Mr Loophole

[anaxcrosswords]

Nick Freeman has made a name for himself by getting motoring cases thrown out of court (rightly or wrongly), and has apparently found a way to avoid council car parking charges and fines:

http://www.nickfreemansolicitors.co.uk/mp-car-parking-letter/

The idea is that in your vehicle you display a sign along the lines of “I am here illegally. I am not entering into a contract either expressed or implied and I do not accept your Terms & Conditions”. Freeman has come up with idea based on comments by MP Sajid Javid concerning travellers occupying a car park.
It seems very flaky to me, but is he right? Is it worth trying out, or do councils have the power to clamp/remove a vehicle – and would they?

[hc4361]

Could be sued for trespass in the civil courts.

[New Judge]

Mr Freeman has a history of testing out his theories at the risk of other people’s money and driving licences.

I recall him testing out his theory on Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act (the obligation of the Registered Keeper to provide details of the driver at the time of an alleged offence). He was one of the leading proponents of the Human Rights Angle (the right to a fair trial) insisting that it was not for a driver to incriminate himself by admitting he was the driver. This finished up in the ECHR and was struck down (in about 2004). He was also, I believe, instrumental in promoting what he saw as another loophole, suggesting that providing an unsigned reply giving that information met the obligations under S172 but that the reply could not be used in evidence against the driver. That too was struck down.

So, I imagine, it will be with this. I don’t doubt it will finish up in a court of appeal at enormous cost to the taxpayer when all that is needed is for motorists to simply comply with what are fairly straightforward parking regulations.

[Davemano]

Indirectly connected, there are one or two Mr Loopholes in our area who, on leaving the supermarket over the allocated time simply mask their rear registration plate to evade the outgoing camera.

[EDDIE51]

His argument is total rubbish. He is comparing 'travelers' who are intending living on the car park,which is obviously an illegal use, with people who are using it for its legal use to park, but are refusing to pay.
I am certain the case would be thrown out instantly.

[Peter Pedant]

read the article !
for chrissakes

it is on the back of an MPs advice to a constituent about travellers parking nd clearly Mr Nick didnt like the MPs advice as he goes on

If that is the case, then motorists using public car parks, where charges are enforced, can legitimately put a note on their windscreen saying: ‘I'm here illegally, I am not entering a contract and I do not accept your T&C's’.


if that is the case ..... if that is the case ..... but it isnt the case is the implication

So NO mr freeman has not given a loophole
he has commented adversely on an MPs letter


REALLY !