|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
( Left is a sculpture not a picture, click to enlarge and look at finger pressure ). Click Pictures for links, end pictures to enlarge.
|
The Three minimum rights under which this case is published. 1- The case is in the public domain as a result of an open hearing in court. 2 – The council code of conduct where IF IT WERE properly upheld, requires truthfulness, lawfulness, respect and Reporting Breaches, complaint handling procedures & sanctions Corrupt conduct, maladministration and waste of public resources. This claimant is assisting in that code! And 3 – The EU Human Rights convention Article 10 - Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. |
What Camden parking solutions do NOT tell you about their dismissals at PATAS, and they will take you to the limit and often at the last minute NOT challenge at all. This is harassment. Inconsistencies and contradictory rulings at PATAS, that allow Camden to advise appellant to them and PATAS, that their issues re “2 DATE”, “YOU”, and “28 Days from” are upheld, while suppressing the truth that others are dismissed, see right upheld at PATAS. The need to either argue in person, and or by very thorough appeal letter. |
Related pages of significant importance. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Top)
|
Logic |
Two Key letters, before and after. Letter 8 here, and Letter 9. A. H. Winter, ....btinternet.com
PCN Processing Unit, PO Box 20217, NW1 9GH Director P Bishop, / J Woods. Sent by email and or fax. Thu, 7 Sep 2006 17:34:37 Ref: AW / 17071926 PCN number CU02132933
Copied as previously to, Camden MP, Mayor, Councilors and the web, including now, His Honour. Judge Murdoch at the CC Northampton and TEC , the ALG, the ODPM's office as well as The Prime Minister.
In about 14 years at the above address, estimating some 14,000 letters received, I do not recall one going missing. Combine this with 5 months close observance of websites, forums and blogs depicting a clear preponderance of balk procedures including omissions designed to increase pressure and stress on recipients of PCN's, the probability of a missing letter, rather than wilful negligence from Camden in the area of 0 to 1 (1 being certainty), is as close as 13998 to 14,000 in degree of certainty. Place this in context that invariably precedes percept and I am reasonably satisfied there is nonfeasance close to malfeasance and maladministration here. Your reaction will be studied in like fashion as, presence of ripples on a calm lake show underlying movement where absence discloses the opposite, and the precise art of analysis in the function of anticipation and expectation. You are not expected to be familiar with these disciplines of scientific methodology, laws of thought, rules of logic in reasoning, and unequivocal inferences that follow from context. This response to your not entirely unexpected charge certificate, is directed at a wide audience with members who in their professions are perfectly capable of such discernments and alternate disciplines as you are in your own legal procedures and adjustments. All views expressed in the following, are based on applied logic drawn from evidence available in comparative small quantities, yet show powerfully persuasive correlations.
I perceive you are yet again pursuing an invidiously pretextuous course of conduct that excludes a proper PATAS hearing, increases vexation, harassment, and the civil penalty as well as an obstruction of my rights. Your objectives with the TEC and Northampton CC, are yet to unfold, but cause me to consider additional pretexts for furtherance of objectives that in full view may well be obstruction to justice and deliberate illegal exaction. It was already clear that you have objected to my epistolary style and immediacy of appeal. I have rights that I intend to have respected and this has escalated the process of these exchanges to include a wider audience of observers as virtual witnesses as this case unfolds, where each step taken is fully observed by relevant judicial authorities and public. I am satisfied that many targets and objectives follow an inured habitual veiled cloak of procedure and semantics. From henceforward, all correspondence containing template driven replies, semantic notions based on specious argument, or manufactured interpretations of what I have said in plain terms, in want of accurate correspondence with reality shall be openly dismantled at each stage. Please observe due circumspection by avoiding usage of sophistry and casuistry. I may be very enfeebled with infirmities physically, but my formal logic grades and philosophy, being a lifelong passion have not yet absented themselves and I intend to clear the path so my habitual law abiding activities pass without let or hindrance of stress and anxiety constantly produced by the threat of wardens delivering invalid intolerant parking tickets for trivia and non offences of which I have a catalogue of attested cases, backed by questionable practices., all causing me costly avoidable vexation, time, trouble. Since this letter reaches new audiences, it is lengthy and re-traverses grounds already measured in our exchanges, but that should not cause any concern to your department, since you do not respond to any of the issues I have raised other than repeat your continued refrain for “your bond “ like Shylock, but unlike him unprepared to follow the formal route as laid down by Parliament for these so called civil cases that include some arguably criminal tendencies.
