Return to first page menu of this topic.

Search this site: (n/a yet) Previous Next Letter / Page.


Bernini - The Rape of Proserpina


Force of Destiny
Philosophy,
Music,
Logic.


2000+ Free world Best Books A-Z Aeschylus, Aesop, Alcott, Andersen, Antonius, Aristotle, Aristphanes, Augustin, Austen, Bacon, Bastiat, Baum, Behn, Berkeley, Bible_1, Bible_2, Bronte_C, Bronte_E, Shakespeare.
Shakespeare


Logic Law
Fighting illegal motorist parking tickets,
Statutes & Laws


Bernini - The Ecstasy of St. Teresa

Click browser or here to return to HOME page. These pages are by courtesy of A. Winter.

  1. The original Camden Council letter to show it exists.......Exhibit 1 ( lores, hires) OR

  2. The Camden Council text extract from that same letter. OR

  3. The Camden Council text extract from that same letter, highlighted to show the propositional elements. OR

  4. The Camden Council. text extract from that same letter, highlighted and commented. (each is underneath the other).
    Quoted parts from Camden council are in blue italic.


03 October 2006

CLS/LIT/CM/1025.151

Department of Law and Administration

London Borough of Camden ( Camden Council.)

Mr A. H. Winter

03 October 2006

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.solutiQ_ns@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 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

(top)



03 October 2006

CLS/LIT/CM/1025.151

Department of Law and Administration

London Borough of Camden ( Camden Council.)

Mr A. H. Winter

03 October 2006

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.solutiQ_ns@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 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
(top)

_____________________________________________________________________

READ FIRST.

  1. Take as fact, and the pages shall be faithful. Almost everything communicated with this council was sent by letter, email, and fax, and also to more than 3 people most of the time, sometimes to nine, including the Mayor, Councillors, MP, and Legal department when it reached that stage.

  2. The first letter title was “This representation comes in three parts”
    The draft Claim stated it was a draft claim.

  3. And when appropriate the FORMAL representation was handed in as promised and a RECEIPT obtained.

  4. With all that in mind, pleases consider the mental state of this EXHIBIT as the first insight to the minds of “Truthfulness”, “Sincerity”, “Honesty”, “Integrity”, “Lawfulness”, OR simply “Awfulness” which is being exceedingly generous and kind, where the facts make this look far more like a demonstration of pure bad faith, and that part of humanity which is the darkest side, expected of a fifth world country.

  5. After my reply to this letter, the council wrote back with the effrontery that they “ACCEPTED” that I had done what I said I had done, and their omniscience was in tatters.

  1. I had received an UNLAWFUL Charge Certificate. I wrote alleging the council had deliberately omitted sending me a Notice of Rejection and Appeal form, as we both KNEW I paid in advance for a hearing disregarding the discount of £50. In advance, with £50 Extra!

_____________________________________________________________________

The FIRST insightful Camden Council letter/ email/and fax. (top)

SEMANTIC, Logical, and OMNISCIENCE disambiguation.

Extracted for disambiguation. All the contradictions are of their OWN letters, nothing to do with Winter, their own were more than enough.

___________________________________________________

  1. We refer to the above matter and your recent email correspondence,

  2. We note your assertion that the council is in breach of the Road Traffic Act 1991

    [To serve a party with a CHARGE CERTIFICATE without FIRST sending a notice of rejection and appeal form IS A BREACH of the Road Traffic Act Schedule 6. CATEGORICALLY!]

  3. 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.

    This review took 27 days. Must have been thorough. Thorough what? Review, or crafting?

    This denies the existence of the letter they are replying to, why are they writing to me at all?

    This contradicts the existence of all 'your recent emails' in 1.

    This contradicts the existence of the -informal- representations in 3.

    This contradicts her own letter advising she was preparing to replie to all these representations.

    Exhibit top of letter. Tue, 25 Apr 2006 17:31:22 Ref: AW / 17071926 PCN number CU02132933

    This representation takes three parts;”

    Exhibit (The 'we are going to prepare a substantive response letter, that was denied). ( lores, hires)

    This contradicts the RECEIPT FOR THAT -informal- representation in 3.

    Exhibit ( The receipt, because Winter anticipated what was going to happen, silly him). ( lores, hires)


  1. you advised our client that you be making formal representations despite your stated intention,

      no formal representations have been made.

    This is an assertion of omniscience. The council KNOWS what I do better than I?

    This again contradicts the existence of the FORMAL representation in 4.

    This again contradicts the RECEIPT FOR THAT FORMAL representation in 4.

