-
It's a bit unfair on consumer activists, past and present, to suggest that there has ever been any encouragement of the fmotl insanity.
Re: licensing - as far as i'm aware, inspectors have never had any right of entry, predating Capita's involvement by a long time.
Re: car parks - the challenge (prior to the Protection of Freedoms Act in 2012, and the odd Supreme court case) has predominantly been that penalty charges are unenforceable under contract, not that no contract exists, and that there is privity of contract, so no obligations conferred between the driver of a vehicle at the time of the contract and the registered keeper of that vehicle.
By and large, consumer rights activists have relied on the correct application the law, in particular where it is incorrectly applied by corporations / public bodies.
NotThamesWater-
The fmotl mindset finds encouragement in any 'victory' against the powers-that-be.
I have no idea of anyone was ever caught by TV Detector vans, whether the inspectors were ever employees of the BBC, a branch of Government or Capita.
Few members of the public know who has Right of Entry.
Once the fmotl found out Capita employees did not, the early 'net=based communications methods allowed them to spread this knowledge.I apologise for my lack of understanding of the matter. I've only ever incurred a fixed penalty notice on residential roads with timing restrictions. I paid up as it was clearly my fault.
My apportioning of error was not to consumer rights activists, but the legislation that allowed shysters to attempt to levy fines on the drivers of (over?-) parked cars.
mespilus
This Freeman stuff received some encouragement back in the day,
when TV licensing enforcement was sub-contracted to Capita.
Someone worked out that the Capita employees had no right of entry,
so you could refuse to let them enter and verify that the property contained
electrical/electronic equipment that could receive a tv broadcast.
Secondly, the legislation for 'private' car parks was so shoddily written that shysters
started issuing demands for payment for 'illegal' parking.
Many drivers evaded paying these 'invoices' as they could clearly demonstrate there was no contract between the shyster and the registered owner of the vehicle,
and, only (I seem to remember, originally), local authorities could issue fixed penalty charges.
The 'no contract' concept was then conflated to virtually every interaction between 'citizens' and 'government'.