Every year around 8 million penalty charge notices are issued nationally for parking offences.
Around 160 local authorities in England and Wales now operate a system known as Decriminalised Parking Enforcement, which means that they're able to apply to take over the enforcement of parking regulations from the police, and keep the proceeds.
Many people on the receiving end believe the enforcement and appeal system lacks discretion and profits from public apathy. Are they right?
Among those who do is Richard Lissack QC. He received a ticket for parking on a yellow line in West London, despite having permission from an attendant to leave his car.
Over the course of a year and after many letters, he won his case at the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service, one of four tribunals across the UK.
It's absolutely built into the system to provoke apathy
Caroline Shepherd
"I just had a really deep sense of injustice," he says. "I think that where there has been an injustice, however great or however small, it should not be yielded to."
Caroline Shepherd, the Chief Parking Adjudicator for England and Wales, is also critical.
She points out that local authorities don't even bother to contest around 35% of cases which come to appeal - which suggests they know they have a weak case.
"It's absolutely built into the system to provoke apathy," she argues.
However, Nick Lester, Corporate Director of London Councils, firmly rejects the suggestion that the system relies on drivers being too busy to contest tickets.
"Frankly if you're saying to me that you have no time to write a letter when you think you have a good case but you've got enough money to spend £60 on it, then that's something I don't recognise."
He says the solution for drivers is simple: park legally.
And Daniel Moylan, deputy leader of Kensington and Chelsea Council, adds a plea of sympathy for parking wardens.
Once they start to fill out a ticket, they have no discretion over whether to finish - so drivers shouldn't get irate with them.
We had a huge response to this item. To see just some of the many e-mails we received, please follow the link below.
Following his inauguration one of the thorniest political problems in US President Obama's in-tray will be what to do with Guantanamo Bay.
It still holds some 270 detainees, most held as "enemy combatants" as the Bush administration designates them.
What will happen to Guantanamo Bay under a new presidency?
Although not a campaign pledge, the president-elect did say he wanted to close Guantanamo.
But how can he do that in practice? Clive speaks to leading British human rights lawyer Louise Christian and to Bradford Berenson, a former Associate White House Counsel to President Bush.
Mr. Berenson says the "enemy combatants" will be able to apply for release under the habeas corpus principle - but probably not until the end of their trials under the new Military Commissions.
However, Ms. Christian wants much faster action from the president-elect.
"The one thing he could do that could send a very clear signal about a new administration, about change…is that the US government will now abide by international law, will respect the Geneva Conventions."
Legal legerdemain
Many people think that lawyers are experts in the arts of deception and subterfuge - and one barrister is happy to admit to those skills.
Clive meets Guy Hollingworth, whose day job is intellectual property law, but is also known as one of the world's outstanding card magicians.
He fools the socks off Clive by tearing up and magically restoring a signed playing card - and explains how his two skills both overlap and differ.
BBC Radio 4 Law in Action: Guy Hollingworth's magic trick
"People do often say - unfairly - that there are a lot of similarities and there's a lot of standing up and bluffing and trying to use misdirection to deceive your audience."
He says that's not fair to either profession - but there can be some resemblance in the way that you present a case or an illusion in a favourable way.
"Another area of similarity is that you get heckled sometimes - you get unpleasant audience members who are throwing you off the track."
So he advises both barrister and magicians to prepare for the unexpected…
After last week's suggestions, we asked for a collective noun for 5,000 lawyers with some positive connotations. Here are some of your contributions, some accentuating the positive, others rather less so:
An integrity of solicitors
A decency of barristers
An honesty of lawyers
A worthiness of advocates
A virtue of attorneys
An ethic of briefs
Leslie Dalton
A persuasion of lawyers
A conveyance of lawyers
Peter Banbury
A persuasion of lawyers
Alison Schroeder
A brief of lawyers
Peter Taylor
A legality of lawyers
A wisdom of lawyers
A reassurance of lawyers
Mrs. Hilary Hills
A wealth of lawyers
Phil Bonson
A conviction of lawyers
Piers Tuson
A completion of lawyers (no chance of that in Cyprus)
Robert Brew, Cyprus
They should be called an OPINION of lawyers, as not one of them would have the same opinion.
Stephen Archer
A conflict of lawyers
A disputation of lawyers
or (my favourite) a suit of lawyers
Gilla Evans
A murder of lawyers
A suicide of lawyers
An end of Lawyers
A death of Lawyers
A massacre of Lawyers (this is my favourite)
James Adlington
A "procrastination" is good, but the one I like best can be applied to any number of lawyers - from one to over 5000 - a "surfeit" of laywers.
Tony Sargent
You ask if there is a more positive collective noun for lawyers than "a swindle."
The answer is - No.
Peter Burfitt
Coming Up
Next week we'll be examining calls in the Welsh Assembly to require that jurors in some cases will have to speak both Welsh and English, and assessing the impact of expected cuts in court budgets.
Contact the programme
If you have thoughts on any of the topics we've covered, or any other legal issues, you can contact us by email at lawinaction@bbc.co.uk, or by post at Law In Action, BBC White City, Wood Lane, London W12 7TS, or you can call us on 020 8752 5646.
Law In Action is broadcast on Tuesday 11 November 2008 at 1600 GMT on BBC Radio 4.
Bookmark with:
What are these?