[ARW]

Thursday morning before I set of on "holiday" the guy I sub for dragged one
of the apprentices into the office for smoking in a works van (he does not
care if they smoke in them).

The apprentice denied everything and there was a lot of shouting and
swearing and the apprentice said that "he had never smoked in a works van".

The words "You are ****ing lying tell me the truth" were shouted and the
apprentice said "I promise you I have never smoked in your van"

At which point the owner of the firm handed the apprentice the £75 fixed
penatly notice (that claims to have photographic evidence) of the apprentice
throwing a tab end out of the window of a van he was driving.


--
Adam

[Nightjar]

On 08/09/2012 18:37, ARW wrote:
Thursday morning before I set of on "holiday" the guy I sub for dragged one
of the apprentices into the office for smoking in a works van (he does not
care if they smoke in them).

The apprentice denied everything and there was a lot of shouting and
swearing and the apprentice said that "he had never smoked in a works van".

The words "You are ****ing lying tell me the truth" were shouted and the
apprentice said "I promise you I have never smoked in your van"

At which point the owner of the firm handed the apprentice the £75 fixed
penatly notice (that claims to have photographic evidence) of the apprentice
throwing a tab end out of the window of a van he was driving.

Is this a fixed penalty notice for littering, issued by a Local
Authority? If so, it needs to be paid on time or he will face a criminal
prosecution. It also seems to me that the employer should have been
discussing littering, rather than smoking, which the apprentice might
well have admitted to. Throwing a butt out of the window is no evidence
that he had been smoking in the van, rather than, say, having found it
on the floor.

Colin Bignell

[Mr Pounder[_2_]]

"ARW" wrote in message
...
Thursday morning before I set of on "holiday" the guy I sub for dragged
one of the apprentices into the office for smoking in a works van (he does
not care if they smoke in them).

The apprentice denied everything and there was a lot of shouting and
swearing and the apprentice said that "he had never smoked in a works
van".

The words "You are ****ing lying tell me the truth" were shouted and the
apprentice said "I promise you I have never smoked in your van"

At which point the owner of the firm handed the apprentice the £75 fixed
penatly notice (that claims to have photographic evidence) of the
apprentice throwing a tab end out of the window of a van he was driving.


--
Adam

If guilty he should have suspected something and owned up.

[ARW]

Nightjar wrote:
On 08/09/2012 18:37, ARW wrote:
Thursday morning before I set of on "holiday" the guy I sub for
dragged one of the apprentices into the office for smoking in a
works van (he does not care if they smoke in them).

The apprentice denied everything and there was a lot of shouting and
swearing and the apprentice said that "he had never smoked in a
works van". The words "You are ****ing lying tell me the truth" were
shouted
and the apprentice said "I promise you I have never smoked in your
van" At which point the owner of the firm handed the apprentice the £75
fixed penatly notice (that claims to have photographic evidence) of
the apprentice throwing a tab end out of the window of a van he was
driving.

Is this a fixed penalty notice for littering, issued by a Local
Authority? If so, it needs to be paid on time or he will face a
criminal prosecution. It also seems to me that the employer should
have been discussing littering, rather than smoking, which the
apprentice might well have admitted to.




Throwing a butt out of the
window is no evidence that he had been smoking in the van, rather
than, say, having found it on the floor.

What a load of crap.



--
Adam

[Dave Liquorice[_2_]]

On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 13:04:47 -0700 (PDT), Owain wrote:

In Scotland, a person in control of the premises (which includes
vehicles used primarily for business purposes) knowingly permitting
smoking is liable to receiving a Fixed Penalty Notice of £200 or being
prosecuted and receiving a fine of £2,500.

Fairly sure that something similar applies in England as well.

--
Cheers
Dave.

[Adam Funk[_3_]]

On 2012-09-08, Nightjar wrote:

On 08/09/2012 18:37, ARW wrote:
Thursday morning before I set of on "holiday" the guy I sub for dragged one
of the apprentices into the office for smoking in a works van (he does not
care if they smoke in them).

