Clamper Gets Himself ARRESTED

Sirdan

HO87 wrote: »

Just thinking about this I think you are correct. Although it is the individual (officers in this case) who might be subject of suit however, if they were on duty, then the CC has a vicarious liability and would also need to be sued.

TBH I was hoping that you might offer vicarious liability as a point of discussion because if that applies does it not also apply to company employees in company vehicles ??


Does necessity have any bearing in contract law I wonder ..i.e. it could be argued that it was necessary for the Constables in question to park outwith the contract in order to effectively discharge their duties whereas it would be more difficult to argue such for a person acting in a non law enforcement capacity ?

If this is a matter of breach of contract then I think it is likely that only the driver could be held liable , however if the landowner / PPC were to sue for a trespass then I agree that the CC would be vicariously liable ..unless of course the trespass had been authorised under the Police Act 1997 ..which I somehow doubt very much.

Sirdan

taffy056 wrote: »

Well as there is no legal need to disclose who was driving, and if these policemen are in fact part of the protection for the queen, they are not likely to disclose their home addresses to shoal, also who are the RK of police cars? Would the DVLA even release RK details to shoal?

If the Police persist with their prosecution then the Shoal employee is entitled to see the Officer's witness statements which only in exceptional circumstances do not contain names.
As Police Officers are generally a tad shy of supplying their home addresses it is accepted in legal proceedings that their force HQ address is acceptable for service of documents , I see no reason as to why this should not apply to a Parking Charge notice.

Question why would DVLA not release the details ? on what grounds ? ..it's not a secret that the vehicle is a police vehicle as it has been declared as such to the Shoal employee and in all likelihood it will be registered to the relevant Police Force at their HQ.

This is after all only an unmarked car containing plain clothed officers ..it is not an undercover car with undercover officers..that is an entirely different scenario..

HO87

Sirdan wrote: »

If the Police persist with their prosecution then the Shoal employee is entitled to see the Officer's witness statements

Only if he pleads Not Guilty. These are summary proceedings.

Sirdan wrote: »

Question why would DVLA not release the details ? on what grounds ? ..it's not a secret that the vehicle is a police vehicle as it has been declared as such to the Shoal employee and in all likelihood it will be registered to the relevant Police Force at their HQ.

This is after all only an unmarked car containing plain clothed officers ..it is not an undercover car with undercover officers..that is an entirely different scenario..

Firstly, regardless of the "reasonable cause" argument one should not forget the safeguards built in to the DPA with regards to the withholding of information relating either to national security or the investigation and prosecution of crime. Secondly, the police will not identify any vehicle as being "undercover" whether it was or was not. It remains conceivable - not to say entirely possible - that the vehicles were not police owned but simply being used for police purposes.

Sirdan

HO87 wrote: »

Only if he pleads Not Guilty. These are summary proceedings.


Firstly, regardless of the "reasonable cause" argument one should not forget the safeguards built in to the DPA with regards to the withholding of information relating either to national security or the investigation and prosecution of crime. Secondly, the police will not identify any vehicle as being "undercover" whether it was or was not. It remains conceivable - not to say entirely possible - that the vehicles were not police owned but simply being used for police purposes.

However if the arresting Officer was the driver of one of the vehicles then Shoal can have his name as it is on the Custody record which the arrested person is entitled to a copy of .

If the driver is thus identified then the release of RK details is a moot point.

I don't think an in depth discussion on the detail of how vehicles used by official bodies in a covert capacity are registered is appropriate in this arena...that said anyone with a little imagination could probably make a reasonable guess at the methodology employed ..it's not exactly rocket science ...

taffy056

Can't see them issuing an invoice for this, the police know full well these are not enforceable and will likely ignore the pleads for money, also would shoal want to do this ? I can imagine that a police force as a whole can make life very difficult for them, I mean those illegal clamping calls could suddenly become not a civil problem

And if it ever went to court, think the small claims judge would find in favour of the police, I mean what loss could there be when the police have shown their warrant cards and were on duty ?

Sirdan

taffy056 wrote: »

Can't see them issuing an invoice for this, the police know full well these are not enforceable and will likely ignore the pleads for money, also would shoal want to do this ? I can imagine that a police force as a whole can make life very difficult for them, I mean those illegal clamping calls could suddenly become not a civil problem

And if it ever went to court, think the small claims judge would find in favour of the police, I mean what loss could there be when the police have shown their warrant cards and were on duty ?

My point was though ..if the charge is enforceable (highly doubtful) then it would be enforceable on the driver regardless of his occupation and the fact that he was acting in the line of duty..the Police are exempt from statutory road traffic regulations in specific circumstances but I don't believe they are exempted from civil litigation re breach of contract ..I was making a technical legal point ..not a point on what will actually happen.

A judge would have to rule on whether or not the charge is at all enforceable ,the circumstance of the driver being IMO wholly irrelevant.

taffy056

Sirdan wrote: »

My point was though ..if the charge is enforceable (highly doubtful) then it would be enforceable on the driver regardless of his occupation and the fact that he was acting in the line of duty..the Police are exempt from statutory road traffic regulations in specific circumstances but I don't believe they are exempted from civil litigation re breach of contract ..I was making a technical legal point ..not a point on what will actually happen.

A judge would have to rule on whether or not the charge is at all enforceable ,the circumstance of the driver being IMO wholly irrelevant.

But if they are called to say a supermarket for example a shoplifting case, they park across two bays in their meat wagen, so are on duty , would they be in breach of their so called terms then? And would the PPC lurker give an invoice ? Its all on private land, its all a civil matter

Sirdan

taffy056 wrote: »

But if they are called to say a supermarket for example a shoplifting case, they park across two bays in their meat wagen, so are on duty , would they be in breach of their so called terms then? And would the PPC lurker give an invoice ? Its all on private land, its all a civil matter

I don't see why not except that ..the BPA AOS code (and Shoals own made up code on their website) prohibits immobilization and/or towing and/or ticketing of marked emergency service vehicles.

In the case of a business I suspect the landowner would instruct the PPC (if not a BPA AOS member) NOT to ticket the emergency services on the basis that if you p*** them off the response when you need then will be somewhat slower than normal ! (This is why all business like to stay on the right side of the boys in blue hence the free cups of tea ,chips,doughnuts etc etc )

keystone

Notts_Phil wrote: »

The Queen's unannounced visit saw her have lunch on board the super yacht Leander, owned by NCP car park millionaire Sir Donald Gosling.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

rev_henry

Couldn't this idiot have been arrested for treason? And doesn't the death sentence still apply to treason?