Hence this reply constitutes an open letter to Government and Judiciary, showing the deplorable plight, unbridled zeal, and plunder for revenue, without due consideration as to how many UK Human Rights are derogated under the EU protocol 5 articles. There is a tacit consent while displaying outward serious concern at ministerial level, of a totally unchecked conduct that is convenient to Government, while allowing councils to gather revenue in such statistical volume that sets aside all attempts to represent in a procedure that eliminates viable grounds for equitable appeal as is already shown by the devious stages this case has followed. This insight to my case is compared with a gathered body of similar evidence I now have showing infliction of widespread derogation relying particularly on gain, by way of asymmetry of knowledge, you posses and the public in general don't, ensuring your revenue targets are achieved and the public instinct for equity is denied in the process.. Widespread conferment of detriment that undermines the rule of law in communities, is classed as if it were 'sui generis' that does not inhabit either class of the benefit or detriment divide, to semantically argue it is something other than a detriment like a fine or forfeiture that it shall never be, no matter what name the masters in semantics try to give it. Equally arguing these things can be challenged is a complete misnomer, as everyone can see I cannot even get a PATAS hearing having paid £100, within the discount period for £50 and expressly stating & requesting it was for the purchase of the said hearing in advance, that you have now, without much guile avoided, in clear contravention of a number of statutes recited below.
Equally, the absence of any leader speaking openly in disapproval on these issues; rather than through the occasional leaked letter between ministers to test public reaction, is remarkable for a system whose label implies a just democracy adhering to values of truth in correspondence theory, rather than a system of delivering semantic mis-descriptions attempting to persuade, while simultaneously flying in the face of reality, such are the obvious fallacies of conduct and description.. This is an egregious achievement in the use of sound bites, prepared speeches, and proofs derived from well managed statistics to describe reality in terms that it otherwise IS, but is unacceptable in outward countenance, for the management of an elusive 'feel good factor', that can only be achieved by truth and its correspondence with fact.
Today I have received your Charge certificate, of 6th Inst and the above reference number. It is now the third act of vexation towards me, under the offence of harassment act 1997, chapter 40 with a particular prejudice, being a clear failure of conduct and code of practice breaching a variety of areas with clear contradistinction to my own behaviour that has been meticulous to the point of being tediously over pedantic. Since you were given notice of a claim, under the offence of harassment, at a later date, and while I was waiting for the PATAS hearing to give this procedure my undivided attention, and provided you with a draft claim, all this conduct shall be scrutinised as the Pre-action protocol behaviour in other cases 4.1 for any want in spirit of sincere conduct untainted by objectives of gain. I state clearly that contrary to the spirit of that concept, you were and remain wilfully and knowing in breach of Civil Procedure Rule 31.6 (a), (b) (i). Knowing as you DO, the aforesaid, and for the avoidance of doubt, I re quote what has been written to you, and read.