    Exhibit ( The receipt, because Winter anticipated what was going to happen, silly him). ( lores, hires)


  1. The Council maintains that it has therefore acted correctly in serving the Charge Certificate

    This IS contradicted BY the REPLIES that followed, three days later they 'ACCEPTED' I was right. No admission, they don't admit anything remember?

  2. after you have been served with an Order for Recovery, which will be issued very shortly.

    This IS contradicted BY the replies from the TRAFFIC enforcement Centre, NO debt registration had been made. FIRST they would have to depose under a global statement of TRUTH - What's that? I know what it is, do they? It's where one declares all the omissions have been fulfilled and proceeds to enforce a debt that is an allegation not YET made into a debt by a supposed court like PATAS. This process can take between 2 and 6 months.

    While they were telling me this, I was checking with Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) each week to monitor progress, and see IF they would swear a global declaration of truth that was a falsity! Each week's reply was similar, and this was the third week in.

    Exhibit 4. (email text)
    To: "'A............Winter'" <@btinternet>
    Subject: RE: FAO Helena Parker
    Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 08:01:19 +0100
    From: "CCBC Customer Service, Tec" <Customerservice.tec@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk>

    Hello
    This case has still not been registered with the TEC
    Thank you”

    Bryan Sparkes
    TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT CENTRE ( Brian Sparkes )
    Northampton Bulk Centre.

    The contradiction, here is with another judicial body.

  3. The Council will of course be defending its position

    This IS contradicted BY my invitation to the solicitor and acting head lawyer, to come to court, when they disappeared under the shelter of the vicarious umbrella, and another team came on to the stage. There was NO defence, but be sure, they think they made a FIST of it.

Preparing our substantial response can you please call it off Winter?

    What comes out is they ask if I agree or otherwise to discontinue my claim since they cancelled the PCN, Lord oh lord! AFTER Winter had his life threatened, lost 3 stone in weight in three months, checking in and out of hospital, and has a 1 – 2 year period of recovery that is remains unfinished. Such fun for who? SORREEEEEEEE!


Important comment.


The above letter constituted an admission of that allegation. Can you think why?

IF it were true “no stage have we received any representationsThen the allegation; they never posted me an appeal and notice of rejection, was correct, since they had NO representation that would trigger such an issue or service of these two key documents. These are their words! They just said they never received any representation so it would mean they had NO TRIGGER letter to send out these documents. CAUGHT in a web of their own creation that couldn't even fathom out the first contradiction, let alone this clear admission that is an unambiguous inference from their OWN CONTEXT.


All in all , a charming letter from a council supposed to adhere to a lovely code of conduct that inspire its readers, and informs their minds that ALL is just charming.


This is just the beginning. I have tried to give you an insight to the general forms of what are delivered as 'rebuttable presumptions in economic economic truths with implied falsities. This will unfold so you can see how the minds of mendacity work for revenue.

(top)

Relevant exhibits thus far only

Exhibit 1 (The 'admit nothing deny everything' letter). ( lores, hires)

Exhibit 2 (The 'we are going to prepare a substantive response letter, that was denied). ( lores, hires)

Exhibit 3 ( The receipt, because Winter anticipated what was going to happen, silly him). ( lores, hires)

Exhibit 5 (The admission 7 words buried, as usual in 2 pages of distraction). ( lores, hires)



Some background context to add to the fun of it all, and prepare for the next install meant!

TO Camden Council.

Exhibit. First paragraph of the claimant's long letter of 8th September.

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 willful 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.

What did their letter above in denial mean? VERY VERY SIMPLE.
Exhibit. In the claimant's lengthy reply to this on 5th Oct 2006, Camden Council.

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).

Reasoning:

Examination of Exhibit 1, meant that if they had “at no stage received any representation” then it followed they had unwittingly admitted not sending a Notice of Rejection & Appeal form, by implication, since they had NO 'TRIGGER' LETTER TO REPLY TO, that's what they had just stated most emphatically in denial of truth.

Hence the admission of EXHIBIT 5 was unavoidable, unless they wanted to continue the denials and get in deeper trouble.


Exhibit 5.
11 October 2006
CLS/LIT/CM/1025151
Department of Law and Administration
Mr A. H. Winter
We have now met with our instructing department, who have reviewed all correspondence received from you in light of your email of 6 October, and in particular your reference to a receipt obtained from Parking Solutions (date stamped 21 July 2006). We thank you for providing us with a copy of same.

It is now accepted that you did in fact deliver formal representations to Parking Solutions, together with the signed declaration on the reserve Notice to Owner on 21 July”.

THIS review by the way took just 3 DAYS to complete. Interesting how truth comes out fast, as I warned them, and crafted letters take 24 days longer!
All this travail, and they just 'accept' the truth they knew all along, is that what I get?

