 5+ years ago you had a claim cancelled.  So what, I had one cancelled a few weeks ago for my brother in law, in his case he had a defence as he'd died in the interim.

 

In the 5 years since your 'win' the law has moved on, I have a feeling you'll have another day in court and while there you'll have another XXXXXXXX torn in you.

Hi Dave,

 

Should it go to court then that will be be the first time there, the reason being my claim was not countered sufficiently by the filth that made a false claim in the first instance.

 

Good day to you also,

 

Gibbo.

Edited December 5, 2019 by Gibbo675
Poor spelling

[Enterprisingwestern]

 

Anybody fancy getting back to the subject of expensive parking in Maidstone and waiting until Paul tells how he got on with his missive to the parking company?

 

Mike.

[Torper]

On 04/12/2019 at 19:18, SM42 said:

If they comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, (which many seem incapable of doing properly) they can transfer the charge from the driver to the registered keeper.

 

Can I just point out that the so-called Protection of Freedom Act does not apply in Scotland (nor, I believe, Northern Ireland).  In Scotland therefore only the motorist is liable for the ticket, not the keeper. The parking company may write to the keeper requesting the name of the driver and/or payment. However, under current Scots law the keeper is under no obligation to provide the name of the driver nor pay the charge.  Unless therefore the parking company can actually prove who was driving the car, the case will fail.  I have personal experience of this; as the registered keeper of my car I received a parking ticket from a private operator.  I informed them (quite truthfully) that I had not been driving the car at the time and was not prepared to say who was.  I received a reply saying that in these circumstances the ticket was cancelled.  However a lot of people don't seem to know about this and pay up when they really needn't do so.

 

DT

Edited December 6, 2019 by Torper