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

HO87

screwbiedooo wrote: »

Does the burden of proof not lie with the plaintiff? When, where, will any council show you a contract of any kind, or any evidence that there was one? Even if it was just a verbal one, there is no suggestion of it. Yes, this is not about PPCs. We should know they are to be ignored.

The requirement is indeed that a plaintiff (these days known as a claimant) proves his case. However, the burden of proof, in a civil setting, is that he proves it on the balance of probability. A court is entitled to draw conclusions based effectively on Ockham's Razor.

There is absolutely no requirement that contracts be in writing. Buying a pound of bananas at a market stall at the advertised price, or even a price agreed at the time, constitutes a contract. The chances of it being in writing are pretty much between nil and zero. The same applies in many other daily transactions.

As has already been stated, the enforcement of decriminalised parking is based on statute law not on any form of contract. Regardless of how many times those who subscribe to FoTL beliefs repeat the line the reality will not change.

bazster

LincolnshireYokel wrote: »

I went well into the FMOTL stuff, and its fine in theory, but in practice its pointless.

Well no, it's drivel in theory too. Law of the sea my backside.

Stephen_Leak

bazster wrote: »

Well no, it's drivel in theory too. Law of the sea my backside.

It might work in a car park in Gateshead at the moment.

screwbiedooo

LincolnshireYokel wrote: »

The point is, we know ppc tickets are invoices.

The rest of it is FMOTL stuff which is entirely inapplicable here. I went well into the FMOTL stuff, and its fine in theory, but in practice its pointless. I haven't seen one single verirfieable example of a FMOTL who has sucessfully managed in the long term to get away with not paying as demanded by a court. Its the same with the ones who drive round in 'deregistered' cars - thay all get seized, deregistering is great in theory, but you dont get far up the road in practice. So, as such, it would be extremely unwise for MSE to go round filling peoples heads with such stuff.

We'll just stick the the facts about ppc tickets and leave the rest to TPUC and places like that, thank you.

The OP wasn't about private car parks, but about PCNs. They are not fines either. There is a right to due process of law. The statutory procedure of TMA 2004 denies this right. You should be angry about this. You won't get it unless you claim it.

The decriminalisation of 'parking offences' to 'civil contraventions' wasn't really decriminlisation, it was privatisation. The civil code within common law is ordinarily the preserve of private disputes over compensations, commerce, contracts etc. not the forcible mandate of one profit-driven party over another, just because a statute says so. Sad that the courts will collude with private corporations against the accused, just plain corruption.

We should make a stand on these things, because the next step is going to be horrendous. That being the privatisation of the police. It is starting with West Midlands and Surrey forces who are now starting to outsource their personnel. I will stick my neck out and guess that the wholesale outsourcing of Community Support Officers to private for-profit firms is not far off, as well as other "accredited" staff such as 'Rail Community Officers', but I digress.

I think it was clear that the measures one has to take when playing the parking game sometimes seem unconventional and not something everyone has the capacity to deal with. Since you are dealing with big business, and potentially, thugs, trouble can come if you are not careful. That is why I advocate first and foremost being more careful about parking. Not always enough. Another no-risk thing to do is simply to open discussion with the plaintiff. Discuss, ask, clarify etc. There is always room for this in any case.

Nonetheless, it is obvious that the system can be changed and made fairer if enough individuals make a noise about it. That can only happen when people actually know the facts about the system and the adversary they face. Not easy. It seems like most people are wandering around with blindfolds believing everything is a fine and they have to pay up immediately. Law of the jungle, not due process. That's lovely for the shareholder, not nice for the struggling family.

(as to whether or not I have managed to avoid any of these things with any success over the last two years - no comment )

Coupon-mad

screwbiedooo wrote: »

...We should make a stand on these things, because the next step is going to be horrendous. That being the privatisation of the police. It is starting with West Midlands and Surrey forces who are now starting to outsource their personnel. I will stick my neck out and guess that the wholesale outsourcing of Community Support Officers to private for-profit firms is not far off, as well as other "accredited" staff such as 'Rail Community Officers', but I digress...

You digress but so do I. There are loads of Police admin jobs that are already carried out by civilians in many more counties than those two, and a bl00dy fine job they usually do as well!

(speaks as one who has a relative who does a bl00dy fine job working for the Police in a skilled admin job which used to be carried out by Police).

screwbiedooo

HO87 wrote: »

The requirement is indeed that a plaintiff (these days known as a claimant) proves his case. However, the burden of proof, in a civil setting, is that he proves it on the balance of probability. A court is entitled to draw conclusions based effectively on Ockham's Razor.

There is absolutely no requirement that contracts be in writing. Buying a pound of bananas at a market stall at the advertised price, or even a price agreed at the time, constitutes a contract. The chances of it being in writing are pretty much between nil and zero. The same applies in many other daily transactions.

As has already been stated, the enforcement of decriminalised parking is based on statute law not on any form of contract. Regardless of how many times those who subscribe to FoTL beliefs repeat the line the reality will not change.

Whichever form of contract you are going to operate under, it has to be upon the consent of both parties. A written contract is, in the spirit of Ockham's razor, the easiest to demonstrate. In a parking situation, there is commonly only one party present - a human being in a vehicle. If that party declares to anyone or no-one present that he rejects and rescinds any nuance of a contract over rights of parking upon the common trust, does a contract stand? (tree falling in the forest)

If there is no need for a contract as the regulation is deemed by statute, I sense a problem because a statutory power of this nature bears much of the shading of criminal law: state vs man, but substituting PPP for state and without due process of law. In practice the PPP is merely a private enterprise operating under the guise of local authority, in turn operating under government statute, boiling down to statutory power of the corporation over the man. That should normally be a situation governed entirely by contract.