Comment 1, who have reviewed all”

Clearly this implies that the previous 'review' examined only the items of interest to the PCN solutions dept. Those items relevant to the representation were OMITTED, in wilful negligence, not simple negligence. After all, how can you make eight errors, eight false representations and contradictions without being aware. Totalling 16, In one letter! How does one do that with professionals all working hard at it, to ensure lawfulness and truthfulness.?


From here: It gets much worse............. When you see the whole picture you will find difficulty to deny it was a heavy pack o' flies.

QUESTIONS:

THIS SINGLE letter alone:

1 - Does it attempt; Fraud by false representation?


(1) A person is in breach of this section if he-
(a) dishonestly
makes a false representation, and
(b)
intends, by making the representation-
(i)
to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or
to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2) A representation is false if-
(a) it is
untrue or misleading,

Simple, Fraud Act 2006;
If you thin the letter is truthful, and not designed to make a GAIN, and place Winter at a loss, tha you must be thinking it was a simple chatter letter fo banter.

Otherwise this was the fifth in the series at FRAUD. I trust that is clear.


2 - Does it cause or attempt to cause Winter, vexation or alarm, and this is within the meaning of the Offence of Harassment Act then again this is all just mild chat from the legal department, or else it is the 5th letter in a series of letters that are the offence of Harassment. TWO are sufficient to render a claim in the court.


3 – Does it give Winter his fundamental Human rights, that Britain stands proudly boasting to the world, it (b)leads on. IE, a fair and public trial within a reasonable time? Winter has not yet had a proper hearing! If you think Winter has had his fair and public hearing, then Camden Council do FULLY uphold the Human rights ACT, or do they simply ACT THAT THEY DO? The Judge said Winter has NOT yet had his rights under Magna Carta, and the EU Convention respected. FORGET about the Bill of Rights, that is a bill o'frights, all councils and government want to bury, but they are having difficulty in that, because it has NOT been expressly repealed, AND the DVLA are still governed by it, AND the principle is identical with the EU HR convention with the ONLY difference that the trial in the BOR must be BEFORE a forfeit, whereas in eh EH HR, it can be afterwards --- AFTER all the damage has been done. Forget about fines and forfeits not being civil penalties and distraints, THEY ALL SUBTRACT from the individual, and the word AWARDS is for the simple minded who think punishment is an award. Or benefit.


All the other acts were similarly breached, BUT Camden Council have ten million pounds to reign in that is unlawful, so all the pally courts are there to help them out, where they can. Winter's case was one of a few; since he argued personally, that got the Judge's keen ear. In others he watchedm, the Judges did all they could to obstruct. The letters written tot hos e judges are to be published.


A note on Camden Council sem-antics.


  1. If you ask Camden Council about the ticket being unlawful they say our tickets are 'VALID'; confuse you.

  2. Is the ticket a penalty? Camden Council states it is an AWARD; to distract you.

  3. If you send Camden Council a representation, as you have seen, they call it emails, and correspondence; to fail you on the first..

  4. If you send Camden Council a CLAIM form, they reply that your are seeking re-assurance. To translate your notices to submissions..

  5. If you advise Camden Council you are claiming for harassment, they will replie you should not get harassment WHILE and DURING you are exercising your rights (that Camden Council disrespects). Otherwise expect it. To set a standard for irritation.

  6. If you ask Camden Council where is the second date on their old pre Aug 2006 PCNs, they come up with two senses that create new cloned references. It's impossible. Every sense that refers to a unique event, creates new events.

  7. If you ask Camden Council for your money back, they will not have heard of the statute of limitations, and mistake of fact /law. To block.

  8. Every word you state that corresponds with a statute, Camden Council have another palliation term for it so as to avoid any word that admits anything, always a different word in extenuation. To enforce their philosophy as ADMIT NOTHING DENY EVERYTHING.

  9. If you get Camden Council in a Contradiction, one of twenty, they will ACCEPT you are right, but never ADMIT it, so guilt is denied.

  10. If you allege something against Camden Council, they will replie they have NOTED your comments. To admit nothing.

  11. Ask Camden Council if they received your 'letter', they will say NO, having in mind they received your 'representation'. EVERY sense of a word for you is different to a word for them so they admit nothing and deny everything. So YOU failed to do what is required.

  12. If the letter that have you is sent was by EMAIL, then they haven't received it, because you didn't send it by mail, and if you didn't record it, then it's as you have guessed. DENIABLE.

  13. The list is endless, the philosophy is senseless..



NEXT: What did the Charge Certificate (CC) state? Another nice bit of fun.

You are receiving this CC because Either you did not pay OR you did not appeal. Clever stuff, both assertions absolutely ????????? Guess. Coming next. Click here.