The apprentice denied everything and there was a lot of shouting and
swearing and the apprentice said that "he had never smoked in a works van".

The words "You are ****ing lying tell me the truth" were shouted and the
apprentice said "I promise you I have never smoked in your van"

At which point the owner of the firm handed the apprentice the £75 fixed
penatly notice (that claims to have photographic evidence) of the apprentice
throwing a tab end out of the window of a van he was driving.

Is this a fixed penalty notice for littering, issued by a Local
Authority? If so, it needs to be paid on time or he will face a criminal
prosecution. It also seems to me that the employer should have been
discussing littering, rather than smoking, which the apprentice might
well have admitted to. Throwing a butt out of the window is no evidence
that he had been smoking in the van, rather than, say, having found it
on the floor.

Well, if the apprentice had said something like, "No, but I found a
butt in the van & threw it out", that would be plausible --- then he
could pay the littering fine.

[Graham.[_6_]]

On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 21:46:19 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 13:04:47 -0700 (PDT), Owain wrote:

In Scotland, a person in control of the premises (which includes
vehicles used primarily for business purposes) knowingly permitting
smoking is liable to receiving a Fixed Penalty Notice of £200 or being
prosecuted and receiving a fine of £2,500.

Fairly sure that something similar applies in England as well.

I am told smoking is not allowed in my (leased) co car, even during
private use.

There is a sign, on the back of the VEL holder.
It's not an issue for me as I don't smoke and would never allow a
passenger to do so. What others chose to do in their own co cars is
their own business and there is certainly no pro-active enforcement or
spying going on by our management or the leasing co.


--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

[charles]

In article ,
Graham. wrote:
On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 21:46:19 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 13:04:47 -0700 (PDT), Owain wrote:

In Scotland, a person in control of the premises (which includes
vehicles used primarily for business purposes) knowingly permitting
smoking is liable to receiving a Fixed Penalty Notice of £200 or being
prosecuted and receiving a fine of £2,500.

Fairly sure that something similar applies in England as well.

I am told smoking is not allowed in my (leased) co car, even during
private use.

There is a sign, on the back of the VEL holder.
It's not an issue for me as I don't smoke and would never allow a
passenger to do so. What others chose to do in their own co cars is
their own business and there is certainly no pro-active enforcement or
spying going on by our management or the leasing co.

I act as a driver for a local charity, taking people to the doctor, etc. I
ma required by law to have a "No Smoking" sign in my car when I do this. I
find that intrusive.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

[Andrew Gabriel]

In article ,
Graham. writes:
I am told smoking is not allowed in my (leased) co car, even during
private use.

Many leasing companies imposed that long before the smoking ban,
because it made the cars impossible to sell on afterwards without
a lot of work. I know of one person who ignored this and got a
bill for around 5 grand at the end of the lease which the employer
deducted from his salary, and refused him a company car afterwards
because he tried arguing out of it (unsuccessfully).

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
Graham. writes:
I am told smoking is not allowed in my (leased) co car, even during
private use.

Many leasing companies imposed that long before the smoking ban,
because it made the cars impossible to sell on afterwards without
a lot of work. I know of one person who ignored this and got a
bill for around 5 grand at the end of the lease which the employer
deducted from his salary, and refused him a company car afterwards
because he tried arguing out of it (unsuccessfully).

It doesn't take 5 grand to valet a car so there is no trace left of it
being smoked in. Unless of course there are fag burns everywhere.
FWIW, the most stinky car I ever bought (at auction, cheaply) had been
used to carry dogs around. Ones which have been used to carry kids -
throwing up and spilling things - can be pretty bad too.

