Clamping in Newbury Options

[user23]

40% cuts will mean they will be doing a lot less of a lot of stuff.

All public organisations will be doing "a lot less stuff" after October.

[On the edge]

Invest in some bollards - might not get your cash back but you'll certainly have some fun.

[Berkshirelad]

"Private car parks will still be allowed to charge motorists a fee, using ticket machines. But they will have to sign up to a strict code of conduct agreed by the British Parking Association (BPA). All signs about charges must be clear, and any fees for over-staying must be 'reasonable'. Crucially, there will be a right of appeal to an independent tribunal with the power to quash unfair charges.

This is the BPA's suggested solution. Case law already puts it into action; in that settled case law deals with penalties within contracts

Any motorist who refuses to pay will face the same sanction that applies to public roads or council car parks, which is a visit from the bailiff or a trip to the small claims court."

There can be no lawful involvement of bailiffs for any debt without a Court Warrant. It cannot be 'or'; it can only be 'after'.

[Iommi]

This is the BPA's suggested solution. Case law already puts it into action; in that settled case law deals with penalties within contracts. There can be no lawful involvement of bailiffs for any debt without a Court Warrant. It cannot be 'or'; it can only be 'after'.

And your point is?

[Strafin]

All public organisations will be doing "a lot less stuff" after October.

Yes because services will always be the first thing to go, rather than perks, pay rises or inefficiency.

[DrPepper]

And your point is?

Hey, Iommi - remember your earlier post on another thread:-

"Yes and; what? I posted a comment, this is what this forum is for."

[Iommi]

Hey, Iommi - remember your earlier post on another thread:-

"Yes and; what? I posted a comment, this is what this forum is for."

I understand that, I just simply didn't understand what he's driving at. There is a proposed change in law which might change how things are done in the future. His argument seems to be that things cannot be done because of current law. Well if it changes, then it won't matter. I'm confused by his stance.