Trevor Whitehouse in deluded 'save clamping' e-petition bid

adouglasmhor

AlexisV wrote: »

Yes, private companies have to be granted by statute the power to issue penalties. .

Or not..................ever.

AlexisV

Amen to that

peter_the_piper

I like the second comment that has been added.

Sirdan

vax2002 wrote: »

A correctly constructive defence would see this freedoms act increase your defence for it states the keeper is responsible, however they are claiming a contractual agreement was broken, so if the keeper was not driving, the keeper did not enter, consider or accept any contract.
If anything it provides a robust defence.

Except it doesn't say the keeper is responsible. It allows the PPC to waste time and money taking that keeper to County Court if the driver is not known.
As you say hard to see how a court can bind a third party to a contract they did not enter into or a trespass they did not commit !!

An awful lot of time has been wasted by legislators and parliament on this dogs dinner of a statute. At at the end what is acheived ...only the right for PPCs and DCAs to write in their letters that" in the abscence of driver details we may claim against the keeper."