--
*Some people are alive only because it's illegal to kill them *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Brian Gaff]

Its not just apprentices. I have a friend who was burned by one coming in
through his passenger window at traffic lights from a van emblazoned with a
well known name of a builder in the area. Smoking on works property is quite
common I suspect.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"ARW" wrote in message
...
Thursday morning before I set of on "holiday" the guy I sub for dragged
one of the apprentices into the office for smoking in a works van (he does
not care if they smoke in them).

The apprentice denied everything and there was a lot of shouting and
swearing and the apprentice said that "he had never smoked in a works
van".

The words "You are ****ing lying tell me the truth" were shouted and the
apprentice said "I promise you I have never smoked in your van"

At which point the owner of the firm handed the apprentice the £75 fixed
penatly notice (that claims to have photographic evidence) of the
apprentice throwing a tab end out of the window of a van he was driving.


--
Adam

[charles]

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
Graham. writes:
I am told smoking is not allowed in my (leased) co car, even during
private use.

Many leasing companies imposed that long before the smoking ban,
because it made the cars impossible to sell on afterwards without
a lot of work. I know of one person who ignored this and got a
bill for around 5 grand at the end of the lease which the employer
deducted from his salary, and refused him a company car afterwards
because he tried arguing out of it (unsuccessfully).

It doesn't take 5 grand to valet a car so there is no trace left of it
being smoked in.

it could certainly require a new head lining. You really can't get the
nicotine smoke deposits out of that.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

[Andrew Gabriel]

In article ,
"Brian Gaff" writes:
Its not just apprentices. I have a friend who was burned by one coming in
through his passenger window at traffic lights from a van emblazoned with a
well known name of a builder in the area. Smoking on works property is quite
common I suspect.

My grandfather was quite imfamous (some 50 years ago) for smoking
whilst driving the family. The routine was normally some variation
on cig in mouth, take out match and strike it whilst steering with
his knees, shake match once so it didn't actually go out and chuck
it out the window, which is closed so it bounces back still lit
into his lap, or the footwell, or under the seat, or into the back
of the car, and the next half mile is driven with his head under
the dashboard searching for it. Remarkably, he never had a single
accident...

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

[alan]

On 09/09/2012 09:19, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


It doesn't take 5 grand to valet a car so there is no trace left of it
being smoked in.

The lease company wouldn't spend more than 5 minutes examining it and
then sending it to auction in the same state it was returned.

The 5 grand would be a combination of the reduction in the resale value
and a (previously stated) penalty for breaking the terms and conditions
of the lease.

--
mailto:news{at}admac(dot}myzen{dot}co{dot}uk

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
charles wrote:
It doesn't take 5 grand to valet a car so there is no trace left of it
being smoked in.

it could certainly require a new head lining. You really can't get the
nicotine smoke deposits out of that.

You certainly can. Smoke deposits are all water soluble. Modern headlining
is commonly synthetics.

--
*Two wrongs are only the beginning *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
My grandfather was quite imfamous (some 50 years ago) for smoking
whilst driving the family. The routine was normally some variation
on cig in mouth, take out match and strike it whilst steering with
his knees, shake match once so it didn't actually go out and chuck
it out the window, which is closed so it bounces back still lit
into his lap, or the footwell, or under the seat, or into the back
of the car, and the next half mile is driven with his head under
the dashboard searching for it. Remarkably, he never had a single
accident...

My father smoked a pipe while driving. That was a performance which needed
to be seen to believe. ;-)

Yet he drove many more miles than was the norm in those days since he was
a salesman. Up to 30,000 miles a year, without accident.

--
*Corduroy pillows are making headlines.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Liquorice[_2_]]

On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 10:47:07 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

My father smoked a pipe while driving. That was a performance which
needed to be seen to believe. ;-)

Yet he drove many more miles than was the norm in those days since he
was a salesman. Up to 30,000 miles a year, without accident.

But he saw hundreds... B-)

--
Cheers
Dave.

[tim.....]

