Car Park Barriers

bazster

Sirdan wrote: »

I'd forget the Bill of Rights though ..a total red herring ..we don't encourage Freemen of the Land here ..except for laughs

Or indeed "the Magna Carta which was never repealed", even though almost all of it has been repealed, and it mostly never said what the Freejerks think it said anyway...

RENEGADE_2

Aretnap wrote: »

PS It has nothing to do with contract law - by mentioning contracts you're showing that you don't understand the principles behind the judgement.

Perhaps I don't. I've never claimed to be an expert - my first thread on this site was akin to most newbies that come looking for advice. Once picking up the ropes I decided to stay on and help others.

No I don't know about these Appeal Courts. It seems they have some powers to invent their rules. The truth is that it still leaves ambiguities in every direction. I mean let's analyse what happened:

a motorist drove onto land with adequate clamping signs. Now given the nature of clamping, there should never have been an appeal case. Nevertheless, the signs stated that people bringing motors onto the site get clamped. All right. The victim is clamped - now the victim wishes to go, he can't because the clamper is charging a fee to remove the clamp, no material is wasted in the action so the cost of the clamper is zero. Now - if removing the clamp meant breaking a £5 padlock because this was the only way, then £5 would be a reasonable fee in all circumstances - TO REMOVE THE PADLOCK ONLY. But there is no such loss to the clamper, so, unlike a case where a man takes his car for a new exhaust and then realises he can't draw his money until tomorrow when his wage comes though, the clamper cannot be said to be retaining the car for security purposes, ie. the law was already written in black and white here, it was unambiguous and the whole appeal case was irrelevant.

From what I read, the wife of the victim assaulted the clamper and eventually the owners oversaw the release of their own vehicle without the assistance of the clamper. I can imagine these incidents went against the victim and were taken into account by that cabbage Thompson. In real terms, any unlawful action on these notes should have been a police matter to be dealt with my magistrates and should have been isolated from Thompson's domain.

So what now does this leave us with? The basic situation free of all frills. The clamper has immobilised according to signage and has charged X-amount for his service to release the vehicle, but the victim has shopped around and found a better deal, Happy Days.

Now in light of the fact that any criminality would have been dealt with via the correct channels, this was entirely a civil matter with a clamping company stating that its victim owed them money - what is more, the money was for a service they never provided. Now drawing back to the opening remarks of this being unsanctioned seizure of property in connection with an unregistered debt coupled with a citizen's right to a hearing before having to pay, the victim has freed his vehicle without the help of the antagonist - where the hell was the so-called "grey area" within common law for there to be a valid appeal and have this matter dealt with in such a travesty.

Given there was no clamped motor and the clamping firm did the chasing, this case from the outset was no different to the PPCs claiming they are owed their crazy claims. It seems what they really need is a donkey like Thompson and more cases of this jungle law. More of that then this forum will close because nobody will know how to advise.

I'll sign off with one thing. If it had been I in the Arthur's situation and the matter were dealt by Thompson or one of his cronies, I wouldn't have handed money over and the nation would have seen the meaning of the word "appeal". I'd have taken it further.