Template letter responses

Two letters to Camden, clamping department & NCP

Main Home This Home







A. H. Winter

.............................

............................

.............................

Tel: .............................

email to: .............................@btinternet.com


S. Clarke

Camden Housing,

Customer services

Copied to NCP Camden also. FAO Ali.


Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:06:55

Ref: AW / 17071926

____________


Dear Madam / Sir,


I refer to a minor issue today re: clamping of my car presently parked in C.............. House. Having spoken to both Neto and IQ in the courtyard at home, and S. Clarke and Ali at Camden and NCP, I wish to thank you very much for:

  1. All the staff on the ground being very courteous and professional, but more particularly humane, sympathetic and understanding.

  2. Special thank to Sylvia for the exemption for the next few days, and Ali likewise.

    1. Sylvia was extremely kind, and patient, listening to the background, that while mitigating the reasons for my recent conduct in arguable contravention showed that in SOME areas of Council conduct, there is the use of discretion, and application of a degree of commitment and duty of care that is VERY unusual.

    2. Neto, IQ, and Ali at NCP also very kind, careful listeners, and respectful in conduct. It so happened that I knew one the them from former times in business, and this was a pleasure.


THANK YOU ALL many times over for this wonderful example of Camden's being the best council of the YEAR in those areas of customer services.






ALAS however in one department alone I have a problem, that remains a failure to reach understanding, and while I wish to avoid litigation under the pre action protocols and court management powers CPR 3,

I need to know that for the rest of my fragile life I shall be free from prejudicial conduct, and thus may have to act in the short term to ensure a longer period of freedom to peacefully go about my quiet existence, in the years of slowed down physical life. Fortunately for me, the disabilities have only affected the physical side of my health, and I remain with strong mental acuity in many areas, especially with relevance here, in specific disciplines of law.

FOR THIS REASON ALONE, I am placing on record the following deposition of how I stand in relation to civil procedures, and my capacity to ensure remedial action if required.


  1. I am a law abiding person, but suffer very badly from a number of immobilising complaints, as well as RBBB Heart related problems, high cholesterol and hypertension. Because of this I have resolved to try very hard to convalesce this next six months in order to turnaround and stop further decline in my conditions. A recent PCN from the parking services department has brought about a conflict situation where that department is under notice of litigation at my discretion and leisure under the offence of harassment act 1997 Chapter 40, 1. - (1), (a), (b).

  2. The background is simply that I wish to be able to go about my remaining years, free from vexatious and prejudicial conduct aimed ruthlessly at revenue driven parking enforcement in the particular area of delivery of tickets for TRIVIA. I carry a blood pressure monitor with me on the few occasions I go to the parks for a break of several hours, and find that I always enter a strokeable area, with BP rising to 230/ 130 on anxieties over parking. These anxieties are a very real threat to my having either a stroke, or heart attack, and thus a threat to my life. I am advising this as at this time, since it is totally unknown to you how some of the enforcements you deliver at the particular edge of this intolerance, can be prejudicial in the extreme to some disabled people. In short I need to be able to live my remaining years, as a law abiding person free from let and hindrance to lawful pursuit of peaceful enjoyment of the facilities at my dispose for the remainder of my years.

  3. In pursuing contraventions at this particularly intolerant area, it is clear and very well attested that delivery of such tickets often take place quite illegally, and in contravention of standards of conduct in Tort law, Codes of practice, and and Human rights legislation under EU HR protocol 5 articles 6,8,13,14, and the UK localised act 1998 sections 6, (a), 7 & 8, quite apart from section 70 of the RTA 1991 and related disability legislation. I have observed a number of cases enforced in the aforesaid manner, illegally, and remedies not sought by members of the public who suffer from an asymmetry of knowledge in this area, where the enforcing authorities know this, and take advantage of it, enforcing with non compliant paperwork in many many cases. Suffice to say there are several precedents in these areas, like Vine V Waltham Forrest 2000, for clamping being a trespass to goods, and exemptions under section 70 of the RTA above for disabilites, despite signage.

  4. In EVERY department of Camden, I have had the most perfectly wonderful relationship with all members of the council staff for over 35 years. At present I have an issue with the PCN enforcement section alone at Camden, where the 3 councilors, Mayor and MP are all perfectly aware, that in seeking my freedom to enjoy my remaining years, free from ruthless enforcement, without mitigation or discretion, at some time during the next 9 months there will be litigation in seeking a remedy from vexatious conduct, (under the aforementioned offence of harassment act , with a focus on the custodial aspect) , and especially where it contravenes other laws that I have evidence of already being breached. I have tried to avoid this by particular area on relevant pre-action protocols at court, and observed so far that when the claim is issued, I am convinced Camden's department of PCN's will be non compliant with the civil procedure rule 31.6 and subsections when it comes to it, this will be very serious matter, and I regard as an obstruction of justice when that remedy is on the table, but in the meantime I am content to allow the ordinary appeal process to proceed under the existing arrangements of Parliament, since I have examined relevant council cases, in PCN complaint paperwork, and find present serious deficiencies. In a separate area of the Declaration of Rights 1668-9 that has been the subject of of appeal dismissal arguments that for me are certainly fallacious, viz Townsend V TfL, and being in the High Court recently observing a Judicial review with an appellant, who unfortunately lacked the requisite academic background on logical forms that would have shown serious inconsistencies. I have prevailed this past 12 years in every action, to the effect that at least I have never had costs, and in many cases received settlement, including the Met Police, CPS and the then PCA, with flawed and perjurous statements, the 2nd largest bank in the world settled with £1650 in four days of the draft claim,and several small and national businesses, such that size for me, is the least reason in forbearance of a claim.