"alan" wrote in message
...
On 09/09/2012 09:19, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


It doesn't take 5 grand to valet a car so there is no trace left of it
being smoked in.

The lease company wouldn't spend more than 5 minutes examining it and then
sending it to auction in the same state it was returned.

The 5 grand would be a combination of the reduction in the resale value
and a (previously stated) penalty for breaking the terms and conditions of
the lease.

Such penalties are not legally valid and cannot be enforced. Only
government bodies can fine you for not doing what you are told, everybody
else has to confine themselves to claiming for "actual loss", which in this
case is completely covered by the reduction in value as there is no extra
admin involved if they just send it to the auction whatever the condition.

tim

[charles]

In article , tim.....
wrote:

"alan" wrote in message
...
On 09/09/2012 09:19, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


It doesn't take 5 grand to valet a car so there is no trace left of it
being smoked in.

The lease company wouldn't spend more than 5 minutes examining it and
then sending it to auction in the same state it was returned.

The 5 grand would be a combination of the reduction in the resale value
and a (previously stated) penalty for breaking the terms and
conditions of the lease.

Such penalties are not legally valid and cannot be enforced. Only
government bodies can fine you for not doing what you are told, everybody
else has to confine themselves to claiming for "actual loss", which in
this case is completely covered by the reduction in value as there is no
extra admin involved if they just send it to the auction whatever the
condition.

It entirely depends on the terms of the contract.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

[tim.....]

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , tim.....
wrote:

"alan" wrote in message
...
On 09/09/2012 09:19, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


It doesn't take 5 grand to valet a car so there is no trace left of it
being smoked in.

The lease company wouldn't spend more than 5 minutes examining it and
then sending it to auction in the same state it was returned.

The 5 grand would be a combination of the reduction in the resale value
and a (previously stated) penalty for breaking the terms and
conditions of the lease.

Such penalties are not legally valid and cannot be enforced. Only
government bodies can fine you for not doing what you are told, everybody
else has to confine themselves to claiming for "actual loss", which in
this case is completely covered by the reduction in value as there is no
extra admin involved if they just send it to the auction whatever the
condition.

It entirely depends on the terms of the contract.

No it doesn't, it depends upon the law, and UK law specifically bans the
collection of Punitive damages in any type of contact - only the government
may punish you. Any contract clause that attempts to do so will always be
void.

tim

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
alan wrote:
On 09/09/2012 09:19, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


It doesn't take 5 grand to valet a car so there is no trace left of it
being smoked in.

The lease company wouldn't spend more than 5 minutes examining it and
then sending it to auction in the same state it was returned.

Quite.

The 5 grand would be a combination of the reduction in the resale value
and a (previously stated) penalty for breaking the terms and conditions
of the lease.

I once attended lots of car auctions where ex least cars were sold. Even
bought a couple myself. It would have been pretty obvious if a car which
hadn't been smoked in was worth a big premium over one which had.

--
*'ome is where you 'ang your @ *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Tim Lamb[_2_]]

In message , tim.....
writes

"charles" wrote in message
. ..
In article , tim.....
wrote:

"alan" wrote in message
...
On 09/09/2012 09:19, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


It doesn't take 5 grand to valet a car so there is no trace left of it
being smoked in.

The lease company wouldn't spend more than 5 minutes examining it and
then sending it to auction in the same state it was returned.

The 5 grand would be a combination of the reduction in the resale value
and a (previously stated) penalty for breaking the terms and
conditions of the lease.

Such penalties are not legally valid and cannot be enforced. Only
government bodies can fine you for not doing what you are told, everybody
else has to confine themselves to claiming for "actual loss", which in
this case is completely covered by the reduction in value as there is no
extra admin involved if they just send it to the auction whatever the
condition.

It entirely depends on the terms of the contract.

No it doesn't, it depends upon the law, and UK law specifically bans
the collection of Punitive damages in any type of contact - only the
government may punish you. Any contract clause that attempts to do so
will always be void.

