We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
£70 Parking Fine in non P&D Car Park
Options
Comments
-
It is exactly the same principle as bank charges. Charging an amount
disproportionate to any loss actually made.
No it's not, "losses" can only be claimed for trespass.
CPS simply charge a fee for parking on the land which the driver accepts by parking there. Losses have nothing to do with it.0 -
-
bluelagoon wrote: »CPS has taken several hundred people to Court and won. The fee of £60 has been accepted as reasonable in every case.
Oh dear, we're going over old ground now.
Bluelagoon is still twisting the facts to paint a completely misleading picture.
I shall say it one final time. CPS cherry-picks its court cases against people who've put in a rubbish defence.
Whenever someone puts in a proper defence, CPS bottles it and doesn't attend court. But CPS keeps very quiet about all those cases.
It's rather like a football team boasting that they scored 200 goals last season, whilst failing to mention that they conceded 300 goals.
In all the CPS's "successful" cases, the defendant hasn't challenged the "fee" in court. As we established a long time ago on this thread, the judge isn't there to act as a solicitor for the defendant, and if the defendant doesn't challenge something, the judge isn't going to do it for them.
Just because the "fee" has gone unchallenged by defendants, this does not mean that the court found it "reasonable". It just means the court assumed the defendant found it reasonable, because they didn't contest it.0 -
So in your little world it's fair to charge someone £65 if they stop on your land for a few minutes?bluelagoon wrote: »CPS simply charge a fee for parking on the land which the driver accepts by parking there. Losses have nothing to do with it.
Having talked to my local county court they are of the opinion that something is not right with the judgements that bluelagoon posted on here. The wording is not correct or phrased properly for a court document.0 -
No-one owes land. Did they create the land, no they did not. I would say if you look in the local books that they may say something like this land would remain the publics land and no one person can claim it. Failing that the goverment owns the land, and I hope that the fee is highly taxed.0
-
Oh dear, we're going over old ground now.
Bluelagoon is still twisting the facts to paint a completely misleading picture.
I shall say it one final time. CPS cherry-picks its court cases against people who've put in a rubbish defence.
Whenever someone puts in a proper defence, CPS bottles it and doesn't attend court. But CPS keeps very quiet about all those cases.
It's rather like a football team boasting that they scored 200 goals last season, whilst failing to mention that they conceded 300 goals.
I have provided proof that CPS has won Court cases. Please can you back up your claim by providing proof that CPS has lost one Court case? Just one will do.In all the CPS's "successful" cases, the defendant hasn't challenged the "fee" in court. As we established a long time ago on this thread, the judge isn't there to act as a solicitor for the defendant, and if the defendant doesn't challenge something, the judge isn't going to do it for them.
Just because the "fee" has gone unchallenged by defendants, this does not mean that the court found it "reasonable". It just means the court assumed the defendant found it reasonable, because they didn't contest it.
The 'De Brunner' case went into the fee/penalty issue in detail.
Perhaps you should read it again, assuming you even read it in the first place.
http://www16.redstation.co.uk/relt631608/21010803.PDF0 -
everythingblogcast wrote: »No-one owes land. Did they create the land, no they did not. I would say if you look in the local books that they may say something like this land would remain the publics land and no one person can claim it. Failing that the goverment owns the land, and I hope that the fee is highly taxed.
Yes, I must check the 'local books'. Thanks for your valuable input.0 -
bluelagoon wrote: »Yes, I must check the 'local books'. Thanks for your valuable input.
Dont be rude. I am guessing that you are a troll because you have not provided any proof of anything you have posted.0 -
So in your little world it's fair to charge someone £65 if they stop on your land for a few minutes?
Yes, and it's £60.Having talked to my local county court they are of the opinion that something is not right with the judgements that bluelagoon posted on here. The wording is not correct or phrased properly for a court document.
Talked? Opinion? Something not right?
Watch out Columbo.0 -
everythingblogcast wrote: »Dont be rude. I am guessing that you are a troll because you have not provided any proof of anything you have posted.
And you clearly haven't read the entire thread.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards