Your complaint was that you suffered injustice because Transport for London issued
you with a Penalty Charge Notice when it alleged you had parked illegally. It was
Mr Moriarty's view that as Transport for London had cancelled the PCN at the representation
stage you had not suffered an injustice sufficient to warrant a formal investigation
Having considered everything you have to say, I see nothing to suggest Mr Moriarty's
decision was wrong. I am sorry to disappoint you, butI do not consider that there
are reasonable grounds for reopening Mr Moriarty's decision of 8 February 2006, which
accordingly must stand. (the old 'res judicata' abuse, sorry excuse)
This letter completes my consideration of the decision on your complaint and I shall
not enter into further correspondence about it. If you do write to my office again
this will be read by my staff and acknowledged only, unless it contains material
new information or you wish to pursue a fresh complaint about another matter. In
either case, my staff will reply to you as appropriate. (DEAL WITH YOU perhaps is
1. Your complaint was that you suffered injustice becauseTransport for London issued
a) OH really is that what he chose to think about, on what was said literally? Actually
it included a complaint that Mr. Moriarty had shown clear inconsistency in reasoning.
YET ANOTHER case of 'ignoratio elenchi,' irrelevant treatise.......... Also cherry
picking which argument to best address and get rid......
2. You appear to be dissatisfied
a) SO appellant wasn't actually he only APPEARED TO BE.
b) At least he didn't say he was, otherwise he would have also been omniscient.
But that was in the past, perhaps he has become so now.
3. Having considered everything you have to say, I see nothing.
a) OH, Myopia yet again?
4. Conclusion.. I shall not, my office , my staff, my staff, as appropriate.
a) Appeal to authority that is entirely fallacious authority.
b) Caught in a contradiction where for a 3.3 SECOND bus lane trivial error, they
awarded Islington the badge of maladministration, but for this gang bang, NO injustice
was delivered! Amused.
c) NOW that's how the top man reasons things out. Advising the appellant of his
high position, and his office staff, therefore...................... go away.