Parking Fines.

bod1467

Given you've apparently posted "evidence" from Scottish sources (based on comments above - I've not read any of your links), are you based in Scotland?

mickaveli2001

bazster wrote: »

You can't really expect to be taken seriously when you post tommyrot about councils setting up fake courts, and then to "prove" it you post a link to a meeting room to rent in an office building which just happens to be called "Arden Court".

You really should look further into FMOTL, sounds like it would be right up your street.

This is how they operate. Councils hire the rooms and send in legal administrators to oversee the proceedings. The paper they use doesn't even contain court seals and doesn't even come from the courts. As odd as this may sound, this it is how it works. If this wasn't the case, then a genuine judge could be be verified as to overseeing the case, as would the signed and approved paperwork ordering the civil action.


This isn't some hippy thing. This is how legitimate court proceedings are 'supposed' to work. Only judges or sheriffs (judges in Scotland) have the authority to approve of such action, otherwise what it is, is an administrative hearing, with no lawful merit whatsoever. It's deceptive.


The .gov website clearly explains this under the 'procedures for liability orders' in the UK, as well as Part 11, CPR 2.6 and .3 and a lot of other legislation. This is 'their' rules and the current law, and unfortunately no amount of hippy hogwash will change that

mickaveli2001

bod1467 wrote: »

Given you've apparently posted "evidence" from Scottish sources (based on comments above - I've not read any of your links), are you based in Scotland?

It's really checking paperwork. and having knowledge of how lawful court proceedings work in order to be authentic.


If the councils or private parking companies send out a letter indicating a court date, then call up the courts, get them to verify the information, and what judge has signed the order. Current laws have been changed that the signature no longer has to be wet-ink but can also be rubber stamped now. But those rubber stamps are individual, and makes the signee liable. Contrary to popular belief, many judges will simply not make themselves liable in a civil case chasing people for £60 for an over-parking incident of 20 - 30 minutes when the losses can never be verified. This leaves them with 2 choices, either to continue with threatening letters to pressurise the recipient to pay money, or 2, rent a court room for the day. The correct way is very rare although it does happen.


FOI 87871 clearly states the issue of liability orders for matters relating to council tax, which gives some insight into the previous posts

enfield_freddy

hello , you are talking about council tickets again , please go back to the main forum page and read this forums title , then go to the 1st two stickies and see what the forum is about, its about PRIVATE PARKING TICKETS , not council ones.


most people who ask about counsil tickets are referred to Peppipo http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=idx


and secondly , Private parking ticket offences are held in the small claims court , not the normal criminal courts


I,m out of here , the poster will not listen

bazster

What a silly and ignorant person you are. I've looked at some of your other posts and threads and it seems you specialise in pseudo-legal woo-woo. The FMOTL love that sort of thing, I'm sure you'd find them to your liking.

I too am out.

mickaveli2001

I know it's 'private' parking tickets. The point I'm making is that 'council' parking tickets hold more weight and are a lot more difficult to get out of. Always have been, always will be.




x3 council opposed to x9 private is a good indication, but also the amount of work involved in both. You're providing a link to rule changes to private tickets, but nothing has changed in getting the ticket eliminated? Certainly not in the 5 years I've done this

Johno100

mickaveli2001 wrote: »

I know it's 'private' parking tickets. The point I'm making is that 'council' parking tickets hold more weight and are a lot more difficult to get out of. Always have been, always will be.

Yes, I don't think you will find many on here who will disagree with you on that point.

mickaveli2001 wrote: »

x3 council opposed to x9 private is a good indication, but also the amount of work involved in both.

Well good for you.:T

mickaveli2001 wrote: »

You're providing a link to rule changes to private tickets, but nothing has changed in getting the ticket eliminated? Certainly not in the 5 years I've done this

It has, the parking on private land provisions in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) came into force in October 2012, meaning private parking companies (PPC's) can now pursue to court the keeper of the vehicle and not just the driver. This has resulted in literally thousands of small claims proceedings being issued by PPC's in the last two and a half years. That is why the 'advice' you have given on this thread to ignore is so out of date and dangerous.

mickaveli2001

Hardly out of date when it's still currently being used


5 years is 2015 - 5 = 2010 Private parking tickets are still very simple to scrap. Personally, I don't ignore them when I'm dealing with my own and always write back to them. However, that piece of legislation merely included the word "keeper" in addition to "driver", but the concept is the exact same, otherwise I would have been taken to small claims at least 6 times by now. What it is that has people tripping up and being taken to small claims is by those who follow 'their' own guidelines, processes for appealing etc.

enfield_freddy

yawn ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,




read, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/9155/guidance-unpaid-parking-charges.pdf

mickaveli2001

7.2; the most important part of that entire document, particularly the 1st line