Anybody Heard of these?

old_school_bobby

esmerobbo wrote: »

The law can be swayed to serve any purpose and as you state the act of theft is as you quoted but it could then be challenged by this section could it not?


(1) A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as
dishonest-
(a) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to
deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; or
(b) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s
consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it; or
(c) (except where the property came to him as trustee or personal representative) if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the
property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps

And exactly WHEN would ANY of this apply to a ticket that clearly states it is for the driver of a vehicle upon which it is stuck?

The only exception is as I highlighted in my original post and I'd have to say, if you tried on any of the other rubbish in front of a copper you'd be likely to have your collar felt or at the very least get a strong talking to for being obstructive and then be subjected to the "attitude test" to see where it went from there.

Like I said, only the registered keeper or authorised "user" really would have any legitimate "reason" to take the ticket and that would be with the intention of passing it to the person they themselves have an obligation in law to know who was last driving it.

And before you go on about it being private land, the police have powers to request the registered keeper to disclose the drivers details where they believe a moving traffic offence may have been committed. This may include suspicion of driving without insurance, particularly if only the registered keeper is listed as driving it and he claims it was "someone else" who put it there.

Again, without any ridiculous scenarios please, it is assumed the driver would have had to drive the vehicle on a road to get it to the car park. It's all covered.

However, now I'm in danger of providing legal advice when I promised I wasn't going to.

Off for a nap.

old_school_bobby

trisontana wrote: »

But can you seriously beleive that the police or the CPS would actually get involved in such a case, especially as many of these notices are breaking the law by pretending, by their markings or wording, to be tickets issued by councils or the police?

They don't pretend to be from the police. To do that, they'd have to have "police" on there somewhere, wouldn't they? If they did, it would be fraud and the CPS would be REALLY interested in them. As it is, the CPS are not interested in them, so clearly they aren't impersonating anyone.

The police don't own copyright on the chequered border, reflective stripes or other livery. It is arguable that these are merely placed on vehicles, signs or clothing there to draw attention to something people need to make themselves aware of, that's why the police use them after all.

And yes, the CPS would prosecute (they've done it countless times for things that most people consider worthless). The cost of providing the court system and the salaries of all the police, lawyers and whatnot is there regardless so their viewpoint is "why not?". As I said, it's a clearup on the stats too so they're more than happy.

esmerobbo

old_school_bobby wrote: »

And exactly WHEN would ANY of this apply to a ticket that clearly states it is for the driver of a vehicle upon which it is stuck?

The only exception is as I highlighted in my original post and I'd have to say, if you tried on any of the other rubbish in front of a copper you'd be likely to have your collar felt or at the very least get a strong talking to for being obstructive and then be subjected to the "attitude test" to see where it went from there.

Like I said, only the registered keeper or authorised "user" really would have any legitimate "reason" to take the ticket and that would be with the intention of passing it to the person they themselves have an obligation in law to know who was last driving it.

And before you go on about it being private land, the police have powers to request the registered keeper to disclose the drivers details where they believe a moving traffic offence may have been committed. This may include suspicion of driving without insurance, particularly if only the registered keeper is listed as driving it and he claims it was "someone else" who put it there.

Again, without any ridiculous scenarios please, it is assumed the driver would have had to drive the vehicle on a road to get it to the car park. It's all covered.

However, now I'm in danger of providing legal advice when I promised I wasn't going to.

Off for a nap.

I was actually replying as the "registered keeper" or "authorised user" I was referring to anything left on my car, or a car I was using, as posted earlier by Trisontana rather then the specific parking charge notice.

I can see that if I walked past somebody else's car and removed a charge notice it could be seen as theft.

It is also a pointless debate as I, and I think most here don't take them seriously at all so they can stick em wherever they like! Plus I don't think it would be well received by the public if a prosecution did occur, considering what the Police and the CPS let clamper's get away with.



On another note I also am old school, and been subject to the "attitude test" [early 80s] I can tell you I mostly came out on top.;)

old_school_bobby

esmerobbo wrote: »

I can see that if I walked past somebody else's car and removed a charge notice it could be seen as theft.

It is also a pointless debate as I, and I think most here don't take them seriously at all so they can stick em wherever they like! Plus I don't think it would be well received by the public if a prosecution did occur, considering what the Police and the CPS let clamper's get away with.

Unfortunately for the general public it matters not what they think where the CPS and prosecutions for offences occur. If it's theft it's theft, simple as that. Even in cases where you have distressed mums, and old ladies getting fines for "littering" of up to £2,500 for dropping sausage roll pastry, cigarette ash and in one case a single a quaver, I believe, they stand by their stance on what the law is all about and to hell with public opinion.

esmerobbo wrote: »

On another note I also am old school, and been subject to the "attitude test" [early 80s] I can tell you I mostly came out on top.;)

Glad to "hear it"!

esmerobbo

Hmmm could be wrong but I think you may have been here before!!:)

Coupon-mad

old_school_bobby wrote: »

And before you go on about it being private land, the police have powers to request the registered keeper to disclose the drivers details where they believe a moving traffic offence may have been committed. This may include suspicion of driving without insurance, particularly if only the registered keeper is listed as driving it and he claims it was "someone else" who put it there.

