Yes we are in contact, but it's not quite resolved yet one way or the other.It has also just been pointed out to me at work that what happened is an offence under Sch 1 31. of the CPUTR 2008. It's not a lot of money individually, but spread over a lot of people it is.

There was more to the process than I knew about to start with. Nevertheless the process is highly misleading and predatory. My partner has corrected some of my earlier information. What actually happened was she answered a question correctly online, was told she had won a prize and was asked for her contact number to claim it. A text message contained a PIN to verify that it was her phone which she entered back on the website. However the information about the cost of entering this PIN was hidden on the next screen of the text message, so was not visible unless she actively scrolled down, which there was no reason to do as the PIN was immediately visible. This is bordering on a criminal bait and switch as she was told she was already entitled to the prize at this point. It looks like it may have been this company as the modus operandi is the same. Phone companies should not be passing money on to these people. The fine they have been given is just the cost of doing business.

First post on this site, and he manages to respond to the wrong thread ( somehow on one that is three years old), threaten menaces for non-payment, and make incorrect claims about powers to increase a debt arbitrarily. What a show of competence.

Thanks Lee. I will get here to email in the next couple of days.

The advert has long disappeared but, I suppose it might pop up again randomly though. Perhaps I'm not explaining my point very well but I do get the bit about agreeing, I am qualified in contract law. I can fully understand that if someone uses their phone to access content or send messages then they agree to pay any advertised fee to the phone company. But in this case, there is no conenction to the phone account - it was on an unrelated web site. So whatever was agreed to on that web site, Vodafone is not a party to that agreement- so why are they paying this 'debt' on my partner's behalf?

I still think that misses the point though. If someone agrees to something online while not using their phone, how does that concern Vodafone at all? There is no connection between the 'service' offered and my partner's phone contract other than her putting in a contact number!

My partner was looking at mobile phones online and entered her number expecting to be called with more information. It turned out that the box she entered it into was an advertising box belonging to a third party company. She was then had around £5 removed from her Vodafone credit to pay for three or four texts sent to her by this third party. Now, I am not sure exactly what was written on this advert, but my view of the matter is as follows:- 1. The essential features of a contract were not present, particuarly intention to be bound, and, 2. How can Vodafone, who are not a party to any alleged transaction on this website, deduct money from my partner's prepaid balance to pay this charge? Surely if X company of [problem]mers insist that this charge was agreed, it is up to them to pursue it, not just deduct it directly from money prepaid for telephone services entirely unconnected with them? Or in other words, on what basis could Vodafone defend passing on money like this for something unconnected to them?

Retention and Disposal of Seized Motor Vehicles Regulations 2005: ...© produces at a police station specified in the seizure notice a valid certificate of insurance covering his use of that vehicle and a valid licence authorising him to drive the vehicle, There seems to be no basis for not accepting third party cover stemming from another's insurance. The police used to claim that this should be interpreted to mean the vehicle has to be named specifically in a document but this was debunked in Pryor v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester earlier this year.

As far as I am aware a sign at the entrance (i.e. a controlled parking zone or CPZ) removes the need for signs on posts inside the zone, but does not remove the need for markings on the ground. There would still need to be marked bays on the ground to show that restrictions (as signed) apply. http://web.mac.com/rmbscarb/iWeb/rmbconsulting/Making%20a%20challenge.html

Unless this was entirely voluntary, then it was a citizens arrest under s. 24A of PACE 1984. As an offence was committed (by somebody), they potentially had a power of arrest if they had reasonable grounds to believe your daughter was guilty of it, which they probably had. There is then an additional requirment that the arrest must be 'necessary' for one of the specified purposes. However, since they then released her without involving the police, this logically must mean that either:- 1) they no longer belived she was guilty, or 2) the additional requirement that the arrest be 'necessary' in (3)(b) was not met. If 1) then clearly they do not really belive she committed any 'wrongful act'. If 2) the arrest was unlawful. (In any event the demand for money is nonsense because the wrongful act (if any) is not the cause of the expenses they claim for.)

Agreed.

I looked into this the other day. Normally you would be entitled to a higher (couple rate) of pension credit, less any income your partner has. In this case you cannot get the couple rate and just get the single rate.

Ultimately it depends on what the parking places order or traffic order says – and whether the necessary information from it is brought to the motorist's attention. However it would be very optimistic to hope that non-display is not a contravention of the order. It may be worth posting the PCN and the council's response as there could be other problems with them.