But I can enforce a published parking charge on private land?

--
Tim Lamb

[tim.....]

"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...
In message , tim.....
writes

"charles" wrote in message
.. .
In article , tim.....
wrote:

"alan" wrote in message
...
On 09/09/2012 09:19, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


It doesn't take 5 grand to valet a car so there is no trace left of
it
being smoked in.

The lease company wouldn't spend more than 5 minutes examining it and
then sending it to auction in the same state it was returned.

The 5 grand would be a combination of the reduction in the resale
value
and a (previously stated) penalty for breaking the terms and
conditions of the lease.

Such penalties are not legally valid and cannot be enforced. Only
government bodies can fine you for not doing what you are told,
everybody
else has to confine themselves to claiming for "actual loss", which in
this case is completely covered by the reduction in value as there is
no
extra admin involved if they just send it to the auction whatever the
condition.

It entirely depends on the terms of the contract.

No it doesn't, it depends upon the law, and UK law specifically bans the
collection of Punitive damages in any type of contact - only the
government may punish you. Any contract clause that attempts to do so
will always be void.

But I can enforce a published parking charge on private land?

That's not damages for breach of contract, it's a charge for the actual
goods/service that you are selling. (And can legally be whatever amount
that you want it to be - that the customer will pay).

tim

[Andy Burns[_7_]]

Tim Lamb wrote:

But I can enforce a published parking charge on private land?

Probably not until next month

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...made#article-3

[ARW]

Owain wrote:
On Sep 8, 6:37 pm, "ARW" wrote:
Thursday morning before I set of on "holiday" the guy I sub for
dragged one of the apprentices into the office for smoking in a
works van (he does not care if they smoke in them).

In Scotland, a person in control of the premises (which includes
vehicles used primarily for business purposes) knowingly permitting
smoking is liable to receiving a Fixed Penalty Notice of £200 or being
prosecuted and receiving a fine of £2,500.

If you bring your van up to Scotland remember to affix the required No
Smoking sticker in the windscreen at the border.

Worse than the bloody French you lot at tricking us English folk into paying
fines.

--
Adam

[ARW]

charles wrote:
In article ,
Graham. wrote:
On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 21:46:19 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 13:04:47 -0700 (PDT), Owain wrote:

In Scotland, a person in control of the premises (which includes
vehicles used primarily for business purposes) knowingly
permitting smoking is liable to receiving a Fixed Penalty
Notice of £200 or being prosecuted and receiving a fine of
£2,500.

Fairly sure that something similar applies in England as well.

I am told smoking is not allowed in my (leased) co car, even during
private use.

There is a sign, on the back of the VEL holder.
It's not an issue for me as I don't smoke and would never allow a
passenger to do so. What others chose to do in their own co cars is
their own business and there is certainly no pro-active enforcement
or spying going on by our management or the leasing co.

I act as a driver for a local charity, taking people to the doctor,
etc. I ma required by law to have a "No Smoking" sign in my car when
I do this. I find that intrusive.

I work for an animal rescue centre. The beagles are always trying to pinch a
cig off me when in my van.

--
Adam

[tim.....]

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
o.uk...
Tim Lamb wrote:

But I can enforce a published parking charge on private land?

Probably not until next month

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...made#article-3

That only affects the way that they can enforce the charge.

Section 56 of the act actually makes it easier to collect if they do so by
putting a ticket on the windscreen (or wherever).

tim

[Grimly Curmudgeon[_3_]]

On Sun, 9 Sep 2012 07:49:01 +0000 (UTC),
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote:

Many leasing companies imposed that long before the smoking ban,
because it made the cars impossible to sell on afterwards without
a lot of work. I know of one person who ignored this and got a
bill for around 5 grand at the end of the lease which the employer
deducted from his salary, and refused him a company car afterwards
because he tried arguing out of it (unsuccessfully).

