We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 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!
No clamping, what next, is it worse?
Comments
-
TrickyWicky wrote: »You seem to think that the PPCs will not use the legal route. Why would they let go of their income? - They won't. Just like railway parking under byelaw 14, they'll hound the owner into submission.
Granted it will take a while for them to scale up their operations and take on the manpower etc but it will happen.
They don't use the legal route now. Why should they be queueing up to do so later? The law will be substantially the same. Nothing will be materially different. In all your posts, you have completely failed to explain why the PPCs will suddenly be pursuing the legal route (to claim unlawful "penalties").0 -
TrickyWicky wrote: »Well we'll have to agree to differ on that one. I know of at least two PPCs that I've worked for that will be counting down the days until they can take legal action against people and they have the resources too.
Yes and I'm sure those of us on the other side of the equation will be counting down the days too...
Looking forward to the Courts confirming :
1) A third party can not be liable for any obligation arising out of a contract they are not a party to -established contract law -the doctrine of privity.
2) Confirming that a third party can not be liable for a trespass committed by another party -also an established principal of law in as much as the "offender" is the one to be punished for any "offence" not an innocent third party.0 -
TrickyWicky wrote: »If you're referring to me, I'm not from a private PPC. I got out of that a while back. They play nasty games not just on the public but with their staff too. I'm just trying to help spread the word about this new crap that is coming in. People need to know about it.
You'd be the first to complain if no-one told you wouldn't you when you get a ticket! Here is someone trying to tell you.
It is a civil issue. As I said earlier in one of these posts, there is a difference between a civil issue and a civil OFFENCE. Please accept that.
When the new laws come into play, will they make people pay back the tickets they ignored in the past?0 -
-
When the new laws come into play, will they make people pay back the tickets they ignored in the past?
Why are you asking the same question that you asked, and has been asnwered already, in another thread?
As a hint, how ofthen is a piece of legislation in this country retrospective?0 -
The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »Why are you asking the same question that you asked, and has been asnwered already, in another thread?
As a hint, how ofthen is a piece of legislation in this country retrospective?
Lol sorry its just quite daunting and that tricky wicky guy seems to have all the answers with his magic ball hence why i thought i might aswell shoot another question at him0 -
Lol sorry its just quite daunting and that tricky wicky guy seems to have all the answers with his magic ball hence why i thought i might aswell shoot another question at him
Yes, he has lots of answers, most of which are wrong.What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?0 -
that tricky wicky guy seems to have all the answers
He may have all the answers, but are they the right answers? I, and many others here, rather suspect not. For a start, back-dated or not, the proposed change in the law still won't allow anyone except a court of law make anyone pay a ticket, and that'll still require a huge burden of proof of valid claim by the PPCs.0 -
Just a thought but I wonder how many of ppc's T&C's would be acceptable under "unfair terms and conditions"? Thinking about "independent adjudication".I'd rather be an Optimist and be proved wrong than a Pessimist and be proved right.0
-
The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »He may have all the answers, but are they the right answers? I, and many others here, rather suspect not. For a start, back-dated or not, the proposed change in the law still won't allow anyone except a court of law make anyone pay a ticket, and that'll still require a huge burden of proof of valid claim by the PPCs.
And when they realise they will change everything once more, until you have to pay, remember we are talking 7 million in revenue at least. The gov get a cut of that revenue and I know this for fact because it was in a presentation by DFT, that is why they must bring in keeper liability!.
You can't beat the Government unless you join them and beat them that way!.
Please I would rather join and live a nice life :-)
My plan continues....
Does anyone fancy helping me re-train the clampers? For a small fee of course! :T0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards