Force of Destiny

2000+ Free world Best Books

Logic Law

Bernini___THIS is a FREE site, and ALL such cases get posted with credit to their originators and helpers.___Bernini

Restitution Case ARGUMENTS. MUCH MORE COMING - Go to index


They must surely be the leading misleading parking solutions council in the UK.
LOOK here. For PATAS rulings against CAMDEN.

Scandal at Camden and lots more coming. Bolton under SIEGE.

Islington, Hillingdon and Waltham Forest PCNs Moving traffic PCNs unlawful.

The implication is that they can be challenged on the basis of their wording November 6th, 2007

Press release CAMDEN's PCNs declared illegal here.... AND here.

Restitution. PCNs County Court orders restitution of £2500

Against Bexley County Council.


WHAT is more important than this comment by a Judge against CAMDEN Council, and its contrary being found in what is being done by them and nationwide?

6. Mr. Justice McCullough in his judgement Regina v Camden Borough Council ex parte Mark Dyson, Gordon Cram and Others[2] examines the policy and objects of the 1984 Act. The observes (at p23) “Doing this [viz looking at the objectives of the 1984 Act] makes clear that the 1984 Act is not a fiscal measure. It contains no provision which suggests that Parliament intended to authorise a council to raise income by using its powers to designate parking places on the highway and to charge for their use. To adapt words used by Nolan LJ in R v Manchester City Council ex p King (1991) 89 LGR 696 at 712, had this been the intention of Parliament to the extent of the fund-raising powers conferred on the council would be enormous, since they have a monopoly over the granting of permits for on-street parking within their area and would have golden opportunities to augment their revenue…(at p24). All its provisions, leaving aside section 55(4) for the moment, are concerned in one way or another with the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of traffic and the provision of suitable and adequate parking facilities on and off the highway. This is reflected in the wording of section 122(1). There is its policy; there are its objects”. McCullough observes (at p34) that the fact that the 1984 Act is not a revenue raising Act. Where there is ambiguity the citizen is not to be taxed unless the language of the legislation clearly imposes the obligation”.

And now a few COMMENTS! Sound bites Of the Day.

OXFORD CC “The figure was not a target or quota,” Mr Dix added,

And a Camden equi vocater in the press recently said “The figures are NOT targets”, they are “baseline performance indicators”, and promptly changed that name when it had been realised that the two expressions were different SENSES of the same reference.
What is not more obvious than under lying semantics that answer with a thing is NOT?

To say that a thing is not is the guessing game of you try and find the sense I am using for thee SAME expression, namely “baseline performance indicators”, or a new term that keeps changing to be ahead of the SENSELESS game.

Or as I recall having seen recently from an open and public hearing, OXFORD PCN case, where it was claimed they had issued an;
UNLAWFUL PCN, Notice to Owner, and Charge Certificate.

They swore an economic statement of truth saying;
“We issued a PCN, Notice to Owner, and Charge Certificate.

Now that's how to tell an economic truth that imp lies a falsity. Subtract the essential qualifying adjective UNLAWFUL, and then get away with truth that implies a falsity. Clever semantic children!

Stop Press BOLTON, ESSEX, and Edinburgh £6.5m parking tickets are cancelled ....

as they did not bear both the date of issue and date of offence as required by UK law.

PCN for Mr. Dry Cleaner. No such person but had to pay.

This page will be changed and very substantially increased over the next 7 days.

Tony, has several hundred pages to submit, with a core of 20-30.

Many quasi judicial authorities cannot rule in areas that are ultra vires to their powers,

so apart from the Road Traffic Act, where your rights are breached under many other

statutes by provocation, out of procedural skipping, proportionality and more,

the best place to seek a remedy is the court or Judicial Review.

The originator prefers to not be in the lime light, and I understand.

Bringing together the ideas for this success will be the change, and they will be

henceforth attributed to JD, if you like John Doe.

The first insight to where proper identification of your rights in a whole area

of other statutes that can be breached collaterally is John Doe link in the menu below.

Schedule 6 is a serious area of maladministration and malfeasances.

A case has been won involving several parking tickets dating back to

2001, 2002 and 2003 that have been ordered to be REPAID with interest.

A serious balance of justice has been struck as a precedent of value and insight for all oppressed motorist

treated unfairly under Borough's invidious enforcement

regime penalising people for TRIVIA while trivialising their own contraventions.

Originating credit goes , Barrie Segal, The Honourable Judge, Wayne Pendle, Teufel & others.

Older paid PCN's that are illegal under Barrei Segal's

Barnet V Moses case can be reclaimed under the SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

These are now John Doe's pages.

Index to sections...

The main principles...................................... Tony's comments One, Two, Three.

Main Letter.

Wayne Pendle

Lead in historical notes -1, notes - 2,

Originating Pepipoo thread.


John Doe

A new case here, more details coming. BEXLEY Restitution of £2500.

The main principles brought together, plus others than be added to strengthen further.

The arguments in contention are:

  1. Which is the correct forum to make such a claim? Where a PCN has been paid......

      • The county court, but the borough will argue otherwise.

      • If you arrive at the County court because of representations rejected at TEC then the forum is correctly that of the Court, this is the natural and free route to a final judicial location.

      • If you arrive at the County Court by the above route, using a statutory declaration in or out of time this still applies, but an out of time statutory declaration can be met with an argument that is it unreasonable to allow the declaration out of time at the court. This can be rebutted particularly where a notice of registration AND statutory declaration had NOT been served on you IN TIME. And this has been known to happen too often. At court the claimant, council, must be put to proof of service, otherwise the issue, or asserted service cannot be cogently challenged, but the burden of proof is on the claimant – council.

      • There are time limits for a review at PATAS or NPAS that make it difficult to return to those forums. Essentially you need to understand that the council; the possessor of the appeal forms, controls this contact you have with the court. The council prefers to avoid its procedural defects being exposed at any of the courts, PATAS, TEC or County. This can mean the case languishing indefinitely in the ambit of the council's control with no resolution, which they do not mind. IF they fail in their duties to serve you with appeals at stages SCHEDULE 6 and CPR 75.3, then they breach statute, your rights grow into offences under the human rights act.

      • To treat this argument you may wish to examine these PATAS rulings, as well as others.

      • Lavall v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Case No. 2040135996. here.

      • Strauss v Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea. Case NO.2050448466 29th July 2006. here.

      • In general terms Patas can only rule within articles of the RTA 1991, not on issues like the PCN validity itself or things limit the time that permit claims to be made in court, otherwise there is probably an infringement of the Human Rights Act. In the County Court the statute of limitations permits up to 6 years redress. At the Traffic Enforcement Centre, TEC, there is apparently no time limit, but this may have been the result of information provided me, by a party who didn't know for sure. Certainly the 6 year principle ought to be enough. The TEC phone line and URL is available here.

    Where a PCN has NOT been paid...... there is another argument that prevents an appeal, and compels a court hearing. If a party wishes to know this, they will need to write to the author at the email on the home main pages. It may involve a short telephone call, and bit of writing at this time. The writer will partake in doing the text for you, for a nominal donation to the website of £3-5. since this is all supported by out of pocket expenses. Let us see what is needed first, then. This can be done here.

  1. How far back in time can one go.

      • Six years under the statute of limitations.

  2. What are the grounds for the claim.

      • Many are available, the one used in this case was the Moses V Barnet case, Justice Jackon's ruling which is here with highlights.

      • Others are many under procedural defects about which a section will open here shortly. It is the major area of abuse in today's enforcement regime. Schedule 6 of the RTA 1991, available here.

      • I suggest that if you proceed to ask for a refund under some of the above notions, then try the TEC route first. It's free, and if you download a PE2 / PE3 form, that is a late statutory declaration, then when filling that in, you can achieve the case being returned to the originating borough as a first part. Then the borough has a duty to respond within 20 days, to TEC if they wish to defend the arguments, you will find several cases showing how this is done

      • A Dry Cleaner V Camden here. Plus Wayne Pendle and Sam Stockman v Havering here.

An example similar to the original letter that did it all. Top.

John Doe


A Borough

In the UK.


Sometime around the beginning of November 2006

Re: John Doe.

Claim no. CD4376???

Dear Judge E.............

This claim is for restitution of several parking tickets paid for by mistake, under the belief they were legal.

The details are as follows:

1. PCN 1032333

1. PCN 1232367

1. PCN 1340011


Another car

PCN 64913428 23rd April 2006

Evidence of payment is submitted herewith.

The claimant is requesting the amount for 3 parking tickets at the paid amount of £40 each, plus interest and the court fee, as the claimant had to issue proceedings where the defendant resolved to defend.

£182.00 Total. (including interest at the rate of .08%

The mistake occurred when the council placed the respective PCN's on the vehicles demanding the amount of £40 to be paid.

The PCN Notices purported to be valid and issued under the Road Traffic Act 1991. However these were not notices as they failed to conform to the requirements of the regulations, (IE: section 66, parts (a – e) in that they did not specify a date of issue (or alternatively a date of notice).

Since the are / were invalid, they are nullities, ie; they are legally null and void, and as such cannot trigger subsequent enforceable action, hence the demand for payment was invalid.

At the releavnt times I was unaware of this, and thus induced by the offial nature of the docuemtns to make payment to the Council, for which I am now seeking reparation for the loss. ie; restitution.

With the benefit of a definitive ruling by Mr. Justice Jackson of 2nd August 2006 in Barnet v Parking Adjudicator(2006) EWHC 2357(Admin) on the statutory requirements of such PCNs, and consequences of their failure to comply with statute, being that no financial liability arises, the payment was a 'mistake of fact'.

For support and particular focus on the relevant parts of the ruling I would simply draw attention to the following paragraphs.

35. The date of the notice will usually be the same as the date of contravention but this is not always the case.

36. It seems to me that section 66 requires two dates to be stated on a PCN. These are the date of the contravention and the date of the notice.

41. If the statutory conditions are not met, then the financial liability does not arise.

42. Accordingly, the requirements of section 66 were not satisfied and no financial liability was triggered either by the PCN or by any subsequent stage in the process such as the notice to owner.

Yours faithfully,

John Doe.

Cc A Local Borough Council

In advance of today I sent copies of Judge Jackson's ruling and other documents re the county court being the right forum i.e. Strauss etc above.

The judge just referred to Judge Jackson's ruling. He said that he thought it quite straightforward - he said

a 'mistake of fact'.

He didn't allow the council to have an adjournment. The council said that they had employed a barrister, who won the Tunbridge wells case by saying that the county court wasn't the right forum,and that he needed an hour and a half.

The judge said that he had justification and could rule on this. He said that the council should pay me the pcns that I had already paid plus costs plus 8% interest.

Plus the council asked permission to appeal and the judge denied them permission to appeal.

I didn't have to say anything that I'd planned to say, the judge simply seemed satisfied with Judge Jackson's ruling and judged it according to that.

( Our thanks to Mr. John Doe. )

You should feel very proud of yourself. Although you didn't have to say much, you went up against a Council and won.

credit to

"Term: mistake of fact

1. A classic instance of a mistake of fact is where two persons believe they are married and in reliance of this fact, enter into a settlement agreement dealing with property. As the settlement agreement is premised on the existence of the marriage, it is void.

Money paid due to a mistake of fact may be recovered by the payer as with payment made under a mistake of law.

Usage: The mistake of fact rendered the agreement void.

Related Words: mistake of fact; mistake of law; mutual mistake; unilateral mistake; contract; rectification; non est factum."

" spoke to the councils solicitor before we went into the court and she said to me, 'do you understand that we are just requesting an adjournment today?' I was expecting it to just be adjourned"

How does the Council's solicitor feel with a well and truly bitten a???. Sheer arrogance which if she were to have a tail, would be well and truly be between her legs.

Wayne Pendle

Wed, 25 Oct 2006 - 22:01 Post #17

Hi, I've written to the council asking them for information for parking tickets that they have issued me over the last six years.

They posted me this information for free.

I then wrote to them asking them to refund me for these tickets based on Al Bars etc as they had no date of issue on them.

They wrote back saying I had admitted liability by paying, I wrote to them again, no response, so I took them to the small claims court on line. I have completed the allocation questionnaire weeks ago and I have just got the date for the hearing on the 24th November 2006

Yesterday, 18:27 (24th Nov 2006).

I think this is what you mean by particulars of the claim?

I used the model letter claiming restitution on this site where I also asked for help re the councils amended defence.

Thanks a lot to Teufel who really helped me out with this!!!! and thanks to this site, I have won.

Then I downloaded documents relating to the county court being the right forum i.e. Strauss v Patas etc above, the sites are on the Model letter for restitution post, and sent all the documents and the accompanying letter to the court and the council. The court instructed that I do this at least 14 days before the court date. The council was meant to send me any documentation that they intended using in court but I didn't receive anything from them.

I spoke to the councils solicitor before we went into the court and she said to me, 'do you understand that we are just requesting an adjournment today?' I was expecting it to just be adjourned.

The judge didn't even seem to be bothered with any documentation other than the Judge Jackson ruling. Is this what you mean by particulars of claim? If not, let me know, and ill post it.

Tony Medusa, you can put it on any site you like. I've had a look at your site, I cant work out where to put what. You do it for me I think. Thanks

Peterb. is that your skeleton, been to court for refunds, going again, I think that is the case that the council was saying they had won in Tunbridge wells based on abuse of process, wrong forum? That really helped me prepare for my case though in the end I hardly said a word.

There are several things at work here, and it's a serious lever, bridle and fetter for both present harassment and past illegalities. Sorry “out of procedure irregularities” sounds better now! Where your contraventions do not pass through the filter of semantics to become nicely presented fish on the supermarket table.

Although good nose will smell it out straight away.

  1. The statute of limitations covers 6 years. Thanks to the Judge

  2. mistake of fact” thanks to the Judge and Wayne

  3. The necessary old paperwork. Did mum keep the papers.

  4. This is a case precedent, but take care to be sure the Jackson's ruling would work for you.

  5. Whatever the situation, the boroughs are arrogant enough to increase the pressure and they are moving into 'moving traffic contraventions' fast, as a whole new area of plunder and revenue. Sorry it's called an “excellent firm and fair service”...... to mankind!

I suggest that a wholesale move to rebut this awful unlawful attack by repeal of the rights we had in the declaration of rights 1669, where

ALL fines and forfeitures are illegal before a trial” became

ALL fines and forfeitures WERE illegal before a trial”

having been de facto repealed within the frame of Parliament's Sovereignty (that rests in the electorate ........);

is to seek restitution, and simultaneously water down that profit centre that is enrichment with untenable argument in legal cause, but near certainty of moral bankruptcy in tenable argument.

The trouble is you can't argue morals in court, so the only place to rely on is statute for those arguments and there are plenty to be found.....Reasonableness, Proportionality, Unreasonableness, Duty of care in tort, Harassment and more. some are here at case law and here at maxims and any who have more please send them for inclusion.

Many UK penalty charge notices over the past 6 years have been non complaint, so if you are a good hoarder of paperwork it means going back to your cupboard can recover some bits of paper with value like in FLOG IT.

The world belongs to you, and there is still a bit left to express your views.. carefully.

We cannot rely on the law to correct injustice through an adversarial system where the powerful defeat the weak? We all have to become lawyers, and then the lawyers will have to become surgeons because surgeons are too busy correcting bad faith in Hippocritic oaths, where they, the surgeons, took the Hippocratic oath and imagined they could rely on the lawyers doing likewise. Thinking.......


The standard argument that succeed with embellishments.

The defendant firmly believes the Patas and county court case laws below resolve the issue of

  1. 'correct' forum' and

  2. PCN formulation

unequivocally and unambiguously. The defendant does not have the benefit of the transcript in the Southend-on-sea case, but a call to the court would resolve the issue in a few minutes.-

The argument that a case belongs to a difference forum and not a county court is rebutted in the following two cases,

  1. Lavall v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Case No. 2040135996.

  2. Strauss v Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea. Case NO.2050448466 29th July 2006.

  3. Whatever the case, it is the view of the party arguing that if jurisdiction is held to be in many cases at PATAS, that does NOT preclude jurisdiction being in the County Court where further issues of collateral breaches in other statutes occurred, for example where the council has pursued a course of conduct amounting to an offence of harassment, breach of tort, breach of human rights denying a hearing (that results from skipping and ghost procedures by way of omission to issue a notice of rejecting and obtaining a charge certificate out of procedure and hence illegally). If an offence of harassment has been carried out, then that would preclude the case being one that can be brought at PATS, the author of this part, is at present in the local CC for precisely such a case.

