Warrants of Control (Parking) Discussion thread

[Fair-Parking]

Slight error in that the word 'not' should have been part of the last line of the first paragraph.

 

It might interest others to learn (if they do not know already) that the High and County Courts plus the Magistrate's Court do not involve themselves in parking enforcement to be any position to issue warrants in order to kick start Schedule 12.

[Bailiff Advice]

We need to be mindful that this thread is very quickly turning into a 'discussion' thread (and a good one at that).

 

We must remember that the original poster may well be getting very confused by the posts.

[brassnecked]

We need to be mindful that this thread is very quickly turning into a 'discussion' thread (and a good one at that).

 

We must remember that the original poster may well be getting very confused by the posts.

Perhaps ploddertom or someone else from site team could transfer the "discusssion posts" to a new discussion thread so the OP can have best advice clear and concise? Say Sch 12 TEC and Parking Enforcement.

Edited June 2, 2016 by brassnecked
added parenthesis.

[Peterbard]

Can't be trivial, given that it authorises seizure of goods if payment is not made.

 

There has to be a proper legal procedure, where an employee authorised by a local authority has gone through a process of conducting relevant checks e.g has a complaint been received or payment been made. After checks are made, they then sign off on the warrant being issued, with date/time being recorded.

 

It can't just be an electronic process, with details added to a spreadsheet and sent out for enforcement. The council should have a separate record and be able to print off a copy of the warrant they authorised.

 

This has all been done by the TEC, the authority just prepares the warrant on their instruction.

[Fair-Parking]

I'm sure he is getting confused, but my original point was that there is no warrant in this case. It is the persistent negative comments relating to my credibility by some that has steered this thread away from its objective.

 

One should not be expected to allow such wholly informed comments to go unchallenged

[Peterbard]

Perhaps ploddertom or someone else from site team could transfer the "discusssion posts" to a new discussion thread so the OP can have best advice clear and concise? Say Sch 12 TEC and Parking Enforcement.

 

Yes i resisted that some time ago.

[Peterbard]

I'm sure he is getting confused, but my original point was that there is no warrant in this case. It is the persistent negative comments relating to my credibility by some that has steered this thread away from its objective.

 

One should not be expected to allow such wholly informed comments to go unchallenged

 

I haven't questioned your credibility FP just your conclusions, I do have a problem in that no one else seem ot arrive at the same ones.

Also I am mystified as to why you start these discussions on a main forum thread thereby hijacking it, when there is a discussion area designed for the purpose.

[Bailiff Advice]

Perhaps ploddertom or someone else from site team could transfer the "discusssion posts" to a new discussion thread so the OP can have best advice clear and concise? Say Sch 12 TEC and Parking Enforcement.

 

Request made.

[Fair-Parking]

Awfully sorry if my rare postings on this forum have detracted from your belief that you are enititled to say what you feel even when it is offensive to others, whilst others should criticised from voicing their views.

 

The fact that I may well be only person quoting these views does not make those observations incorrect. If you think they are then any proof to the opposite is more than welcome.

[Bailiff Advice]

Awfully sorry if my rare postings on this forum have detracted from your belief that you are enititled to say what you feel even when it is offensive to others, whilst others should criticised from voicing their views.

 

The fact that I may well be only person quoting these views does not make those observations incorrect. If you think they are then any proof to the opposite is more than welcome.

 

Free speech is allowed on the forum but what the site tries hard to avoid, is the 'discussions' taking over from the subject of the enquiry. This particular subject is an important one and almost certainly is one that should be in the 'discussion' part of the forum and given its own title.

[Peterbard]

Awfully sorry if my rare postings on this forum have detracted from your belief that you are enititled to say what you feel even when it is offensive to others, whilst others should criticised from voicing their views.

 

The fact that I may well be only person quoting these views does not make those observations incorrect. If you think they are then any proof to the opposite is more than welcome.

 

I see but it is quite important that someone else shares you view when you are representing a client, at least that the judge does.

[Peterbard]

Request made.

 

Hope you are more successful with yours.

[Fair-Parking]

Then those who quickly criticise others for holding different views to them should be aware that the person criticised is most likely to respond.

 

I for one will not be involved in a discussion thread about illegal 'warrants' and schedule 12. I've made my views quite clear. If people do not wish to accept them, then that is their choice.

[Fair-Parking]

And no it isn't important that others accept your views when placing them before a judge. It is for you to prepare a case that convinces His Honour.

 

Do bear in mind that as parking enforcement is administered completely outside of the judicial courts this is why judges and other legally trained people are unaware of the procedures. It only takes one person to explain it to them.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

I for one will not be involved in a discussion thread about illegal 'warrants' and schedule 12. I've made my views quite clear. If people do not wish to accept them, then that is their choice.

 

To me personally you have made your views very clear about 'Schedule 12' but viewers and other posters on here will not be aware why you consider that Schedule 12 has no relevance.

[Peterbard]

Yes given the thousands of people who have had bailiff visits for unpaid notices, i think they would be desperate to know.

 

.Also the bit about the enforcment being outside the judicial system.

 

PART 75 - TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT

 

75.2

(1) Proceedings to which this Part applies must be started in the Centre.

(2) For any purpose connected with the exercise of the Centre's functions –

(a) the Centre is deemed to be an office of the County Court; and

(b) any officer of the Centre, in exercising its functions, is deemed to act as an officer of the County Court.

 

Also section 82 (1) of the 2004 act.

 

Be very interested to know why you think these do not apply.

[Peterbard]

Hi

I have resurrected this thread so that Fair Parking can continue to explain why parking tickets are unenforceable, and why the thousands of the issued every week should be ignored.

 

Apparently he has judicial support for these views.

This thread gives him the opportunity to show how this works without damaging user threads.

 

Lets hope he takes the opportunity offered, personally i would love the chance to see why he think argument has any merit.

 

I put it on record that there has never been any case ever which support the idea that all traffic enforcment cases carried out under the TEC procedure has ever been made.

So lets see if Fair Parking can prove me wrong.

[Fair-Parking]

You can resurrect what you like, it ain't gonna goad me into playing your pathetic games.

[Peterbard]

Unsure what you mean here.

Are you saying that your ideas will not stand up to a civilized debate. Or as is mor likely are you saying that your purpose is to get threads closed down(trolling).

 

I see on here that I already debunked your previous ideas regarding the warrant not being enforceable under the TCE. Is it because you know I will do the same to the current nonsense.

 

Dont worry FP I will be gentle with you.

 

You could start by posting these cases which you say prove your point.(fat chance)