Parking Fines.

enfield_freddy

and I refer you to section 11 , which if upheld by there respective ATAs should be clear and informative , and readable without having to stop (ie: vcs/JLA)

mickaveli2001

signage does not constitute a valid contract under 'general' law. Otherwise I could just as easily put a notice on my front door claiming that anyone who knocks on it will be subject to a £50 knocking notice, or charge.


This was the latest one I worked on to remove for someone just the later part of last year:











Same scary threats, and with updated legislative powers being mentioned, with bailiffs involved but the general law still takes precedence. To suggest it doesn't or won't work is certainly justified if there's no evidence to back it up, but it works. 12 - 0.

enfield_freddy

council again ,

mickaveli2001

If council tickets can be defeated, then private parking tickets are far easier. These new guidelines and terms are, for the most part - entrapment into contract. eg; appeals process is one that should be avoided. Appealing is merely debating the existing terms, but in doing so you are agreeing / recognizing that a contractual agreement exists in the first place to be quarrelling about the terms within it.


It's agreement by default. Default is distinguishable from negligence in that it does not involve carelessness or imprudence with respect to the discharge of a duty or obligation but rather the intentional omission or nonperformance of a duty. What this means is that should you fall into discussing signage, and intricacies of the 'terms', then later choose to ignore or respond, then yes you can and will most likely be taken to court or have further recovery action taken against you

Johno100

General Law, what battles did he win?:rotfl:

enfield_freddy

everybody else is discussing private parking , not council.




please go to Pepipoo and mumble council stuff , look a link http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=idx


I would suggest using the user name of "freedom of the land"


good bye

mickaveli2001

It operates in a similar fashion and is very relevant.


Users can if they wish chose to provide harmful information that leads others into the gas chambers while holding their bags for them, figuratively speaking. It's risky - Ask anyone who's followed an appeals process. It yields a very high failure rate.

So I just can't get my head around as to why there's such hostility with a method that works, which can (and does) help people, with a zero failure rate thus far? Is it the difficulty in understanding, which sparks the hostility in order to salvage one’s own ego?

mickaveli2001

Johno100 wrote: »

General Law, what battles did he win?:rotfl:

x3 council parking tickets
x9 private parking tickets
x4 speeding convictions
x2 HMRC demands
x6 Insurance cancellations without charge
x2 mobile phone contracts ended, without charge


Misc. Debt collection demands for others, and I'm also council tax free and have been for a couple of years now, which was a lengthy 18 month process.


Above all, credit file untouched, the only reason I was paying £14.99 a month to Experian to monitor. I can gather up all the rest to compile a full list for you if you wish, with the documentation to back it up?