On the other hand, I'd rather buy a car from a smoker than one which
had been used for dogs. Or by builders, for that matter.
Smelly *******s, all.

[Andy Burns[_7_]]

tim..... wrote:

"Andy Burns" wrote:

Tim Lamb wrote:

But I can enforce a published parking charge on private land?

Probably not until next month

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...made#article-3

That only affects the way that they can enforce the charge.

The O/P *WAS* asking about enforcement!

Up until now it seems that staying schtum, never replying to the
ParkingCo, they would make lots of threatening noises, never take legal
action, and finally go away.

[Tim Lamb[_2_]]

In message , tim.....
writes
It entirely depends on the terms of the contract.

No it doesn't, it depends upon the law, and UK law specifically bans
the collection of Punitive damages in any type of contact - only the
government may punish you. Any contract clause that attempts to do
so will always be void.

But I can enforce a published parking charge on private land?

That's not damages for breach of contract, it's a charge for the actual
goods/service that you are selling. (And can legally be whatever
amount that you want it to be - that the customer will pay).

So, provided I have a clearly visible/worded notice explaining the
charge applicable to unwanted parking on gateway access aprons, I am at
liberty to detain, without damage, any such vehicle?


--
Tim Lamb

[Stuart Noble]

On 09/09/2012 10:44, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
It doesn't take 5 grand to valet a car so there is no trace left of it
being smoked in.

it could certainly require a new head lining. You really can't get the
nicotine smoke deposits out of that.

You certainly can. Smoke deposits are all water soluble. Modern headlining
is commonly synthetics.


I can't believe that. Much as I still love the stuff, I'm under no
illusions about the mess it leaves behind

[gremlin_95[_3_]]

On 09/09/2012 18:32, stuart noble wrote:
On 09/09/2012 10:44, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
It doesn't take 5 grand to valet a car so there is no trace left of it
being smoked in.

it could certainly require a new head lining. You really can't get the
nicotine smoke deposits out of that.

You certainly can. Smoke deposits are all water soluble. Modern
headlining
is commonly synthetics.


I can't believe that. Much as I still love the stuff, I'm under no
illusions about the mess it leaves behind

I've valeted plenty of cars which have been smoked in and have a product
which you spray on and the nicotine deposits literally melt and run off
ready to be wiped off. It is harder getting rid of the smell though.

--
David

[Bob Eager[_2_]]

On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 14:56:29 +0100, tim..... wrote:

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , tim.....
wrote:

"alan" wrote in message
...
On 09/09/2012 09:19, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


It doesn't take 5 grand to valet a car so there is no trace left of
it being smoked in.

The lease company wouldn't spend more than 5 minutes examining it
and then sending it to auction in the same state it was returned.

The 5 grand would be a combination of the reduction in the resale
value and a (previously stated) penalty for breaking the terms and
conditions of the lease.

Such penalties are not legally valid and cannot be enforced. Only
government bodies can fine you for not doing what you are told,
everybody else has to confine themselves to claiming for "actual
loss", which in this case is completely covered by the reduction in
value as there is no extra admin involved if they just send it to the
auction whatever the condition.

It entirely depends on the terms of the contract.

No it doesn't, it depends upon the law, and UK law specifically bans the
collection of Punitive damages in any type of contact - only the
government may punish you. Any contract clause that attempts to do so
will always be void.

Tell that to Ryanair.


--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

[Bob Eager[_2_]]

On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 18:38:34 +0100, gremlin_95 wrote:

On 09/09/2012 18:32, stuart noble wrote:
On 09/09/2012 10:44, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
It doesn't take 5 grand to valet a car so there is no trace left of
it being smoked in.

it could certainly require a new head lining. You really can't get
the nicotine smoke deposits out of that.

You certainly can. Smoke deposits are all water soluble. Modern
headlining is commonly synthetics.


