I think he knows that and the quotation is not to be taken that literally. I have been following Jon's input on the Facebook groups and he knows all about PPCs. This was a particualrly nasty little PPC operation as they publicly gave an assurance that parking would become free after 6, but then later restarted enforcement unannounced.

The CAB advice sounds like a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. The reasonable aspect does not apply to the visit/levy fees which are capped at a % of the debt. No other fees may be charged no matter how reasonable. And they can't levy for the charges alone anyway.

I stumbled across a FOTL video of a 'freeman' arguing in court in a council tax case. Everything he said was completely made up.

This seems to be a common practice, but I am not aware of any provision of the law which allows them to do this. The court staff are put under pressure by the bailiffs to do it so that fees can be maximized. You could try complaining to the Ministry of Justice perhaps. If that gets you nowhere and distress is levied, there is a procedure you can use to bring a complaint to the court that the distress is unlawful.

The % of light rule is correct but this is its own offence. I don't think it's directly relevant to using the vehicle in a dangerous condition, which is a more serious offence. For that they would have to prove actual danger – which of course they may be able to.

Unfortunately CAB advice in this kind of area is patchy. If you get someone who even knows about the different types of parking ticket, official advice is that if you do not pay you 'may face enforcement action' in the county court. Technically this is true, as they could choose to try to take a case to court, but the company would be fraught with difficulties in doing so. Euro Carparks have never been known to try in court, but the CAB are quite unlikely to tell you that.

It cannot be TWOC as for that offence the vehicle must be used by the taker as a conveyance. It is also probably not theft or fraud as nobody acted dishonestly. It may be criminal damage, but I agree with the poster above that a prosecution would achieve little and would not be in the public interest. Take them for compensation instead.

If there was a way to physically leave without paying I would have left my name and address and then done so, and left it to them to pursue. The service of providing parking does not include time spent stuck driving out unless this is very clearly specified in the contract, and even then may be an unfair term. If it was not physically possible to leave, this is essentially the equivalent of vehicle immobilisation, which I understand is 'frowned upon' in some parts of the UK.

My opinion of this is that the case of High Trees House v Central London Property Trust might give rise to an argument that by offering to take a lower amount the council cannot then cause you a loss by increasing the charge after you paid what they said was owed. However I doubt you will get away with avoiding the full rate PCN altogether: Pinnel's Case, Foakes v Beer.

You can film or photograph anyone in a public place and thyere is no need to hide their identity.

You cant make an enforceable contract to cover up a fraud. They don't like it when the [problem]'s threatened do they?

Care to cite some case law that obstruction can extend to this type of thing? I'm sceptical too.

How about explaining to the landlord what has happened and agreeing to pay all his court costs? You could then claim these back from the council. You may have a case for compensation if you are evicted, but it may be fairly small due to your limited security of tenure anyway.

I'd be tempted to name them all as joint defenents, unless someone can produce definite evidence as to who instructed them.

The trouble is the courts (and local authorities) get into these contracts with bailiffs without properly understanding that the bailiffs act as their agents. They are responsible for refunding all fees charged on their behalf. The fact that they will be out of pocket because they can't get the money back from the private bailiffs is their problem – they could employ their own in house bailiffs, rather than sign up to such a deal with shady firms.

Hi, I've been searching in vain trying to find the source of magistrates court bailiffs' power to charge fees. I know the fees are agreed with the MoJ, but without more this does not bind the debtor to pay them. R v Hereford Magistrates ex parte MacRae obliquely appears to approve of fees, but the point was never argued. The problem with a purely common law origin is that it is a breach of the Bill of Rights for the executive to raise money without parliament's consent. The Secretary of State for Justice is undoubtedly a minister of the Crown, and needs parliament's consent to levy money. That he then pays it in its entirity to bailiffs via an internal arrangement is irrelevant. It's the executive arm of the court service that is the creditor, and which levies distress. Anyone have any thoughts or further information?

And the intentions of the parties. In a case where parking is offered for £25 an hour the parties intened to be bound by this: the driver intends to be charged and the company intends to offer the parking. The PPC situation is different as neither party has any such intention at the point of formation of the contract. The driver does not intend to be charged and the PPC does not intend to become bound to offer parking upon acceptance, and their subsequent correspondence is almost always clear that the parking was not offered and was not welcome.

If he can prove the car is his (and the debt is yours) then he should sue the council. All the other issues are irrelevant as far as he is concerned.

I agree in theory but there are a lot of problems with this model of looking at it as well. McDonalds widely advertise their prices, e.g. £1.99 for a certain type of burger, and the additional £100 charge for entering the site is a significant additional term - to put it mildly. This brings the legality of their entire operation into question.

Indeed, another example was the "man can't be deported because he has a cat" lie of recent times: Tabloid Watch: Mail and Sunday Telegraph: cat-alysts for more anti-immigration feeling

Sorry that ended up more off topic than I intended. It should have gone here really. Hopefully Cameron will at least stick to that specific pledge notwithstanding all the rest!

I hope your'e right, but you have to remember that while Cameron will not openly call those he wants to crack down on as vulnerable, this has to be viewed in the context of his support by the Murdoch papers whose readers define anyone who cannot make it on their own in the world as a layabout and a scrounger. Cameron ahs vowed to cut off all benefits (including presumably council tax benefit) to anyone who 'refuses' a job. What does refuse a job mean? In the system we have, people who are vulnerable do not have the opportunity to refuse jobs because employers do not offer people jobs: people have to sell themselves as the best candidate over all others, and for people who are not in the mainstream of society this is often just not possible, even if they want to work and could. This policy is inevitably going to be code for 'fail to find a job'. We've already seen ESA turn out to be far different from what it was advertised as, and under the Tories things can only be worse. (I'm voting Liberal Democrat by the way.)

Also note that the current power of force is not restricted to forcing entry. It appears to extend to 'reasonable' force against the debtor as well, and this will be the same in schedule 12 of the TCE Act as well.

Yes you would wouldn't you? No one desires to give the vulnerable a good kicking like bailiffs and the tories.

Witness statements against charge certificates etc - FightBack Forums Don't delay further