Fri, 19 May 2006 10:48:58 “This letter and cheque HAS BEEN placed through the letter box at the shop of 7-9” Sun, 11 Jun 2006 10:18:01 “......at the full rate of £100, in advance purchase of the whole package of representations leading towards civil remedies as appropriate! ( comment again this was within the period for discount ) Fri, 16 Jun 2006 12:30:44 ---- After it was returned....... “Please note:
There would be NO doubt whatsoever of my intent and the level of co-operation I gave to ensure your were paid for all you wanted at that stage, but no “like a shrew “ you send me a Charge Certificate despite the above advanced knowledge of my declared intent, without first sending a Notice of Rejection, statutory declaration and appeal form. I find this all very demeaning in a course of conduct by an elected council with lawyers at your guard, bearing as you should, some semblance of outward integrity in garb of lawful procedure, yet belying unbridled zeal for what I can only recall as the extortionate conduct of Rachmanism in the 50-60's in the notorious period of heightened capitalistic zeal.
You already are aware, by my fulsome exchanges, that such a course of conduct would certainly not escape my notice as procedure cloaking an act of wilful negligence and omission. Omissions are one of my particular passionate disciplines and I have said that I shall be happy to hold back on my claim for harassment allowing standard procedure to continue, only since I was curious to determine the precise nature of a PATAS hearing and re-argue what is in my view, a flawed untenable ruling. Money is not the issue here as you well know, when the £100 was delivered and £50 only required. Since you are not prepared to allow even standard procedure to be fairly attended with. This is no longer a private matter, but one that affects all the rights of weaker members in our society who are subject to unbridled exaction of this kind on a widespread scale with little perceivable focus on traffic improvement whatsoever. I have stated “what you do to one of us, you do to all, and you may not side with the powerful against the weak”. Please remember this is an issue of parking tickets, that are delivered for unimaginable trivia amounting to seconds, not speeding, drunken, dangerous or other forms of driving. The entire system based on a well known and declared fact that it is for each appellant to raise the same argument again and again, in total disregard to hundreds of years of case law precedent is 'res ipsa loquitur' as to the management of this style of civil penalty enforcement that uses the old maxim of divide and rule in a supposed democracy precisely as used in communist countries, as never before, since motorists have not yet formed some trades union.
Retaining funds declared illegally collected, while relying on questionable advice from central authorities that shall be named hereafter, is a further testament to the want of integrity of this entire procedure, that is also knowing & acting directly contrary to section 17(1) of the 1998 Audit Act, if it records expenditure or income which a local authority had no power to receive or which was otherwise “ultra vires” or which was received without authority.
Further that this rule driven strictness manifested by hypostasizing the concept of THE LAW, while otherwise willfully breaching in the time honored fashion of “weeding our vices and letting yours grow”, is egregiously invidious as I have said, and contrary to any noblesse oblige that ought to be issuing from local councils as a fount of purity, with conduct that sets good example in communities, since example is what is followed, and that is why there is such a high level of witless crime in the young of our communities.
I now list some of the contrarieties that included acts, omissions, suppressio veri's, suggestio falsi's of your conduct to date, and give notice that should you register the charge as a debt, it shall constitute the 4th act of harassment, obstruction of justice, and be subject to a counterclaim. I retain all my rights and shall not forebear from any future claim or exposure without serious due compensation and apology. I have evidence that I shall rely on for the following acts and omissions.
So that new readers are in the picture, I remind you that initially your enforcement procedure was over a trivial issue of 60 SECONDS alleged infraction of stopping with a disabled badge on display in a a trader's bay, with paperwork that was irregular. To therefore expect to continuously breach statutes and codes of practice, without my noticing, is, in my personal view, an act of arrogance in the extreme, especially now you have obstructed my right to a proper and fair hearing despite paying in advance and asking it. As I must repeat, this is all carried out with a cloak or respectability, where honesty is overwhelmed with targets.
I affirm you have and continue to behave CONTRARY to the following list of rights I have, and I shall produce evidence on which I rely to this effect.
The above is listed quite apart from the substantial content of four or more informal letters I have sent you with a list of previous hearings and concerns over manufactured synthetic statements, erroneous paperwork and reaching for stock in trade template driven categorised responses showing NO focus or response to the issues I have raised.