I can't believe that. Much as I still love the stuff, I'm under no
illusions about the mess it leaves behind

I've valeted plenty of cars which have been smoked in and have a product
which you spray on and the nicotine deposits literally melt and run off
ready to be wiped off. It is harder getting rid of the smell though.

Yes, many years ago I used to valet secondhand and hire cars. The brown
liquid used to run off.

(and that was a long time ago. I worked for a Mr Thomsett, who had a
daughter who was an up and coming actress. That will date me for some of
the older ones here...)



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

[Tim Lamb[_2_]]

In message , tim.....
writes

"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
.. .

No it doesn't, it depends upon the law, and UK law specifically bans
the collection of Punitive damages in any type of contact - only the
government may punish you. Any contract clause that attempts to do
so will always be void.

But I can enforce a published parking charge on private land?

That's not damages for breach of contract, it's a charge for the actual
goods/service that you are selling. (And can legally be whatever
amount that you want it to be - that the customer will pay).

Digging further... it appears that the only legal means of detaining
vehicles for the purpose of enforcing a published charge is a permanent
visible barrier. I wonder if they have considered those rising posts?

Also, what constitutes an authorised person? I can see the Police and
Local Authority fit but what about the actual landowner?

--
Tim Lamb

[ARW]

Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , tim.....
writes

"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...

No it doesn't, it depends upon the law, and UK law specifically
bans the collection of Punitive damages in any type of contact
- only the government may punish you. Any contract clause that
attempts to do so will always be void.

But I can enforce a published parking charge on private land?

That's not damages for breach of contract, it's a charge for the
actual goods/service that you are selling. (And can legally be
whatever amount that you want it to be - that the customer will
pay).

Digging further... it appears that the only legal means of detaining
vehicles for the purpose of enforcing a published charge is a
permanent visible barrier. I wonder if they have considered those
rising posts?
Also, what constitutes an authorised person? I can see the Police and
Local Authority fit but what about the actual landowner?

You have just named the two authorities that are only fit to shovel ****.

--
Adam

[polygonum]

On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 14:56:29 +0100, tim.....
wrote:



No it doesn't, it depends upon the law, and UK law specifically bans the
collection of Punitive damages in any type of contact - only the
government may punish you. Any contract clause that attempts to do so
will always be void.

tim



Can the contract not contain contractually negotiated remedies which might
to others look like punitive damages?Nor aggravated damages? Which might
also look like punitive damages? And the difference only be revealed when
a court decides whether they are or are not punitive?

--
Rod

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 10:47:07 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
My grandfather was quite imfamous (some 50 years ago) for smoking
whilst driving the family. The routine was normally some variation
on cig in mouth, take out match and strike it whilst steering with
his knees,

My father smoked a pipe while driving. That was a performance which needed
to be seen to believe. ;-)

With my father the performance included asking me to steer while he
went about it, must have been about 8 years old when I first did it
leaning over from the front passenger seat . This was on winding Devon
lanes not just maintaining a steady course on a decent straighter
road, the bugger didn't slow down either.

G.Harman

[Grimly Curmudgeon[_3_]]

On 9 Sep 2012 18:00:26 GMT, Bob Eager wrote:

No it doesn't, it depends upon the law, and UK law specifically bans the
collection of Punitive damages in any type of contact - only the
government may punish you. Any contract clause that attempts to do so
will always be void.

Tell that to Ryanair.

I'd suppose the O'Leary ******* makes quite sure of the law, but might
be winging it on occasion.
I'd love it to happen that he royally ****es off a landshark, through
stinging them for extras.

[Andy Champ[_2_]]

On 09/09/2012 06:16, charles wrote:
I act as a driver for a local charity, taking people to the doctor, etc. I
ma required by law to have a "No Smoking" sign in my car when I do this. I
find that intrusive.

It's off those signs. You have to have them on all office doors too.

Well, apparently there's one exemption. I don't recall seeing one on 10
Downing St...

Andy