parking tickets do you know your rights?

[jules2008]

hi legal beagles

a big bone for you to chew on tonight?


have you heard of the bill of rights 1689 well apparently it says in there somewhere it is a very old document that if any money is owed then it can only be deemed by a court of law that you have to pay it.

well also it says that the penalty tickets that the council are so fond of issuing are illegal because it comes under common law or something( i am not a lawyer) and there are two types of law when it comes to these things eg when they bought in the metric system.

any way please google bill of rights parking tickets and you will find out about a guy who knows the law or who has paid an extremely expensive lawyer to find out that parking tickets are unenforcable and illegal.


they set up the system to make it easier for their revenue to come in thick and fast without having to do too much. it works because 1 noone knows the law regarding parking fines 2. they threaten people

and it is all illegal they cannot take this guy to court because if they do they will set a president and their money making racket will collapse in a big heap.


please can someone with a far greater brain than mine look into it i know all you beagles are so intellectual and will come up with an answer quicker than hey presto.

i would love to sue the council for issueing me with parking fines etc just give me the chance
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
An Englishman's Castle: Are Parking tickets illegal?

[tomterm8]

Re: parking tickets do you know yr rights?

The bill of rights defence was nonsence, and was roundly defeated in the high court a couple of years ago.

[jules2008]

Re: parking tickets do you know yr rights?

ok that is interesting i wonder why i had not heard much about it?

dont you agree though if no-one paid the penalty charge their system would not work?

[tomterm8]

Re: parking tickets do you know yr rights?

I don't know why you haven't heared much about it.

On your second point. If you refuse to pay, are able to pay, the ultimate sanction is that they could simply put your butt into jail. Even civil enforcement orders are enforced as if they were a judgement of the court, and the court has the authority to jail people where they are blatantly refusing to pay when they are able to under s5 of the Debtors Act 1869 http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content...tdocid=1051177 .Edit: I've never actually heared of this happening, so the powers of the court are theoretical and I would never expect them to be used except in the most blatant case.

[jules2008]

Re: parking tickets do you know yr rights?

do you know anymore about the case that blew away the bill of rights because i am sure i had the info bout it quite recently and they would have updated their system. i am sure i read bout it from driving secrets which i had to purchase but unfortunately i cant access it now as it on my other comp
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
what you mean is they break into peoples homes or threaten them so they always get their money that is why they do not jail people for non payment of parking fines.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache...ement%22&hl=en

[tomterm8]

Re: parking tickets do you know yr rights?

From the
Joint Annual Report of the Parking Adjudicators to The Association of London Government Transport and Environment Committee 2006-2007

With regard to claims that the civil enforcement of traffic contraventions was in breach of the Bill of Rights and was consequently unlawful. The issue came before the High Court in R (De Crittenden) v National Parking Adjudication Service [2006] EWHC 2170 (Admin), an application for judicial review of a Parking Adjudicator in our sister tribunal, which deals with appeals in England and Wales outside London. Mr Justice Collins dismissed the argument that the Adjudicators are not independent. He said that they are an independent tribunal which Parliament has brought into being under the Road Traffic Act 1991 to act instead of a court to deal with parking enforcement appeals. There is, he said, nothing strange in our system of law in a tribunal being established to deal with matters which otherwise would have to be dealt with through the courts. The Adjudicators are subject to the control of the courts through judicial review. If there have been errors of law by the Adjudicator in a given case the court is there to deal with them.

He went on to say that the argument that the Bill of Rights applied was completely baseless. A parking penalty is not a fine or forfeiture within the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights reference to fines or forfeitures before conviction or judgment means that what cannot prevail is a fine or forfeiture in respect of which there is no right of appeal, whether ultimately to a court or through a system equivalent to a court. That system has been set up. Thus, even if these were fines or forfeitures, the Bill of Rights could not be said to have been breached.

As to the suggestion that Parliament could not amend the Bill of Rights, he said that Parliament is supreme and can amend any provision of our law at any time. If it passes an Act which is clearly contrary to a previous Act, the later Act will prevail. However, this principle was not needed as there was no breach of the Bill of Rights.

This decision confirmed the view that the Adjudicators had taken.

The issue also arose in Henney v Camden (page 19). In that case, the Appellant argued that the clamping regime was unlawful for a number of reasons, including that it was contrary to the Bill of Rights because the penalties had to be paid before the right to appeal could be exercised. The Adjudicator rejected the argument, holding that, in enacting the clamping regime in the 1991 Act, Parliament must have intended to repeal the Bill of Rights so far as necessary to give effect to that regime.

This decision was made before the decision in De Crittenden. However, the Appellant applied for review of the decision. In rejecting the application the Adjudicator referred to the decision in De Crittenden, which had by that time been made, in particular the Court’s finding that the parking penalties were not fines or forfeitures within the Bill of Rights.

Human Rights Act 1998
The application of the Act was considered in Henney v Camden and in De Florio v Kensington & Chelsea . In both cases, the Appellant contended that the supplementary enforcement action, clamping or removal, was disproportionate and so in breach of Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. The Adjudicator in each case found that the temporary loss of control caused by clamping or removal was a proportionate response to legitimate traffic management aims.

Both Henney and De Florio deal more generally with the lawfulness of clamping and removal.

Distraining goods, and entering homes to distrain goods, is a normal method of enforcing civil debts in this country (England). It is lawful, and it is a common occurence. Now, personally I'm against it, but the only lawful way to change this method of enforcement is through democratic change. It is lawful unfer European law and English Law.


The web site you provided was very funny, but completly wrong. The argument goes against the fundamental consitutional law of this country, and any judge would demolish it with all due speed in the High Court / court of appeal.

[jules2008]

Re: parking tickets do you know yr rights?

Distraining goods, and entering homes to distrain goods, is a normal method of enforcing civil debts in this country (England). It is lawful, and it is a common occurence. Now, personally I'm against it, but the only lawful way to change this mthod of enforcement is through democratic change.


ok so does this include breaking and entering? in other words if the house if vacant and they break in to obtain goods.

dont they have to obtain a warrant and does the occupant have to be present?

[tomterm8]

Re: parking tickets do you know yr rights?

Distraining goods, and entering homes to distrain goods, is a normal method of enforcing civil debts in this country (England). It is lawful, and it is a common occurence. Now, personally I'm against it, but the only lawful way to change this mthod of enforcement is through democratic change.


ok so does this include breaking and entering? in other words if the house if vacant and they break in to obtain goods.

dont they have to obtain a warrant and does the occupant have to be present?

That is a more complex question, and it depends on the type of debt that is being enforced. Since we don't know what type of debt is being enforced yet, I can't really answer it.

generally, civil enforcement can only commence with a warrant (which they would have), and they couldn't break into your home without an order of the court to that effect.

With criminal enforcement, which in some councils still applies, the debt is being enforced as a criminal fine and they can gain access to your home, "breaking and entering" as you put it, although they should give you notice before doing so.

All this changes in a year or two when the dreadful Tribunerals, court and Civil Enforcement act 1997 comes into force, which basically gives the baliffs the right to enter home automatically.