That is not necessarily true about the full and final settlement (Foakes v Beer), but their claim is almost certainly nonsense on other grounds.

I don't appreciate the two-faced attitude of the police very much. They are always so adamant clampers are not doign anything illegal, and I can hardly see how one can obstruct the police if the 'obstructing' act is something one is entitled to be doing.

Well for one thing, the duty under the Equality Act to provide adjustments applies whether you have a blue badge or not.

BPA or similar is just about limiting competition, not quality control.

I know this car park, or one identical to it. The set up is so clearly designed as a trap that it would make even some other PPCs raise an eyebrow. CEL are so notorious locally after their previous outing down the road, that locals are now relatively well clued up on the legal status of CEL tickets, but obviously some people must be paying. The scheme is that you have to pay £1 per hour above 90 mins. There is no facility to check how long you have been there and the machine will not tell you. They log entry to the multistory car park by ANPR, rather than time actually parked, so by the time you get out of the car and see a sign you will have been logged for an unknown number of minutes. You are then expected to calculate how much is the correct amount to pay and if it is too high, CEL retain the extra; if too low they issue a £90 invoice, which is clearly a penalty and not even a transparently arrived at one. The machine will not tell you how much to pay: quite a nasty little scheme for the uninitiated.

The adjudicator offered to allow you to pay 50%? This is beyond their powers as far as I'm aware. They do have a power to recommend that that council cancel the penalty on a discretionary basis, but only after it has been established that the penalty is valid. In a case where the penalty has been wrongly issued, as is the case here, the adjudicator 'shall allow the appeal' (regulation 7(2) of the appeals regs).

Re: theft I agree with green and mean that it is right to carefully analyze this and not to assume. But I disagree with the conclusion. Firstly, intention to permenantly deprive. A copmpany who intends to keep the property indefintely until the owner pays a ransom clearly does intend this, once s. 6 of the Theft Act is considered: That seems pretty straightforward and was applied in R v Marshall where Marshall was convicted of theft of railway tickets despite the fatc that he knew the company would eventually get them back at considerable expense. Then there is the problem of dishonesty. This was defined in R v Ghosh and is known as the Ghosh test: There is also a complete nullification in s.2 of the Act if the accuses honestly believed he had a right to deprive the other of the property. This appears to be of some help to impounders of goods, in that their initial appropriation may well be honest, so that no theft is committed at that point. However, s.3 of the Act defines appropriation as the asuumption of any of the rights of the owner. In R v Morris this was held to mean any single right, such as touching the property and would include refusing to allow the owner to drive the vehicle away, for example. It is clear from s.3 and from Morris that appropriation is an ongoing act, and does not mean just the initial appropriation. So once it has been patiently explained to the impounder that they have no legal right to do so, their continued refusal to return the goods will be a further appropriation and will amount to theft if they can no longer hold an honest belief they are entitled to do so. This is why if I were to go into Curry's and remove a large TV without their consent as satisfaction of some claimed debt they owe me, the police will attend and explain to me that I cannot do this. If I attempt to continue the police, would then arrest me as this is prima facie dishonest (even if it did not start out that way) as it is now incredible that I could still hold an honest belief in the honesty of my actions. Even if I were ultimately to be acquitted, there is clearly enough for the police to arrest at this point and return the goods to the owner. The reason the police will not intervene in parking issues is not because they cannot, but because they have a misguided policy never to do so, and this should be challenged.

I'm reluctant to dispute Mr Shed on housing issues, but there is clearly an OR in the section. "Inteferes with the peace and comfort", or "withdraws services". Two routes to the offence.

Mr Shed: If there is exlusive use of that particular space, then surely it will form part of the lease? Why do you think the Protection of Eviction Act is not engaged: surely s. 1(3A) applies? A landlord impounding my goods and blackmailing me would certainly make me likely to give up the premises, or use of the parking space.

I hope the defendants are well represented. The untruths that have been revealed by the CAB should be enough to rip RLP apart. As should the admission that they are apportioning costs already incurred (therefore there is no causation) and that the fee is intended as a deterrent.

Good Profits v Bad Profits http://www.bain.com/bainweb/publications/publications_detail.asp?id=25182&menu_url=publications_results.asp

I'll probably just pay it, but it seems incredibly convenient that Eon were unable to get in touch until (what they thought) was exactly 365 since I moved in, and then they couldn't send a bill fast enough. They seemed very put out once informed that they had left it 2 weeks too late to bill for the full amount, as if they had calculated it down to the last minute. Very convenient that this would have maximised their takings.