image resolution is way to low on that image

Aren't they an NDPB ? So FOI would apply. But it should not be needed, they should supply on demand else it is a secret law.

There is a good chance that the land comes under byelaws. see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/1627/article/23/made Get the byelaws and see if they cover parking. if so then http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted 3 (1) © ©any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control. Then see 1 (1) (a) 1 (1) This Schedule applies where— (a) the driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land; and which would dis-apply PoFA and so leave them with no standing (on the case they have stated). Their own Governance document (available on their website) declares they review the byelaws every three years so a current copy should come readily to their hand. http://whitehavenhc.org.uk/contact

was it an ECN (Excess Charge Notice) ?

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/218.html&query=Wilson+and+v+and+south+and+Kesteven+and+district+and+council&method=boolean and see http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1998/471.html&query=McLeod+and+v+and+Butterwick&method=boolean

non decriminalised parking i.e. still under the 1984 Road Traffic Regulation Act . see the PATROL website for hackground on CPE (Civil parking Enforcement). Was it a PCN on an ECN ?

"As for the term "expert", it is relative isn't it, certainly as far as most of us on here are concerned TT is more expert than any other contributor to these forums." Well said. We all stand in her shadow.

I disagree with Michael Wood "To prove that a fraud offence has taken place, we need to demonstrate, beyond reasonable doubt, that a dishonest act has occurred." I agree with http://www.petersandpeters.com/sites/default/files/publications/AnewkindofCriminalLaw-editedversion30108_4_.pdf from which I now quote with due acknowledgement of its author. The Fraud Act repealed the old deception offences under the Theft Acts 1968 and 1978, replacing them with a broader offence of fraud. Section 2 of the Act creates an offence of ‘fraud by false representation’. A person “is in breach of this section if he dishonestly makes a false representation, and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself or another, or to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss”. “A representation is false if it is untrue or misleading, and the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading”. Whereas under the deception offences, it was necessary to prove that the victim had been deceived, the s.2 offence focuses entirely on the representation made by the defendant. Whether anybody or anything (s2 (5)) acts on the representation is now immaterial. The Fraud Act also created a new offence of making or supplying articles for use in frauds. This offence provides that “a person is guilty of an offence if he makes, adapts, supplies or offers to supply any article knowing that it is designed or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with fraud, or intending it to be used to commit, or assist in the commission of, fraud”(s 7(1) Fraud Act 2006).

"and one van/enforcement fee can be charged regardless of a levy" How so ?

I believe this is a non-CPE matter. i.e not decriminalised but done through Magistrates Court.

11 pages. That tells you all you need. That it took him eleven pages to develop the (rather weak) argument that he was paid to give. One wonders what fee he charged.

Not all councils run CPE. It may, or may not, have been a CPE (decriminalised) council. Which council issued the PCN ?

It sounds to me that cheep in unfamiliar with CPE and does not know there is no plea. I hazard that is the reason that cheep did not enter one. I assumed it was CPE from the £160.

"I phoned payplan and they told me i shouldnt even drive my car around as the levy form means the bailiff technically ownsd the vehicle" Just a correction to that. They are wrong, Clamping the car (the act of Distress) does not transfer title. It, in this case, comes into 'the custody of the court'. Custody is not ownership.

Was that their first call at the house ? What paperwork did they leave and what does it say ? Many threads on here re outrageous overcharging by bailiffs.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3483/regulation/13/made but start here http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/tma-part-6-cpe-statutory-guidance/betterprkstatutoryguid.pdf Rules are one thing, what bailiffs do often another thing

That is within the remit of the local police. IF they are bothered.

link is snafu'd

You deserve no less tt. It is not kindness it is done on merit, you have (more than) earned your place.

tt is primus inter pares in my view. (and not many are in the pares to start with)

A plaintiff is entitled to nominal damages for trespass to land even if no loss or damage is caused. Armstrong v Sheppard and Short Ltd [1959] 2 QB 384, [1959] 2 All ER 651, CA.

Many would view this as institutionalised systemic Fraud (and conspiracy) as it is so plain upon it's face. Regrettably, and I am sure many will agree with me here, I cannot see a court in the land finding that to be so (or even hearing the case much less put it to a jury !) For those that do agree; the conclusions as to the nature of our government and the court system will be obvious - and that Burke applies.

"a similar fee when enforcing an unpaid pcn. They refer to this as being "schedule 8 fee" " What on earth !!!

Such Notices are clearly ill-founded. The £750 charge would never hold. (Although it makes me ponder as the effect of clear, and very well worded, signage on the property levying an Entry Fee for such visitors). Did CIVEA say anything about Bailiffs attending in their private capacity such as for CPE PCNs ? I expect not.

as per the above excellent advice £600 is ridiculous.