In this interim I have gathered evidence showing your exercise of discretion is of very clear and distinct prejudice and code of practice that arrogates to itself a power that is 'ultra vires' in its egregious particularity, that shall be revealed at all hearings. The discretions you exercise, I have evidence in the use of, is akin to patronage & clerical absolutions, that is conferred on those whose appeals constitute a considerable degree of self abasement, or those whose personal acquaintance with some kind understanding member of the council has some persuasive influence.
Compare these with a 60 second offence, AS described by you that you can deliver a PCN for a contravention “THE MOMENT it is SEEN”. It should follow that from this reasoning, that such STRICT enforcement of a statute, while clearly & summarily abrogating or using discretion as a tool of prejudice ( even setting aside revenue driven zeal ), personality dislike, or presumption of settlement by commercial decision of inconvenience, abrogating tort duty of care, humane considerations and sympathetic conduct towards disabled persons.
For reasons that you know only too well, and set example by, you shall not be permitted to set aside my views and deny me a hearing whatever course of illegal conduct you deem is valid simply by cloaking it within procedural omissions that are convenient, and increase this civil penalty as it is currently called, as if it were anything different from fines and forfeitures that ALL belong to the SAME class concept of conferring detriments no matter what their name.
Your reply to this letter will be copied to all above, if there is NONE, then that shall be noted adversely as is silence in a court, to all by the expiration of the 14 days of the Charge certificate. Take note that I consider on this occasion you have vexed me very very considerably in a manner that invariably affects my health. This it was perfectly avoidable had you been circumspect or attended with due care, properly to your duties as prescribed by lawful procedures, is very clear indeed. There is a second attempt to behave vexatiously, contrary to the law, towards me, that may remain somewhat at a lower profile until all this comes to a hub.
I await the next act or omission you care to include in your performance, and advise that I have copied this to His Honour Judge Murdoch of the judiciary at Northampton, and the TEC, requesting they please advise me the moment you contact them, while keeping me uninformed, in this continuance that is flawed yet again. I shall not at this stage pay the £150 that you should reset to £100 due to your own procedural error, when additionally not retaining the advance payment of the £100 provided months ago. In issuing a charge certificate, and enforcement while setting aside my rights to a fair and public hearing that is so widely lauded as available With respect to the funds that were delivered long ago, they remain on one side, to be paid the instant I am satisfied that fairness without the slightest want of equity, is shown to remain an integral part of British Justice where for centuries now we have grown to expect the voice of the individual to be considered as equal in argument as those in power and who may consider themselves above the law. I have little doubt I speak not merely for myself but for many victims of such abuse of power.
Since you have stated clearly several times you are going to enforce, and were provided with an appeal that gave only grounds for formal rejection and a hearing, I insist upon that hearing, and that it conform to article 6 of the EUHR to the word, “ fair and public “, precisely IN JUST, and JUST IN, likeness of your own strictness in conformity to laws you wish upheld that for reasons you well understand and do not need to ask of me for upholding mine.
There is little mystery as to an agenda cloaked in procedure, it is discerned in the same way , but vastly simpler in scientific methodology & verification, that the existence of black hole is perceived by observance of the vectors of gravitational pull, except that the distance is not billions of light years, and unverifiable, it is at such close quarters, a telescope from the Thames, would be overkill to pick up its fluctuations in Camden.