That is I believe where the nastiness of it lies.

screwbiedooo

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You digress but so do I. There are loads of Police admin jobs that are already carried out by civilians in many more counties than those two, and a bl00dy fine job they usually do as well!

(speaks as one who has a relative who does a bl00dy fine job working for the Police in a skilled admin job which used to be carried out by Police).

(Counter digression, police = civilians). I don't doubt whoever they are they do a grand job but they are probably not in a position to be tasering you for insufficient credit on your oyster. That's not the situation yet, but it's where we're pointing.

WM and Surrey are hoping to outsource actual frontline policing duties like detentions and criminal investigations. It's a whole cauldron of conflicts of interest straight out of a sci-fi flick.

Trebor16

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You digress but so do I. There are loads of Police admin jobs that are already carried out by civilians in many more counties than those two, and a bl00dy fine job they usually do as well!

(speaks as one who has a relative who does a bl00dy fine job working for the Police in a skilled admin job which used to be carried out by Police).

Are they employed by the police though CM? Are you confusing the fact they are civilian but employed by the police with certain jobs being outsourced to private companies.

What is going on already in Lincolnshire and to follow in Surrey and West Mids is for the services to be taken over by G4S, a private company. In Lincolnshire about 600 police civilian staff now work for G4S and they have already announced they are to shed 10% of those posts.

HO87

screwbiedooo wrote: »

Whichever form of contract you are going to operate under, it has to be upon the consent of both parties. A written contract is, in the spirit of Ockham's razor, the easiest to demonstrate. In a parking situation, there is commonly only one party present - a human being in a vehicle. If that party declares to anyone or no-one present that he rejects and rescinds any nuance of a contract over rights of parking upon the common trust, does a contract stand? (tree falling in the forest)

The vast majority of private parking companies operate on land in private ownership or subject to private leases. Provided there are clearly displayed and easily understood signs (the wording of which may form the basis of a contract - i.e. it makes a clear offer of parking) then if someone parks on that land a court is entitled to draw the conclusion that the offer has been accepted and a contract has been formed whether or not the parker has announced their non-acceptance of the offer. In such circumstances the operator does not have to prove that a contract was formed but that on the balance of probabilities it was.

screwbiedooo wrote: »

If there is no need for a contract as the regulation is deemed by statute, I sense a problem because a statutory power of this nature bears much of the shading of criminal law: state vs man, but substituting PPP for state and without due process of law. In practice the PPP is merely a private enterprise operating under the guise of local authority, in turn operating under government statute, boiling down to statutory power of the corporation over the man. That should normally be a situation governed entirely by contract.

That is I believe where the nastiness of it lies.

I do not disagree with you that allowing private companies to enjoy the power of the state is anathema. However, I believe you are skipping what might be an inconvenient truth. In the parking world many private companies may be seen to be enforcing the statute law on the street. However, they do so as contractors to local authorities and are beholden to their local authority masters - not the other way around. The TMA 2004 empowers local authorities not private corporations. To suggest otherwise is to betray a fundamental misunderstanding of reality. Were you to have argued that the introduction of the profit motive into street enforcement removed the blindfold from the law then I would not have disagreed with you but your focus appears to have been more about the exercise of power over the individual by corporations.

The very first line of the original post posited that there was a degree of confusion about parking law. I would respectfully suggest that the post has done little to clarify matters and by introducing FoTL arguments and assumptions has added a layer of confusion that was absent hitherto.

screwbiedooo

HO87 wrote: »

The vast majority of private parking companies operate on land in private ownership or subject to private leases. Provided there are clearly displayed and easily understood signs (the wording of which may form the basis of a contract - i.e. it makes a clear offer of parking) then if someone parks on that land a court is entitled to draw the conclusion that the offer has been accepted and a contract has been formed whether or not the parker has announced their non-acceptance of the offer. In such circumstances the operator does not have to prove that a contract was formed but that on the balance of probabilities it was.


I do not disagree with you that allowing private companies to enjoy the power of the state is anathema. However, I believe you are skipping what might be an inconvenient truth. In the parking world many private companies may be seen to be enforcing the statute law on the street. However, they do so as contractors to local authorities and are beholden to their local authority masters - not the other way around. The TMA 2004 empowers local authorities not private corporations. To suggest otherwise is to betray a fundamental misunderstanding of reality. Were you to have argued that the introduction of the profit motive into street enforcement removed the blindfold from the law then I would not have disagreed with you but your focus appears to have been more about the exercise of power over the individual by corporations.

The very first line of the original post posited that there was a degree of confusion about parking law. I would respectfully suggest that the post has done little to clarify matters and by introducing FoTL arguments and assumptions has added a layer of confusion that was absent hitherto.

What you are suggesting is that private 'PCCNs' and the like ought to be paid, whereas there is a concensus to ignore them.
I most certainly do assert that profit motive distorts the law. You contradict yourself somewhat here:

"I do not disagree with you that allowing private companies to enjoy the power of the state is anathema."

"Were you to have argued that the introduction of the profit motive into street enforcement removed the blindfold from the law then I would not have disagreed with you but your focus appears to have been more about the exercise of power over the individual by corporations."

You may apply whatever labels you like, FoTL or otherwise. It is entirely irrelevant. The truth is the truth is the truth and that is what it is all about. Not cosy, slavish adherence to widely-cherished misconceptions. So, if any assertions I make are false please point it out objectively with the actual truth.