Andrews V Bolton Borough Council

[Fair-Parking]

I am aware of what it says, but there are no judgments in parking and no specified debts - only accusations, allegations and assumptions. Its a presumption of guilt and an assumption that is too eaily presumed to be a 'debt'. If you look hard enough you will also find the provision for charging orders, attachment of earnings and even bankruptcies. What - all are avaliable on an allegation?

 

Wait till they arrive in a real (judicial) court and make applications for these on alleged parking tickets and indeed on CCR 26 without a valid county court judgment. No local authority has ever argued CCR 26 in any case that I have been involved with

 

Shockingly bad legislation is one thing, implementing it is another. I'm not sure there are any known cases where any of the above have happened without a county court judgment.

 

However let us not divert from Andrews v Bolton MBC. Let's wait for the local authorities, bailiffs and solicitors to make a contribution. We know they read this.

 

We had one prominent Newlyn solictor raise his head above the parapet for a brief period last autumn.

[lamma]

Agreed, its a facade to gouge cash, they never even reveal if their civil claim lies in tort or contract. But that's not my point. Some CCR rules do apply and if you follow those rules my reading is that the 'council warrant' is revealed as a pure fiction and irrelevant. It is that reading i am looking for someone to confirm by reading the written regs and following the chain to confirm or rebut my conclusion. Once that is established or refuted then the issue of what can or should we do to use it. I am not pressing this point for ego or because i believe it is a trivial matter, far from it.

[Fair-Parking]

Absolutely and to add to that Practice Direction Supplement 75 (2), as opposed to Part 75 (2), requires that 'All claims to which part 75 applies must be started in the Traffic Enforcement Centre'. No other directions are given ie whether defences (as opposed to appeals) can be started under CPR 75, or whether a defence can be filed under any other CPR, or whether others parts of CPR can be applied.

 

I think that it is fair to conclude that if no other Part is mentioned, councils and others have no right to assume that such parts of the CPR they feel assists them can be applied to parking enforcement.

 

As I say shockingly bad legislation that leaves more questions than answers

 

Now where are those solicitors when you need them..............?

[lamma]

So you agree re my conclusion about the 'council warrant' ?

[Fair-Parking]

L I have never come across a legal council warrant as they have all failed to issue one. The whole point of them using Andrews v Bolton MBC as a battle cry is that it relies on bailiff companies printing them or at least pretending that they do.

 

In short - to secure what councils all think is a new 'defence' based on them not having printed a warrant as CPR 75 (7) (3) and S5 (4) of the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts Order 1993 demands, is effectively to commit mass legal suicide.

 

That they do not realise this remains our secret.

[lamma]

So no one has followed the legislative trail I laid ? ? ?