I was very tired when I wrote the last contribution.
The web site appears to be concerned with getting people out of messes they freely entered into knowing the consequences of such entry: to walk away from debt.
I regard double yellow lines as devices to improve and optimise traffic flow not as impositions on my personal freedom. As such I benefit from them.
The instances the writer quotes appear to be total selfishness on his part - so that he would not be forced to expend valuable calories to move his (presumably) obese carcass one step more than was absolutely necessary in his view. I do not see where the legality or otherwise of the parking restriction comes into it.
The notice on his car is fatuous. If he tried to enforce it (and if his vehicle was worth less than £40,000) any action would be thrown out of court on the grounds that it was a vexatious action and he would have to bear the cost. The methods of dealing with trivial incidents that would never have occurred had he done a little bit of forethought appear to be a combination of aggression and bullshit baffles brains.
I agree that, for example, the penalties charged by companies acting on behalf of supermarkets are disproportionate to the damage done. I think - though am possibly wrong - that the law on this subject is unclear, that appropriate cases have yet to be heard in the High Court, since decisions in courts of first instance are not binding. My understanding generally (again possibly not accurate) is that damages awarded are limited to the actual harm done.
I think, Hope, that if this was an attempt on your part to restore blessedness to the meek - or some such - that you are misguided. I see little to consider the originator of the article as little more than self-centred myopic. This does not mean that there are not other parts of the website concerned that do offer excellent advice on dealing with corporate bullies.