For clarity where ONE area of my gaze is focussed, I take the view that arguments, (as In Townesend V TfL and Justice Collin's [error Jackson corrected] recent hearing), not recognising the powerful inconsistencies, between two essential class concepts in the Declaration of Rights 1668-9 and present legislation that allows for present 'de facto' nature of such contrariety as close to the pure form of logical contradiction as to be members, requiring this to be throughly re-examined. For the simple reason that, Royal Prerogative having been removed in the area of fines and forfeitures, and transferred under the label “Parliament is Supreme” (that is arguable), has in recent years, shown the clearest correlations that exactions are conducted in like but more widespread manner affecting a substantial majority of families in the country. That the RTA 1991, needs reform under the law reform act 1965, or at least redrafting in special areas, is of little relief to the community at large when exaction, protected by strangled categorisation of appeal grounds; some of which are clearly manipulated, and Parliament conferring that former prerogative towards councils whose conduct shows unequivocal similarities of contextual inferences, as to make the effectual result identical with fines and forfeitures prior to trial with unambiguous similarity to the era preceding the 1668. No amount of semantic juggling or numeric majority of views shall be able to reconcile at least two contradictions (laws of thought) I have in mind, apart from these unambiguous contextual similarities, and scientific methodological necessary and sufficient conditions that are inherent are shown as powerfully tenable. De jure , contrariety with present de facto reality, may only remain where there is a sincere measure of tolerance and respect for the spirit of the that original Declaration and Bill. The vastidy of the present evidence shows clearly the return of unbridled exaction, and expected concomitant public reaction.
While recognising possibilities of small error, I apologise in advance for anything that in my manner and epistolary style, length and digression may offend; while speaking in plain unambiguous English, that not being my intent whatsoever. My interest is the argument, and its being permitted and heard, rather than sidestepped, in this free speech country whose present laws determine as yet; that might is not right, where argument is not treason. Thus; E & O I, not EOE. I remain, Yours most respectfully,
A. Winter M Sc . St. Pauls's Cathedral, M.Sc. Harrow, Piano, Organ, Violin, Singing. Undergraduate B.Sc. M.C. Winter B.A. Lit., B.A. Phil (Hons), Additional interests: Music, Opera, Ballet, Drama, Etiquette & Fine Arts. A.H. Winter B.A. Lit., B.A. Phil (Hons), Additional disciplines: Law, Logic, Psychology, Shakespeare, Music. Former MD, Clothing. OEM, IT manager, Application designer, Lecturer, Programmer (Unix,Csh,Basic,C,C+, Author of DBMS III, Menuix, and studies in Logic, and special fallacies of conduct)
Parking.Solutions parliament.uk, mayor Roger.Robinson nurul.islam anna.stewar Catherine.Casey claire.miller
Mr. A. H. Winter email to: @btinternet.com
PCN Processing Unit, PO Box 20217, NW1 9GH Director Peter Bishop, / Jackie woods and Rudy Bright, Sent by email only .....fax 02079744610
To: Claire Miller, Department of Law a& Administration, LBC, Town Hall, Judd Street, London WC1H 9LP BY Email: claire.miller@camden.gov.uk
Thu, 5 Oct 2006 13:39:28 Ref: AHW / 051006 PCN number CU02132933 your letter CLS/LIT/CM/1025.151 ____________ This letter includes one exhibit that is a scanned picture of the receipt whose contents are self evidence from reading the text, as such there is no particular need to download it, unless there is continued doubt as to the author's integrity in relying on evidence. Please note any reference to 'you' is not directed at the person, but at the council where the terms is appropriate. Should Hyperlink to exhibits not work, since this is prepared for html, please scroll to the end of the pages for them, The only one that is non textual is attached as a picture file.
Dear Madam, Thank you for your letter CLS/LIT/CM/1025/151. Received today as above date.
Before I proceed to respond may I apologise for my style or manner that some find laboured or tedious, it is due to the need for qualification that appertains to my academic disciplines. No offence is intended, thus “without prejudice”
(Top) To the contentions...... YOU SAY.....