Again, without any ridiculous scenarios please, it is assumed the driver would have had to drive the vehicle on a road to get it to the car park. It's all covered.
.

I expect you mean well but you are taking private parking tickets FAR too seriously! None of this applies as private parking tickets are just an arguable civil 'claim' for breach of contract, not any offence at all.

Nothing whatsoever to do with moving traffic offences and/or driving without insurance!

And no, the person returning to the vehicle and finding the fake PCN may very possibly NOT be the same driver who parked it there. Only last week my OH parked his car at the Supermarket, swapping cars with me as I was still shopping and he needed to take the frozen food in my car home. When I eventually returned to HIS car which HE had parked and left there for me, if I had been lucky enough to find a fake PCN piece of rubbish on the windscreen I would have binned it, of course (sadly they didn't bother). My point being that I was neither the registered keeper NOR the driver with whom the PPC may have alleged a 'contract'. I was just a second driver and it would NOT have been an offence for me to remove a piece of trash from the windscreen!

I call these 'Fake PCNs' for good reason. We already knew they were on this forum of course, but Watchdog exposed them in the Summer as being shockingly copied from Council and Police tickets. To the extent that the vast majority of people they surveyed were hoodwinked into believing the bogus (private) ones were the real PCNs!

There is a law against that. Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act:

“S40 Punishment for unlawful harassment of debtors.

1. A person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under a contract he-
* harasses the other with demands for payment which, in respect of their frequency, or the manner or occasion of making any such demand, or of any threat or publicity by which any demand is accompanied, are calculated to subject him or members of his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;
* falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;
* falsely represents himself to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment; or
* utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character, or purporting to have some official character which he know it has not.
2. A person may be guilty of an offence by virtue of sub-section (1) (a) above if he concerts with others in the taking of such actions as is described in that paragraph, notwithstanding that his own course of conduct does not by itself amount to harassment.”

Also the CPUTR 2008 is relevant. And the Protection from Harassment Act.

And no, the person does not have to disclose who was driving for the purposes of a private parking ticket, and there is no 'moving traffic offence' here for the Police to get involved in! You really are taking these too seriously, they are ONLY like a flyer from a burger bar, that's all.

Old_school_bobby, please have a read of this thread on pepipoo where Patrick Troy, head of the BPA 'old boys club', admits in Parliament - among other things - that his poor defenceless members have NO power to force the name of a driver from a registered keeper and that their tickets are practically unenforceable (sob! don't you ALMOST feel sorry for the [STRIKE]scammers[/STRIKE] PPCs):

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=48644&st=0

HTH

ripped_off_driver

I think you're having a laugh old school bobby. Theft and criminal damage for removing an unsolicited piece of paper from a car. Yeah right.

First of all, who owns this piece of worthless paper? The PPC does not as they have parted company with it by placing in on the car. The driver doesn't either as he has not asked for it to be placed on his car in the first place. Will he or she care that it has been removed and consigned to its rightful place of the round filing cabinet? I don't think so.

So old school bobby (who I suggest should get some new schooling in common sense) the CPS would prosecute a case of theft and damage for the removal by a third party of an unsolicited flyer such as this?

Maybe in some parallel universe. In a galaxy far, far away.

monkey_alan

ripped_off_driver wrote: »

First of all, who owns this piece of worthless paper? The PPC does not as they have parted company with it by placing in on the car. The driver doesn't either as he has not asked for it to be placed on his car in the first place. Will he or she care that it has been removed and consigned to its rightful place of the round filing cabinet? I don't think so.

The driver shouldn't be deprived of the decision to put it in the bin himself. So on that basis it's probably the driver's property until the driver decides otherwise as the driver has a proprietary interest in it. (If I was the driver I'd want to keep the bogus fine in my filing cabinet with a view to reporting the PPC to the authorities or suing them for harassment at a later date)

ripped_off_driver wrote: »

the CPS would prosecute a case of theft and damage for the removal by a third party of an unsolicited flyer such as this?

Maybe in some parallel universe. In a galaxy far, far away.

Or maybe here on Planet Britain under New Labour's punishment culture... I can't post links, but do a Google for the £20,000 trial of James Gallagher for allegedly stealing a banana!!

old_school_bobby

ripped_off_driver wrote: »

I think you're having a laugh old school bobby. Theft and criminal damage for removing an unsolicited piece of paper from a car. Yeah right.

First of all, who owns this piece of worthless paper? The PPC does not as they have parted company with it by placing in on the car. The driver doesn't either as he has not asked for it to be placed on his car in the first place. Will he or she care that it has been removed and consigned to its rightful place of the round filing cabinet? I don't think so.

So old school bobby (who I suggest should get some new schooling in common sense) the CPS would prosecute a case of theft and damage for the removal by a third party of an unsolicited flyer such as this?

Maybe in some parallel universe. In a galaxy far, far away.

"ripped off driver" - I said at the beginning I wasn't going to be drawn into giving free legal advice.

So I'd suggest you take your comments above to your local solicitors office and challenge them on it. They'll tell you that you're spouting utter jockrot.

trisontana

"It is an offence for an unauthorised person to remove or interfere with this notice"

So define who an "authorised" person is, and how is that authorisation granted?