  4. Maladministration, nonfeasance, misfeasance and malfeasance are all collateral challenges whose pursuit are outside the Road Traffic Act 1991, and hence for the Local Government Ombudsman; a weaker quasi judicial institution with unsound reasoning, and constricted powers, (for example they are only able to investigate Maladministration where there is injustice, such a notion is risible, arguing that Maladministration per se, or on its own right is not a matter for their investigative powers, and the Standard Board of England fails to close the gap), in this author's experience, and hence the county court is the only cogent option for grievous cases.

And is supported in the following, should the Court require corroboration this is so, then a ruling argument was used, in Southend on Sea,

??th November ????

Re: ??????????? v Southend-on-sea Borough Council.

Claim no. ???????

In front of Judge Edgington,

Case time about 10-15 minutes.

Two of his comments were

he had jurisdiction and could rule on this”, “it was a mistake of fact”

The learned Judge relied on the Justice Jackson Ruling of 2nd August 2006, and then proceeded to rule on an issue of restitution, where for certainty Justice Jackson said without ambiguity the parts extracted hereunder, in the footnote *1

With the benefit of the above rulings the matter should be easily resolved and the cause of issue be allowed to proceed in the local CC. Should the learned Judge in Oxford County Court rule to the contrary of the three rulings adduced above, it would result in a contradiction of rulings between two county courts. It seems unfair that the defendant be denied justice, within the well understood meaning of the word in Magna Carta, “To none will we deny justice” and run contrary to the principle of fairness in CPR rules 1.1-1.4 furthering the objective to maintain the parties on an equal footing.

From it, what can be plainer than?

  1. a PCN requires two dates to be compliant, ” two dates to be stated on a PCN” AND

  2. the requirements of section 66 were not satisfied and no financial liability was triggered either by the PCN or by any subsequent stage in the process such as the notice to owner.”

In the case of PCN formulations where there is only one date, but no date of contravention which leaves open the possibility that the contravention may have taken place much earlier, perhaps 6 hours for example, where the motorist could have a perfectly valid alibi for being somewhere else..

The PCN non compliance alone causes a cascade failure to each other document in the process, but in addition, each of the other documents has its own flaws in compliance and falls on similar grounds that shall be further adduced.

In an argument where the contention is the motorist has been served with a PCN, and the qualification fo the legality is willfully omitted in semantic spin constructions.... it can be contended that

The claimant is defending the PCN wording on part of a fallacy known as “fallacy of composition” where the properties of the whole cannot be inferred from a constituent part. The CRITICAL part of the terminology in LEGAL PCN, has been reduced to the sui generis whole of a class of PCNs. The claimant is trying to adduce a piece of paper that has the words PCN and penalty charge notice printed, can alone purport to be a PCN without other compliance in statute qualifies for use in a court of law. The PCN in question does NOT as per the High Court ruling, have the quality and essential attribute of legality from the reason stated in the JR ruling.

By subtraction of the critically relevant qualification of the term 'legal' from the defendant's definition of a PCN, the claimant has rendered ?????? County PCNs, a contrariety towards the Justice Jackson ruling. This is semantic spin in an attempt to defy logic and sound reasoning. The defendant can adduce more cogent reasoning under the calculus of logic to show for all avoidance of doubt why such an argument is untenable if put to it, but the aforesaid should be more than sufficient.

To persist in the illogicality is to run against the principles and duties of rationality.

The second law of thought; excluded middle, is irrefutable in that “either a PCN is complaint or not complaint”, in the same way as the first law of identity excludes the possibility of 99 being substantially 100 since they are clearly non identical. To confer substantial, is to confer flexibility in the councils responsibilities under the law where thy confer only strictness in enforcement and will show clear bias.

Duty not to be irrational.

Bromley and London Borough Council v Greater London Council (1983) Lord Diplock "Decisions that, looked at objectively, are so devoid of any plausible justification that no reasonable body of persons could have reached".

Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985) Lord Diplock "By irrationality I mean what can now be succinctly referred to as Wednesbury unreasonableness ............. it applies to a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it."

R v Housing Benefit Review Board of London Borough of Sutton ex parte Keegan (1995) Conclusion "was arrived at in the teeth of the evidence and was accordingly Wednesbury unreasonable"

Footnote *1.

J. Jackson Transcript.

Footnote *1.

From the HC JR review Justice Jackson.

23. In the case of Moulder v Sutton LBC (PATAS Case No 1940113243, 24 May 1995), an Adjudicator found the PCN in that case to be a nullity because it omitted the statement required by section 66(3)(e). Yet it seems that invalid PCNs are still being issued, as both this case and Sutton v London Borough of Camden show. { District Judge Wigfield in Sutton v London Borough of Camden (In the Central London County Court Case No: BT106545) }

23. Last part, I conclude that Mr Thorne was correct to find as he did that the PCNs in these appeals were not compliant and could not be enforced."

35. The date of the notice will usually be the same as the date of contravention but this is not always the case.

36 It seems to me that section 66 requires two dates to be stated on a PCN. These are the date of the contravention and the date of the notice. The need for both dates to be stated has been stressed by Parking Adjudicators on more than one occasion.

42...the requirements of section 66 were not satisfied and no financial liability was triggered either by the PCN or by any subsequent stage in the process such as the notice to owner.

The defendant avers that the PCN is non complaint and there is no meritorious distinction even in a putative attempt at substantial compliance since one cannot logically or empirically extrapolate two different dates from ONE date where several senses may be utilised. It is simply illogical, (Frege “sense and reference”)


JD 1 Collateral issues.

The list below is not exhaustive, but only ACTs 1. and 2. are those ruled on properly at PATAS or NPAS.

Even those bodies are not impartial and several rulings have been identified, that belong to the category they cannot rule on, and where they have attempted it the result is their ruling is in favour of the councils, their funding source.

The categories for representation fit this principle......

Truth, the Whole truth and Nothing but..', is best,
While 'Truth and Nothing but..', leaves out the rest.

Law – By Questor ©

They are ring fenced like blinkers on a horse, in short focusing your eyes ahead only and not elsewhere.

Looking elsewhere, you can consider these as breaches delivered to you on a daily basis with these logic gate parking tickets. By this is meant that the procedure intra vires at PATAS and NPAS, is like a flowchart of logic gates, either YES or NO. Did the contravention occur YES or NO, If NO, then your in luck, if YES then duck.

If you were stung by a bee, broke down, stopped by a policeman out of view of the cameras, died at the wheel, or simple dtopped to let somebody down, it's a contravention.

  1. The Road Traffic Act 1991, section 66 – (3) (c),(d),(e), plus attempt at section 70, ( JR ?)

  2. The Road Traffic Act 1991, SCHEDULE 6.—2. (7), (a), (b), 4. (a), (b), (c), 5. (1), (2), (3). and 6.—(1), (2) (a),(b),(c), (3). and 7. (this is the new area of focus now that PCN validity has been traversed).

  3. Disability Discrimination Act 2005 Chapter 13, part 2, part 5, 21B – 1, 21E Duties for purposes 1. -(b), 4. (c), (d) and 49A General duty parts -1. (a), (b), (c), (d), (e)

  4. Protection from Harassment Act 1997, Chapter 40, 1. - (1), (a), (b)

  5. Human Rights Act 1998 (UK) Chapter 42, 6. - (1), and (6) "An act" includes a failure to act, plus Derogations. 14. - (1),

  6. The European convention on Human Rights, Protocol 5, Article 6, Article 8, parts 1, and 2, Article 14.

  7. Tort, Breach of Statutory duties,Negligence in the above recitals, - duty of care imposed by compliance with, not breach of duty of care arising from the purpose of the paragraphs 1-5 above, and that this duty passes the three stage Caparo test and Wednesbury principles.

  8. Magna Carta. Relevant clauses 39, 40. as collateral constitutional declarations & principles,

  9. Declaration and Bill of Rights 1668-9, relevant tenet. Where it will be shown that there ARE TWO de facto contrarieties of de jure constitutional declarations that are as close to the pure form as contradictions as to make present rulings at PATAS logically untenable.