(Top) I am not interested in the assertion or a response that argues, that they were substantially compliant, and just needed a little tidying up. I take the view they were compliant or NON compliant, as did Justice Jackson, and in the same way as a female animal may be either pregnant or NOT pregnant, there is no such thing as a little pregnancy or substantial pregnancy if you understand my view on this, it is the second law of thought that of excluded middle. It is precisely the same as CAMDEN's strict view that I was allegedly in contravention for 60 seconds, or not, which has yet to be be determined for want of evidence from Camden. Camden sees a contravention in terms as precise as to quote an earlier letter from the PCN department, a Contravention occurs as “soon as it is seen”. Thus there is no such thing as a little contravention or a substantial one, at this time, since the critical ability to determine the nuance has been closed, or ring fenced in clauses for purposes that are quite obvious to all. While the interpretation of such determinations is thus crude, it cannot be that the determination of compliance is treated differently. Equally compliance with other statute like UK HR, EU HR, Disability discrimination, harassment, and so on are all likewise to be treated with the same statutory mandatory strictness to avoid thwarting Statue as Justice Jackson states in his transcript. Please note these other contraventions of statutes will be shown in like fashion; viz; as soon as apprehended, and this has already been notified, where the evidence asserted, but doubted on the receipt of the NTO, is adduced with collateral and primary evidence showing the differences of treatment between myself and other individuals. They are however NOT an issue for this particular procedure, and may be set aside for the time being, the index of the alleged contraventions is below in Exhibit 5. I submit to the law in the RTA 1991, without aversion, and have demonstrated not mere readiness and compliance, but keenness to pay the full amount and not seek the discount, showing readiness to pay, upon evidence still awaited from Camden, and of course Camden's refutation of Justice Jackson's ruling should they care to make one in shades of semantics. I expect those responsible for this and breaches I will show and rely on to be likewise ready to account for their actions. We must all submit to the supremacy or parliament, and its statutes, I trust that seems fair to ask and expect. The system is such that a PCN can be taken to the limits of almost bankrupting the individual, and it needs to be seen that those who enforce such procedures are as holy in their actions as they are severe, or else they too, account for their own contraventions, I trust this is a perfectly respectable approach and reasonable.
Thus far, you have by your own letter admitted you either failed to send an NOR, or sent one without foundation based on never recording the receipt of an appeal, which of course is contrary to fact since I never received it as shown and corroborated by the unequivocal inference that has to be drawn from this context being illogical. The vast difference between recording an event, and the event occurring has its correlation in the same manner as having a date of contravention on a PCN, and referring to that ONE date in two senses does not create of itself two dates, it's a non sequitur plain and simple, (sense and reference. Frege). Simply reconcile how when I refer to the morning star and the evening star, referring to the SAME planet Venus, that from the two senses flow two references, IE two stars that are different planets, when there is but one.. That and and the Barnet V Moses case shows that the PCN itself is invalid, but I digress. Since the council wish to argue further on down the road at my expense and distress no doubt. Forgot about planet Mercury it is irrelevant here. As I said that there is SENSE in truth, and NON-sense in proved falsities, or even implied falsities. Truth cannot be falsity, a contradiction, whereas proof can be false leading credence to belief which is far from true knowledge. I hope you see it, and all the readers who take the time to focus on this, as well. Since I HAVE been denied a FAIR hearing under the UK HR acts and by derogation to the EU HR conventions, that remains a fact. Reasonable time, we have already exceed that in my view while this department ruminates on its next strategic move to bully me for a triviality sorry a strict contravention. I have not had a hearing, and I have a charge certificate only to hold on to as a threat to pay or else the might of Camden's resources shall bear down on me. However all those resources do not seem able to come up with correspondence that is neither template driven, nor when it is thought out, consists of insinuations based on absence of evidence that is of course is in existence, and I have copies to prove it, both here, in other hands and out on the web. What I am saying here is that finance has nothing to do with veracity. And genius for 2000 years has not yet defeated contrarieties and contradictions, but perhaps Camden has such a person.
(Top)
Exhibit 1. First paragraph of my letter of 8th July.