  5. If we can avoid future conflict by circumspect conduct and behaviour towards my rights and freedoms under the law, we shall have no cause for meeting, but otherwise this deposition above should stand as a notice of intent in want of such understanding. Please may I look forward to e period of co-operation therefore? And remain :

Yours Most respectfully, E & O I not EOE.

A. Winter




A. H. Winter

.............................

............................

............................

Tel: .............................

email to: .............................@btinternet.com

S. Clarke

Camden Housing,

Customer services

Copied to NCP Camden also. FAO Ali.


Mon, 28 Aug 2006 19:29:07

Ref: AW / 17071926

____________


Dear Madam / Sir,

Thank you once again for the respite over the bank holiday from S....., Ali and the staff mentioned in my last letter, along with real praise and commendation.


This letter is NOT for you, but intended to be read by the 'directing minds' in the legal departments of both Camden's and NCP's clamping enforcement management team, NOR is it directed at the wonderful staff who are doing their jobs professionally.


I apologise I feel it necessary to write.

I have resolved to pursue the following course of conduct primarily due to the enfeebling and degenerative process of my mobility and heart complaints, because each time I even visit my doctors, I enter a strokable window merely from the anxiety of parking problems, they have the alarming records.


I perceive this situation as being a present and future threat to my health and life, that while I am of sound mind, I intend to resolve the problem sooner rather than later. I wish to live the remainder of my years peaceably, avoiding all areas of conflict, and at the same time, be allowed to enjoy all the facilities of movement around my immediate area of useful life, free from let or hindrance of any odious nature whatsoever. Sometime I cannot achieve this in areas of ruthless pursuit of revenue for trivia, especially where an informal appeal is rejected on strict principle, that can be defeated on the similar grounds. The council's department is guilty of persistence and vexatious conduct even by way of delay and willful omission that is fully perceived. This has to be resolved over the next few years.


Pursuant to avoiding a situation of potential legal conflict, & due to the recent attempt to clamp the vehicle parked adjacent to the stairs and lift in the flats I live in, I have resolved to definitively clarify my rights under the law, so that they should not conflict with the Council's and its policy of enforcement and clamping of vehicles. This has all arisen from a single instance in delivery of a PCN for a SIXTY second contravention locally, to which the PCN enforcement department and the leaders of Camden have taken the resolution to enforce the contravention while at the same time in my view permitting themselves to breach the same and other laws in a manner best suited to the terms “To weed my vice and let their's grow”.


Since the law and its application in this area is extremely strict IN ITS INTERPRETATION for very clear reasons nothing to do with traffic flow in the side street I was, I have resolved to examine statutes that are constantly breached, along with conduct that is inconsistent with the fair use of discretion, compassion and human tolerance that are well known viable grounds for accepting an appeal. Since none of these have been shown me on this issue, I have in that area examined precedent case laws and relevant PATAS rulings to find their tenability and logic wholly fallacious. Thus since enforcements, even in cases, in body of evidence I am gathering, where contraventions are nonexistent or perfectly innocent, I see that enforcement proceeds despite all their efforts to appeal informally, and this persists until proceedings commence at Northampton, and then on formal discovery of innocence, the motorist is absolved. Such cases are reliable evidence of pursuit of revenue despite,and while knowing, the case is unenforceable if truth were permitted, and the appeals process were fairer.


This is an egregiously invidious mode of conduct to fellow members of the innocent community, and those whose offences are alarmingly trivial as well as being your electorate after all said and done. Equally, absolving the innocent AFTER putting them through an atrocious period of avoidable time, trouble and stress, is in my view, criminal conduct and amounts to harassment. To conduct oneself in this light without decent apology, and compensations is equally an injustice, and I perceiver, as well as the fact that statistically, it has to be high in numbers, is a widespread derogation and subtraction of the community. I am of the view a Judge will be seriously concerned at the evidence I have accruing. Notwithstanding this being of course a contrary view with the policy makers. I also find personally I am unable to go about my lawful existence, that involves if possibly two visits to the park, weekly for fresh air and change of perspective, my blood pressure is extremely high due to anxieties associated with the this zero tolerant penal system, such that I cannot stop the vehicle and expect a degree of compassion towards the disabled badge. Indeed there are numerous cases, that show leaving a vehicle perfectly legitimately parked results in a PCN, that is fought with voracious appetite due to the council's and clamper's targets. The press releases concealing this are an increasing trend, stating the opposite are of such obvious semantics, even to these whose critical ability is lacking in this area.