  10. The Administration of Justice Act 1970 S.40, 1:-- (1),(a), d. (2). Preceding 3. above in time.

  11. Freedom of Information Act 2000. 10. - (1).

  12. Misrepresentation Act 1967, in general terms, negligent and fraudulent.

  13. One other Act, to come shortly.

  14. Deposing false statements and allegations, - as truths.

  15. Malfeasance.


Restitution. PCNs County Court orders restitution of £2500 against Bexley County Council.

20 parking tickets to be repaid in 14 days.
A little encouragement, have a look at this one.

Please note a schema is being prepared for all those seeking restitution taking the Southed on sea and Bexley cases as examples. Several Camden fallacious arguments will be examined with all the case arguments and links prepared for you: Preview (wait for the picture to load, until you see the box to enlarge). Click HERE.

THE WHOLE case is being released now DEC 02 2007... Look here.....

More useful material

Bexley County Court Restitution case. £2500 repaid.

Copy of Council's skeleton arguments coming also

AS at Sun, 2 Dec 2007 the case material is about 50-60% ready, and it will be launched in the next few days, even if not quite finished. It is the second restitution case, of which the first case was Southend on Sea. Located here;

Loads of useful statutes here, and case law snippets (courtesy of Trevor Nunn) here.

And more here;

Just got back from Dartford County Court on a 2 dates issue against London Borough of Bexley:

The history is at:

Anyway the long and the short of it is I won
Restitution for 28 already paid tickets, total amount inc. costs = 2500 with 14 days to pay!
I need to get my head around things and I have a few other things to do so I will go into detail later.
Main things were JR/Barnet and Winder vs Wandsworth.

Many thanks to Wayne P, Tony W, Teufel, DW190, Legaladviser and others.

Now for a cup of tea!

Details here.

and the link therein.

Camden loses a CCTV camera case, worth £1 million pounds. But they never admit anything. Standard procedure to avoid liability.
Admit nothing and deny everything! Integrity, Lawfulness, Truthfulness, Sincerity, What on earth is that?
One day, someone will bring them to account.

Details here.


By courtesy and permission of Money Box Junction

Finally, after many unsuccessful attempts we have managed to get an Adjudicator to rule on the wording of an Islington moving traffic PCN. The appeal was allowed. All Islington moving traffic PCNs issued since early December 2006 are unlawful.

The Adjudicator’s reasons were simple. If the legislation says something must be stated on the PCN then it is a mandatory requirement. Ignore it or modify it at your peril.

This was no snap decision either. The Adjudicator reserved his decision so that he could go away and think about it and, presumably, consult his colleagues.

The implication is that Islington, Hillingdon and Waltham Forest PCNs are unlawful and can be challenged on the basis of their wording. There may be other councils I am not aware of.

If you have a PCN that says it should be paid within 28 days of “date or service” or “date of delivery” then it is unlawful. What it should say is 28 days from the “date of the notice” i.e. the date it was issued (and hopefully posted first class).

So, if you have just received a PCN with the incorrect wording then challenge it quoting PATAS case 2070445427 Pulp Faction Recycling –v- Islington.

If you have a pending appeal hearing, then change your case to include this factor as grounds for cancellation of the PCN. You are allowed to change your appeal right up to the date of the hearing.

If you have recently lost an appeal then you can apply for a review on the grounds of new evidence. If you lost an appeal some time ago you can try to submit a late Statutory Declaration which may get the case back to PATAS for review.

If you paid the PCN then I’m sorry…

There is a lot of work going on behind the scenes in the courts to establish grounds for restitution (reimbursement for invalid PCNS). It is possible that councils have acted fraudulently or could be charged with malfeasance in public office, but both of those are large legal mountains to climb.

I will keep you apprised of developments.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: If Local Authorities want motorists to obey the law, then they must also obey the law. Simple init?

This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 6th, 2007 at 8:07 am and is filed under Hillingdon, Islington, PATAS, Waltham Forest. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Comment, This actually is adverse in timing since the PCN may be served late, and shorten the time for payment.