A long shot, perhaps, but have you tried "Googling" the persons name? I was curious about a man who owns a lot of properties which he rents out - most are "run down" places. I found that he had two convictions for not having Gas Appliances examined in rented properties. The cases were brought by Trading Standards, and were reported by them on the Internet. Worth a go, perhaps? Sameagle

I wonder if the laws for on-road parking are uniform throughout the UK? A friend of mine, who lives in Stoke-on-Trent, about 10 miles from where I live, recently applied for a Disabled bay marking outside her home. The application from S-O-T Council, stated various conditions of use, and one of those is, that she doesn't have exclusive use of it, and that anybody, disabled or not, could park on/in it, and she would have no legal redress. The "ownership" of such a bay in Stoke seems to be based on a "Gentlemans Agreement", with apologies to those ladies reading this of course! [sam the Eagle grins] Perhaps it varies from Council to Council? Worth finding out, I would have thought? Sameagle

Is there a case for Perjury against those who brought the case?

Appealing to another department of the company, [or even Council], that issued the ticket, is a bit like me asking my Barber if he thinks I need a haircut! Sameagle

It doesn't have to be a parking company engaged by the landowner, who obtains the details. I recently had a case of someone who occasionally parked a very large motorcycle in front of my lockup - the motorcycle was chained up, so I/we could not move it. I wrote to DVLA, enclosing the fee of £2-50, and told them why I needed to contact the owner, and that I owned the lock-up, which I do. They sent the details, and I contacted the owner, [i should say that I was polite, and did not try to extract a "fine" [grin]] After all, he could be a lot bigger than me! Problem resolved - it seems that he had permission to park it in front of a lock-up, but it was 12, not 42. So the system does have a useful side, provided that it is used correctly, and not by a bunch of thugs! Both the owner and I benefited, as it happens, I got access to my lock-up, and as I used to own a similar model of machine, I gave him some spare parts, and a manual for it!

I was reading about PO Boxes only last week, because I was asked if I wanted one, here in Staffordshire, for my Window Cleaning business. One of the conditions of issue, if that's the correct term, is that anybody can ask for, and receive the address of the renter of the box Sam the Baldeagle

I should be very careful, if I were you. You never know, somebody who owns a set of bolt croppers or whatever, could just go down there tonight, and whip the clamp off! He could have a mate with him to keep watch, and they could both be masked and gloved to prevent identification. Then if the car were taken to a lockup somewhere, nobody would find it! Perhaps my imagination is running away with me? I wonder who's responsibility it would be if the car was removed like that?

What I'm about to write may be confirmed, or otherwise, by those on here that know a great deal more about the law than I, and, if I'm wrong, then my apologies in advance. I seem to remember in my dim and distant past, back in the 1950's, that there was a case, where a courting couple were taken to court for, ahem, how shall I put it, being "at it" in the back seat of a car, one dark night. A Policeman approached the car, shone his light in, and nicked 'em. If I remember, the Judge deemed that the inside of a car was a private place, and the case was slung out. If that is still the case, then I assume that no parking attendant, or anyone else for that matter, can even look into, let alone take a picture of the inside of a car. Yes, I know that you can stand in a public place and take a photo, but not into somebody's house windows, or car windows, if beyond the window is private, surely? And if that is the case, then nobody can even look at your ticket, because although it's displayed in the window, it's in a private place, same goes for the child seat? I throw it open for comments - I'm a retired engineer, not a legal man.

A friend of mine was involved with TV licensing about 30 years ago. In the UK, it's nothing to do with "possession", it's all to do with "use". If it is connected to a power supply, then that is "use" - connected mind you, not just capable of being connected. Although disconnecting the aerial is not a bad thing, a better way of demonstrating non-use would be to remove the plug from the mains lead, or remove the battery clips if you use it on DC. And in reply to an earlier post about disconnecting from a communal aerial, the detectors that are used to identify a TV that is in use don't rely on the aerial, they work by detecting a tiny signal from an oscillator inside the set. It's called a "local oscillator" as opposed to an oscillator in the TV transmitter, which isn't local, of course. Possession and use are used differently in other countries, a friend of mine has a flat in Durban, and visits about twice each year to see her children. The flat has a TV, which she doesn't use, but she has to pay a licence fee each year - much cheaper than here, but the programmes are even crappier, and as some are in Afrikaans, and some in the native language, of which there are several............! Hope this helps?

This one isn't concerned with groceries, but might apply to of all you that probably only do your shopping at weekends. "Focus" DIY and Garden Centres have wonderful bargains on garden furniture in the week, but their prices mysteriously rise at the weekends!

It would be interesting to know who gave them "permission" to operate on that Estate, or who's permission UKPC think that they have?

Good Morning, Sam the Eagle here, a new subscriber, I found this site last night whilst looking for articles about “Euro Car Parks” I thought I’d chuck my two’pennorth in, although I wish I’d found this forum earlier. A friend, a disabled lady, who is also deaf, visited her local “Tesco” in Stoke-on-Trent, last month; she had a friend with her, who is also disabled, they each hold a “Blue Badge". Whilst parking in a bay marked for the disabled, the passenger complained of feeling ill. My friend assisted her passenger into the store, and they went to the cafe/toilet area, where the passenger had a drink, and took medication. My friend then went back to her car, buying a couple of items on the way. She intended to drive near to the door of the shop, pick up her passenger, and leave. She arrived at the car to find that a ticket was being issued by the attendant, from “Euro”, because she had forgotten to display her badge. He was sympathetic, but was unable to cancel the ticket for her. She wrote to “Euro” explaining, but they said that the charge, fifty quid reduced to thirty if paid within so many days blah blah, must stand. They said the “intent” of the sign is very clear, etcetera. I could not understand how a user of a bay can possibly be expected to interpret the "intent" of a sign, so I entered into the fray! I went to the site, with the intention oft photographing the signs, and then I noticed the following. The words on the signs are... “Parking limited to 3 hours. No return within 2 hours.” “Park only within marked bays” “Disabled badge holders only in disabled bays” “Parent and child parking only within marked bays” Paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 seem OK, but paragraph three seems a bit odd. If I were composing it, I would have versed it in the manner as the others, a clear command, “Display your badge and clock, or else!” So [before I was aware of this sites’ existence], I wrote and told them that there is no “debt” as they put it, because my friend was, and still is, in possession of a valid “Blue Badge”. I posted their letter, last Friday, told them that I am dealing with the matter, and that if I don’t receive a letter of cancellation by this Wednesday, then I shall consider the matter is finished, and that there will be no further communication from me. I welcome your comments.