In about 14 years at the above address, estimating some 14,000 letters received, I do not recall one going missing. Combine this with 5 months close observance of websites, forums and blogs depicting a clear preponderance of balk procedures including omissions designed to increase pressure and stress on recipients of PCN's, the probability of a missing letter, rather than wilful negligence from Camden in the area of 0 to 1 (1 being certainty), is as close as 13998 to 14,000 in degree of certainty. Place this in context that invariably precedes percept and I am reasonably satisfied there is nonfeasance close to malfeasance and maladministration here. Your reaction will be studied in like fashion as, presence of ripples on a calm lake show underlying movement where absence discloses the opposite, and the precise art of analysis in the function of anticipation and expectation. You are not expected to be familiar with these disciplines of scientific methodology, laws of thought, rules of logic in reasoning, and unequivocal inferences that follow from context. This response to your not entirely unexpected charge certificate, is directed at a wide audience with members who in their professions are perfectly capable of such discernments and alternate disciplines as you are in your own legal procedures and adjustments. All views expressed in the following, are based on applied logic drawn from evidence available in comparative small quantities, yet show powerfully persuasive correlations.
Please examine it. I regret due to resolution it had to be in color and thus is a 3 MB file to download as an attachment to this letter. There are two copies of this image, One is 3 mb full resolution, the other is 30 k reduced resolution. The smaller should be sufficient to see the evidence, but if not, the other can be sent if desired. Ms. Claire Miller at @camden.gov.uk, Has the full resolution image.
Exhibit 3. From TEC the traffic enforcement Centre.
From: "CCBC Customer Service, Tec" <Customerservice.tec@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk> To: "'Anthony Winter'" <btinternet.com> Subject: RE: FAO Helena Parker Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 08:01:19 +0100 |
Law |
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
(Top) |
||
|
Hello This case has still not been registered with the TEC Thank you Bryan Sparkes TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT CENTRE Northampton Bulk Centre -----Original
Message----- Good morning! I am returning again, to ask please, if the debt from Camden has yet been registered. I am sorry to bother you, but procedures are being closely monitored since the previous omissions of the council. The details I refer to are. PCN CU02132933. Alleged date of contravention 25/04/2006, Plender Street Charge certificate date 06/09/2006, same details. Previous email exchanges below. A. H. Winter, |
||
|
(Top) |
||
|
Exhibit 4 the entire text from your letter.
Dear Sir, RE: PCNCU02132993 We refer to the above matter and your recent email correspondence, dated 8 September 2006. We note your assertion that the council is in breach of the Road Traffic Act 1991 ("the Act") in that you have been served with a Charge Certificate in relation the above Penalty Charge Notice without first being served with a Notice of Rejection of Representations, Statutory Application and Appeal Form. We have reviewed the Council's records in light of your assertion and record that at no stage have we received any representations from you. We note in your email dated 6 July (sent to Parking.solutions@camden.gov.uk) you advised our client that you be making formal representations (hand delivered) within two weeks, and thanked Parking Solutions for the Notice to Owner you had received. However despite your stated intention, no formal representations have been made. The Council maintains that it has therefore acted correctly in serving the Charge Certificate in relation to the unpaid Penalty Charge Notice. If it is your position that formal representations have been made, then we advise that you are entitled to make a Statutory Declaration with the County Court setting out that you have made representations to the Council but did not receive a rejection notice. You will be entitled to do this within 21 days after you have been served with an Order for Recovery, which will be issued very shortly. The Council will of course be defending its position that it has acted in accordance with the Act. However if you do choose to make a Statutory Declaration as set out above, then we suggest that you advise the Council the date you assert your formal representations were made in relation to the Penalty Charge Notice, to whom they
page 2
were addressed and in what format they were sent (that is, by post, or email etc) so that we can investigate your assertions further. Yours faithfully Claire Miller Commercial Law -Litigation For the Director of Law & Administration
Exhibit 5 the index section of collateral breaches and contraventions. Placed here, not relevant for this procedure, only for forward consideration.
|
||
|
(Top) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
