GDPR Cookie Consent by SimpleServe Privacy Script Funny as fook lol - AAD Consumer Forum

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Funny as fook lol

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Funny as fook lol

    This is funny as fook, yes while she may have committed an offence is it any worse than than this parasites that go around breaking the law in many cases and charging extortionate release fees.

    http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/tra..._out_1_3241905

  • #2
    Re: Funny as fook lol

    Class! I dont agree with one point made though, that it is illegal to remove the clamp. I stand to be corrected, but as far as I was aware, you are able to remove the clamp if you can do so with out damaging it.
    I'm an official AAD Moderator and also a volunteer, here to help make the forum run smoothly. Any views or opinions are mine and not the official line of AAD. Similarly, any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability. If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional - Find a Solicitor or go to the National Probono Centre.

    If you spot an abusive or libellous post then please report it by Clicking Here. If you need to contact me, for instance if I've issued you a warning, moved, edited or deleted your post, please send me a message by clicking my username.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Funny as fook lol

      http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/criminal_damage/#a05

      Section 5 of the Act (Criminal Damage Act 1971) gives examples of actions that would constitute a lawful excuse and thus a defence to criminal damage charges, though not to aggravated criminal damage under Section 1(2). You must be aware of these, particularly in relation to the defences likely to be raised by motorists damaging wheel clamps.
      A motorist who damages a wheel clamp to free his car, having parked on another's property knowing of the risk of being clamped, does not have a lawful excuse under the Act: see Lloyd v DPP [1992] 1 All ER 982 ; R v Mitchell 2004 RTR 14 CA.
      Section 5(2) defines lawful excuse where there is belief in consent or belief in the immediate necessity to protect property. Section 5(3) emphasises that the belief is subjective and must be honestly held.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Funny as fook lol

        But

        http://www.west-midlands.police.uk/f...VWC.asp?id=102

        12. Where police officers are attempting to resolve a dispute, the following code of practice should be followed. The 'implied acceptance of risk' by the clamped driver may not apply if any of the following exist:
        • The warning notice is missing, or is not clearly displayed. (Whether a notice is poorly displayed will be a matter of degree decided by the courts)
        • Where the warning notice is not for clamping, but warning for some other course of action, which could damage the car (this may include warning notices that vehicles parked on this private land will be towed away)
        • Where a demand is made for an unreasonable or exorbitant charge to release the car
        • Where the clamper is detaining the vehicle, or has delayed its release after the owner has indicated a willingness to pay, or comply with whatever conditions are relevant
        • Where there are no means for the vehicle driver/owner to communicate an offer of payment (such as no telephone number on the clamping notices)
        • If the clamped driver and passengers would be vulnerable whilst left without a car, further practical help may be necessary to ensure their immediate safety

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Funny as fook lol

          Police ordered Julia to pay £60 in compensation to City Watch Enforcement for cleaning of uniforms and its van.
          Since when did the plods take on such a judicial role?

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Funny as fook lol

            CC,

            Given that this very force had two plan cars clamped while protecting the queen on a visit to Portsmouth 6 mths ago I find it very strange that they would fine a woman for causing minimal damage to the clampers van as they are well aware of the issues surrounding this car park.

            It cant of been that much muck either as most of it ended up on the ground.
            Last edited by pompeyfaith; 12 November 2011, 19:33.

            Comment

            Working...
            X