I agree they did not comply with the regulations, but as the order is issued judicially it will remain in force until set aside, much as a default CCJ would. I believe that s.14 of the Magistrates Courts Act applies regarding making a statutory declaration to have the order set aside.

But in that case, there doesn't seem to be any suggestion he used force or violence. If it cannot be proved his actions caused the death then it is right for him to be acquited of manslaughter.

In this type of case, you should argue that your witness statement is not out of time. Regulations 23 of the General Regulations provides: It is clear the 21 days does not run until the order is actually served on you. It is specifically exluded under regualtion 3(2) and 3(5) from being treated as served earlier. This argument was succesful in court here. I'm trying to push this as the council/bailiffs and the TEC are significantly misrepresenting the position by inventing their own timescales.

So it seems there is express statutory authority, as far as council tax goes, for treating the amount paid as discharging the fees first. I was previously skeptical of this claim, but no-one pointed me to regulation 52 before. This isn't looking that good as far as the £18 goes, to be honest.

Always be skeptical of unofficial advice from benefit officials not to claim. It is possible they did not consider her child in the equation. Also, there is no fixed amount which is too much to be earning for HB/CTB as it depends on the amount of rent or council tax liability, as well as personal circumstances. On a back of the envelope calculation assuming a rent of £100 a week and maximum tax credits, she should be getting about £50 a week housing benefit. More if her allowed rent is higher, or tax credits less.

Yes, it would be interesting to know under what law. Perhaps there is something else in force...

Well I think it's worth repeating my earlier point again:- There is power under the primary legislation to make byelaws creating summary offences for the driver. The byelaws purport to make the owner liable to a civil penalty, but do not create any summary offences. There is no power to make byelaws making anyone liable to a civil penalty. Therefore, the it appears that as far as parking goes the byelaws are ultra vires and unenforceable.

I would be tempted to complain to the tribunal that the Secretary of State is ignoring their decision.

Whether you signed for it is pretty much irrelevant, for the reasons you have already discovered, and the retailer should be the party you pursue rather than the delivery company.

Two wrongs don't make a right. I would pay for the actual items stolen or damaged. The rest is bunk.

@totallyinnocent 1. For a theft to occur it is not necessary for the thief to leave the store. Theft occurs as soon as the thief touches the property, if he acts dishonestly and with intent to deprive. But in practice it is a question of proof, as obviously most people will be intending to pay for the item and therefore not acting dishonestly. 2.I think the real problem with their claim is one of causation. There is insufficient causation between an individual who steals an the costs of the entire security arrangement demanded. Mitigation would not really affect the security costs claimed for. 3. Their argument is that if there were no risk of theft, they would not have to spend the money. But as above, I think there is insufficient causation by the individual towards the total costs. 4. It might be discolable if it went to court, but otherwise probably not. 5.It is legal to take someone's photo in a public place without their permission. How that photo is used may have data protection implications, but I'm not very knowledgable on that area. 6. There is no requirement to do so. 7. Maybe to complain about any wrongdoing by the store, but if it's just concerning RLP, it's probably pointless and maybe harmful. 8. Same advice as 2 and 3. 9. If you are not cautioned by the police anything you say will not be admissable, I'm not sure if this extends to confessions made to private citizens though.

Common assault is NOT a civil matter: it is a criminal offence carrying a maximum six months imprisonment. The CPS could decide it is not in the public interest to prosecute, but it is definitely a police matter.

Just to clarify, it is not down to the council's policy. The law is the same nationwide. Housing benefit can be claimed where the agreement is legally enforceable, and not contrived to take advantage of the HB scheme (plus a few other fixed excluded situations). Refusal carries a right of appeal to a tribunal.

Presumably the cameras are correctly set up only to catch people who cross the first line on red, not merely people who correctly stop at the second line having crossed the first on green or amber? (As in post #6)

RLP popping up offering false advice: things are getting desparate then, just like for the PPCs a couple of years ago. Cue the newly-registered poster claiming to have lost in court with £5k costs awarded to RLP, how could he have been so stupid, etc. etc.

The PCN looks valid, and Riley v Hunt is the authority that you cannot have time to get change. You could try an informal appeal to their better nature, and maybe check the bay markings?

Taking without consent will not usually apply to towing, as the courts have held that the offence only applies to driving the vehicle (R v Bow), so including this just detracts from the main point of the letter.

Can you post the back of the PCN as well?

Exactly.

You cannot ignore a council ticket. You can try appealing to their better nature with an informal appeal, but assuming your previous ticket wasn't still valid you will then have to choose to either pay or find a procedural error. Post up the PCN as it may have errors.

The relevant parts of the Transport Act 2000 have been repealed by the Railways Act 2005. This will not affect the validity of byelaws made under the 2000 Act, but Schedule 9 para 6 of the Railways Act now contains the relevant provisions to request copies.

It's still hard to see how it could be enforced without a s.172 request first. I don't think the owner or registered keeper can be made vicariously liable for a criminal offence without primary legislation to that effect. It's starting to look like railways bye-law tickets are in trouble.

The consequences of visiting a store when banned is limited to damages for tresspass representing their actual loss, as long as the visit is otherwise lawful. Personally I would ignore any alleged ban unless each store in question had notified me of it themselves. It is pretty questionable whether Boots have the power to impose a ban on other stores' behalf.

Section 219 of The Transport Act 2000 is the enabling legislation, but does there does not appear to be any power to make bye-laws which make any person liable to a penalty, or to make the owner liable rather than the offender. There is a power in schedule 20 of the Act to make any person contravening them guilty of an offence, but the bye-laws do not appear to do so.

I don't agree that it would. Despite what bailiffs claim the fees are not an enforceable debt owed by the debtor, and what the council do with the money after they receive it is their own concern.