There is no such thing as a PARKING FINE - please read

Oopsadaisy

The first part of the username gives it away......I can only assume that they actually meant to put 'loose' after 'screw'.

screwbiedooo

Rover_Driver wrote: »

Just a few things about the OP's first post:

2) Decriminalised parking matters are nothing to do with contracts, it is covered by legislation, mainly (in England) - Traffic Management Act 2004 and The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007

2) The legislation refers to 'the person appearing to be the owner' not the owner, the first point of contact is the registered keeper, if they are not the owner, or in the case of a hire co. etc, the liability can be transferred. The owner is the person or organisation who has title to the vehicle.

3) Debt collectors may not be bailiffs, but bailiffs can act for unpaid penalty charges - the legislation allows authorities to apply for a warrant.

I am glad you are able to reply in some substance.

1) There exists a hierarchy of statutes in our body of law. At the top are constitutional statutes which may not be nullified via implied repeal by any newer statute lower down that hierarchy. i.e. (be glad) the guarantees of due process of law are still extant and overrule any statute that attempts to say otherwise (eg TMA 2004). There is hence no way anyone can fine you without a prosecution. Penalties are by definition contractual obligations defined in penalty clauses and agreed by contracting parties in advance.

2) The burden of proof is on the plaintiff and the plaintiff must find the owner. Starting with the keeper is sensible but since no records are kept by government on car ownership they cannot prove they are one and the same - unless you voluntarily own up. You do not have to.

3) Bailiffs still do not have right to force entry to a property. At least, I have yet to hear of such a situation in a PCN case.

screwbiedooo

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Just to add my two pennoth, What a load of tosh!

At 2p I would say that's an extremely poor value for money contribution. Anything of substance to add?

Nah, didn't think so.

Trebor16

screwbiedooo wrote: »

I am glad you are able to reply in some substance.

1) There exists a hierarchy of statutes in our body of law. At the top are constitutional statutes which may not be nullified via implied repeal by any newer statute lower down that hierarchy. i.e. (be glad) the guarantees of due process of law are still extant and overrule any statute that attempts to say otherwise (eg TMA 2004). There is hence no way anyone can fine you without a prosecution. Penalties are by definition contractual obligations defined in penalty clauses and agreed by contracting parties in advance.

2) The burden of proof is on the plaintiff and the plaintiff must find the owner. Starting with the keeper is sensible but since no records are kept by government on car ownership they cannot prove they are one and the same - unless you voluntarily own up. You do not have to.

3) Bailiffs still do not have right to force entry to a property. At least, I have yet to hear of such a situation in a PCN case.

Good luck with testing out your theories. Please do report back and let us know how you get on:)

screwbiedooo

Welsh_Exile wrote: »

Let's see -

Magna Carta - check
Bill of Rights - check
Over use of capital letters - check
Over use of exclamation and question marks - check

I think we've got a live one, folks!
Pararaph 9 alone is a doozy.

If anyone reading the OP is still in any doubt then please don't follow this crackpot advice. You will end up in a world of hurt. You certainly won't be saving any money.

Overuse of snide checklist - check
No argument of substance to offer - check
Lack of understanding of the legal framework that offers him/her freedom, a most valuable commodity, thereby betraying no possession of it or entitlement to it - CHECK!

notts_phil

Trebor16 wrote: »

You would never be able to do that if what Perky/Hasbeen had accused you of in the removed posts was true Phil.:)

Quite and my work invovles enhanced crb checks, background checks as my job gives me access to air cargo which involved clearance via the civil aviation authority.


So spin on that mike and your best bussom buddy haswell

Trebor16

screwbiedooo wrote: »

Overuse of snide checklist - check
No argument of substance to offer - check
Lack of understanding of the legal framework that offers him/her freedom, a most valuable commodity, thereby betraying no possession of it or entitlement to it - CHECK!

When you come on here and present something which is a load of claptrap what do you expect?

vikin9

screwbiedooo wrote: »

Thanks for your input but I beg to differ. A great number of people persist in believing that PCNs are Fines, including the publishers of MSE. A great many still believe they are bound to pay them, as witnessed by the posts on this forum. We have still not reached the end of ignorance, so I think the 'spew' will stand for a while longer, thanks.

Hi love your peace on Parking fines , sounds like your in my head
anyway to the point
I was issued a parking ticket the other day on wot is most definatley a bank holiday , after reading the controlled times ie 6 am to 8pm monday to friday including weekends and Public Holidays I chose not to put money in the meter as the day in question the queens Jubilee 5 June tuesday was a Bank holiday
After i pointed this out to the Guildford Council they say there is no difference in Public and Bank Holidays therefore stating i must pay the fine.
your opinion please should i pay or shoul d I fight

real1314

screwbiedooo wrote: »

Overuse of snide checklist - check
No argument of substance to offer - check
Lack of understanding of the legal framework that offers him/her freedom, a most valuable commodity, thereby betraying no possession of it or entitlement to it - CHECK!

Can we have a vote?

Screwbiedoo is a:-

1) Supreme Court Judge
2) High Court Judge
3) Barrister
4) Solicitor
5) BSc Law under pupillage
6) Law Undergraduate
7) A level Law (passed)
8) A level Law (studying)
9) GCSE Law (passed)
10) GCSE Law (Studying)
11) Just read a book on Law
12) Just read an article in a newspaper on Law
13) Just read an artivle on the internet on Law
14) Fully conversant with every web page purporting to asses the credibility of UK law
15) 13 year old
16) Inmate (Parkhurst)
17) MP
18) MEP
18) Amoeba
19) PPC
20) Perky

It's time to..........



RRRrrrrrrruuuuuuuuunnnnnnnnaaaaarrrrrrooooooouuuuuunnnnnnddddddd! :cool:

LincolnshireYokel

screwbiedooo wrote: »

Dear Oopsadaisy

Thank you for your slightly disparaging remark. I am sure you meant well. I refuse and revoke any epithet, label or title applied to me unilaterally by yourself or any third party. Such epithets, labels or titles are without standing and utterly void.

If I have written something in error, please point it out and present the actual truth to the forum for the benefit of all here present.

If you cannot do this, please refrain from your dismissive comments, or you run the risk of coming across as a retard yourself (your track record of accurately reading this post thus far is well... not good).

Best

The point here is that you made a post on a subject we already knew about. There guys posting here with 13,000 posts, you think they didnt already know what you posted

We know all that stuff.We're here to tell those who come here panicking because the got a ppc invoice.

Was the coal to Newcastle post because you think we wernt doing a good enough job or something ?