£70 Parking Fine in non P&D Car Park

bluelagoon_3

joe1965 wrote: »

Taking someone's photo without their permission can be judged as being against their human rights. You are not a law enforcement agency or a government body which is empowered by law to take photos without the person’s permission.

What utter rubbish.

joe1965 wrote: »

Please do, I'm up court myself on Thursday so I'll take a copy with me and they can determine their authenticity.

Here you go:

http://www16.redstation.co.uk/relt631608/23010802.PDF

joe1965 wrote: »

So if your ticketing didn't work you would start extorting the money from drivers. Just have to borrow the mother in laws disability card. Nothing you could do then.:D

It's private land, we could clamp any unauthorised vehicles whether or not the driver is disabled. We have already issued parking tickets to disabled drivers.

joe1965 wrote: »

I notice you only address a few parts of my post, it must be hard to defend the indefensible.

You didn't raise any other relevant or challenging points.

bluelagoon_3

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Presumably they are registered with the data protection system for this, highly unlikely that blue lagoon is.

I love the way you lot make assumptions that anyone who speaks out against you is acting illegally or not following correct procedure etc.

By the way, you register with the Information Commissioner, not the "data protection system".

bluelagoon_3

joe1965 wrote: »

There are provisions in law for them to do so to provide security for the company and customers. Not for someone to try and extort money from you.

You can photograph pretty much anything you want - on private land or in public as long as the content of the photograph does not break the law itself (illegal pornography for example).

peter_the_piper

bluelagoon wrote: »

I love the way you lot make assumptions that anyone who speaks out against you is acting illegally or not following correct procedure etc.

By the way, you register with the Information Commissioner, not the "data protection system".

Can we assume then that you are registered?

Elmer_Dudd

Read this really frightening article that sums up how bad this can get::mad:
http://www.ealingtimes.co.uk/mostpopular.var.1928823.mostcommented.stoned_by_angry_clampers.php

I think these sorts of parking/clamping firms are banned outright in Bonny Scotland and should be down here asap!!
Be careful out there,
Elmer:cool:

peter_the_piper

Labman wrote: »

Do you actually know what you are typing about?....or are you just plucking random words off a Scrabble board?

This was in reply to post 120. Can you please let me know what is so wrong with this?

peter_the_piper

Listed below is a brief synopsis of the Act with regard to CCTV recording along with useful links to the relevant Government sites.

All installed CCTV systems that have the ability to record video information, with the exception of those on domestic property, are subject to the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998.
The rules state that anyone processing personal data must comply with the eight enforceable principles of good practice. They state that any gathered data must be:-

• Fairly and lawfully processed.
• Processed for limited purposes.
• Adequate, relevant and not excessive.
• Accurate.
• Not retained for longer than is necessary.
• Processed in accordance with the rights of the data subject.
• Secure.
• Not transferred to countries without adequate protection.

joe1965

bluelagoon wrote: »

What utter rubbish.

Taking a persons picture when they don't wish you to do so can be regarded as harassment which is a criminal act. The person can use reasonable force to stop you.

bluelagoon wrote: »

It's private land, we could clamp any unauthorised vehicles whether or not the driver is disabled. We have already issued parking tickets to disabled drivers.

To quote you from above, "what utter rubbish".
Under the Security Industry Act 2001 wheel-clampers used by private landowners must have a licence from the Security Industry Authority (SIA). It is a condition of holding an SIA licence that a landowner must not clamp a vehicle if it displays a valid disabled badge. To do so is a criminal offence and
is punishable by imprisonment for a term of up to six months, or by payment of a fine not exceeding £5,000, or both.

bluelagoon wrote: »

You didn't raise any other relevant or challenging points.

So you admit that they are breaking The Administration of Justice Act and that you are fleecing people? And that neither of those points are relevant?
Also is CPS a member of the BPA? If so they are breaking the guidelines laid down in October 2006 which entitles them to gain access to DVLA records.
Firstly, in your post #39 you state the charge is £85 reduced to £60. The charge can only be £75 maximum before any reduction.
Secondly you state in # 98 & #101 you issue tickets. As you are not employed by CPS and even if you were you admit in #101 you don't wear a uniform or so they are not entitled to gain information from DVLA.
I have already talked to them tonight, backing it up with an email, giving links to this thread and to the CPS website. The gentleman informed me that if the information checks out on the CPS web site they will be stopped from using the database and will be investigated.
Is that challenging enough?

Elmer_Dudd

Labman wrote: »

You 'think' really isn't good enough...please supply details?

....be careful out there what you post....it could be wrong.

Labman

Since when has it been a crime on here to think??

I 'think' this is what I meant and I 'think' this is what you should read:


The Scots courts have had occasion to consider the criminal liability of the clamper. In Black v. Carmichael, 1992 S.C.C.R. 709 the defendants
[1997] Q.B. 564 Page 577

were employed in a private car park in Hamilton. There were notices warning that cars parked without permission would be clamped and £ 45 charged for release. A number of cars were so parked and were clamped. Notices were stuck on the windscreens stating that the cars had been clamped and that £ 45 would be charged for release. The defendants were charged on summary complaints with extortion and theft. The defendants challenged the relevancy of both charges. The sheriff rejected the challenge to the extortion charge but upheld the challenge to the theft charge. Both sides appealed, the defendants against the upholding of the extortion charge, the prosecutor against the rejection of the theft charge. The defendants' appeal failed. The prosecutor's succeeded.

In upholding the relevancy of the theft charge it was held that an intention to deprive the owner permanently of the goods was not a necessary ingredient of the offence of theft in Scots law. This is not the law in England: see sections 1(1) and 6 of the Theft Act 1968. An English court would reach a different decision.

In rejecting the challenge to the relevancy of the extortion charge the Lord Justice-General, Lord Hope, said, at p. 717:

"In my opinion, it is extortion to seek to enforce a legitimate debt by means which the law regards as illegitimate, just as it is extortion to seek by such means to obtain money or some other advantage to which the accused has no right at all. Furthermore, the only means which the law regards as legitimate to force a debtor to make payment of his debt are those provided by due legal process. To use due legal process, such as an action in a court of law or a right of lien or retention available under contract, or to threaten to do so, is no doubt legitimate. It is not extortion if the debtor pays up as a result. But it is illegitimate to use other means, such as threats which are not related to the use of legal process or the unauthorised detention of the debtor's person or his property, and it is extortion if the purpose in doing so is to obtain payment of the debt."

Be careful what others think you are thinking about.......;)
Elmer:cool:

sarahg1969

Joe1965: The BPA is just a trade association, not a licensing authority or anything like that.

They say:

The BPA represents, promotes and influences the best interests of the parking and traffic management sectors...

They have no interest in the welfare of the consumer, only their members who pay a membership fee.