vcs/excel get their !!!!!! kicked

peter_the_piper

I've been thinking, I know I shouldn't at my age but there seems to me to ba a way of applying this to clamping and changing ""its a civil matter"" to a criminal one. The clampers are acting as agents of the landowners and the ruling says that unless the clamper is the owner or has been given enough title by the owner then he commits an offence. Yes I know it'll be all over in October but it would be nice to make it as difficult for them as possible.

give_them_FA

I am wondering if you are a little confused between "actions" and "court claims" peter. The clampers as agents for the landowner can carry out their dastardly trade. It is a bit like a night club bouncer who is the agent of the owner and has authority to eject people from private premises as that agent. What the ruling found was simply that the agent could not form a contract in its own name and therefore cannot sue either in its own name or on the owner's behalf.

With clampers, the landowner forms the contract and the clamper is the agent who carries out the terms of the contract on the owner's behalf.

Now, if the Notices purport to create a contract between the driver and the clamping company, you may well have a point! Though getting involved is not the strong point of the local constabulary when things get complicated....

peter_the_piper

Quite likely, I know this would not affect the owner we all know and love who clamps on a whim, but if the sign is from Joe Bloggs Clamping Company, anyone not displaying a ticket will be clamped, he is not acting as an agent but for himself. We've seen plenty of those, would not the watchdog one come under this? Happy to be disabused of my little notion if I have the wrong end of the stick.

prolific8

Were 'freddy miles' posts deleted? I can see why you don't want trolling, but it's frustrating and difficult to follow what is an otherwise interesting discussion if large parts of it are cut out but their replies allowed to stay.

give_them_FA

Yes, they were all deleted. Unfortunately this causes the whole thread to get disjointed because there were a lot of them and people are seen to be replying to something that's no longer there. But the trolls need removing, therefore so be it. This isn't really a thread of great interest to most of the people with problems, fortunately.

Stephen_Leak

Not all of them. The last time I looked, there were a couple of seemingly innocuous survivors.

And I've deleted my replies, especially the ones where I quoted him. I know that I shouldn't have taken the bait, but ... :mad:.

PS. IIRC, someone mentioned that the BPA says that members shouldn't go on internet forums. Do you have a link to this, so that we can help the poor deluded soul the next time?

give_them_FA

No, he's totally gone, it was just that his posts didn't all disappear at once. His account has been cancelled and the username no longer exists.

He'll be back though.

trisontana

The man of a thousand user names.

ripped_off_driver

Stephen_Leak wrote: »

IIRC, someone mentioned that the BPA says that members shouldn't go on internet forums. Do you have a link to this, so that we can help the poor deluded soul the next time?

Here is the document:http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/Online%20Blog%20and%20Chat%20Room%20Guidelines.pdf Don't all burst into laughter at once. "I'm John and I'm from Scammer Parking Limited. How may I help you today". Yeah right. Just another set of guidelines for the BPA'a arch scamming members to ignore.The stuff about libel is ridiculous. Very expensive lawyers have tried it on with several sites (including I believe this one) and had their !!!!!! soundly kicked.

give_them_FA

Their stock-in-trade is the empty threat of legal action. You are meant to read that and be very afraid.... otherwise it would not be accessible.

Everybody and their uncle threatens libel actions when things are said that they would rather suppress. Strange how it NEVER happens.

What with a certain someone having made sure that every judge in the country doesn't like him, it's a can of worms they would never open. Libel actions have a way of turning against you. Ask Jeffrey Archer or Jonathan Aitken....

they really don't want all their little dirty washing to be aired in the public gaze of a court room.