In order you understand me in particular on this issue, I have serious and frequently terrible periods of extreme immobility with considerable pain involved, sometime involving weeks at a time, where I cannot stand up, at all. The entry and exit from these periods are accompanied by periods of growth and abatement that make the mobility periods sufficiently strong for me to need a vehicle very close by, in case I have to go out, which is rare, since the management of this condition is to observe a very recumbent lifestyle.


Therefore the following recital is being made in accordance with Practice Directions Pre-Action Protocol General 1.4 1, (1), (2), (3). to future proceedings to give notice of intent, where there is no forbearance. Please take note of it.


The following is a recital of my views, and some relevant areas of statute I shall rely on through the development of this case already stated towards the PCN & Moving traffic contravention unit, to which the directing minds at the Clamping enforcement section of Camden, AND NCP are now included.


I am stating the following acts as a combination of EU Human Rights, personal rights, Disabled rights I have, and shall neither suffer nor tolerate the slightest infringement of them in pursuit of any revenue driven and prejudicial conduct towards myself, family or property. This strictness is precisely determined by the policy of delivery of Notices where I quote “we can give a PCN the moment a contraventions is observed”. Thus for reasons of my like strictness to each term in the law, look within your own policy, and for shame do NOT ask them of me. .Please note my formal qualifications in no way reveal sufficient of my critical abilities to perceive the underlying (emphasis deliberate), meanings of all semantics in current use for purpose of misinformation and deception. Logic and semantics are a speciality of mine, that has prevailed in over a dozen cases with the largest international and national institutions I have had to assert my rights against.


Therefore please take note; I intend to defend all my rights in those areas where I perceive their breach by the local council, as defined in the following enactments. Please treat any section where relevant as covered by the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I am a law abiding person, and in respect of vehicles have NO points, nor any criminal record, nor any contravention spanning an excess of 2 minutes in the past 30 years, and the vehicular paperwork has been conducted with absolute professionalism despite the fact that I am aware of a legal inconsistency and precedent that could enable me to not even place a tax disk on any vehicle.

  1. Please take note formally, as a disabled badge holder, I DO NOT consent to a clamp, wherever a clamping notice or order is in place, while having observed it, I regard it as a trespass in tort and expect freedom from such derogations under the following statutes, in particular 4,5,6 & particularly 7.

  2. The EUHR Convention, Protocol 5 articles 6,8,13,14, particularly in the remedial aspects of 13 at the highest level in Strasbourg if necessary, and with note to Proceedings. 7. - (1). and

  3. Human Rights Act 1998 , Chapter 42, Public authorities 6. - (1), With respect to this section please note my academic profile is of passionate focus on Omissions as defined in “ (6) "An act" includes a failure to act“. Cloaking omissions being an area of focus that the PCN deportment is showing all the relevant symptoms in the disgraceful art of suppressio veri.. commonly found in legal representations of my experience in court, contrary to CPR 36.1 (b), (i). and

    1. Derogations. 14. - (1) of 2. above.

  4. The Road Traffic Act 1991. 70.— (1) Section 69(1) in respect of exemption from clamping, as well as sections;

    1. 44, - 63A, (1) and

    2. 66 subsections with non compliant procedures.

    3. Procedural defects where temporal breaching is used to exclude legitimate rights to a hearing.

  5. Disability Discrimination Act 2005 Chapter 13 PART 5A PUBLIC AUTHORITIES 49A General duty

  6. Duty of care under Tort law, including acts or more particularly omissions cloaked in procedure to abrogate and hide liability.

  7. Torts (Interference with Goods Act) 1977, where there is a case law precedent of perfect likeness for clamping.


Should you wish to contest these rights, please ensure you do so openly and transparently , putting me in my place appropriately so I know exactly where I stand, in so doing, please supply me with any Road Traffic or Traffic Regulation Orders relevant to the areas IN and AROUND Chamberlain House, namely Ossulston St, Phoenix Rd, and Chalton St. I cannot be experted to report every moment of disability to your offices, and have the staff put to the task of making a special exemption ticket available, despite their wonderful warmth & kindness and co-operation.


I should mention in passing, that I have not witnessed any clamping in the area of Chamberlain House, particularly where there are frequent visitors and parkers, who use the inner courtyard without exemption tickets, but the vehicles are Camden's, additionally many service vehicles and non resident cars. The courtyard has a surveillance camera enabling me a view a TV scene of the area. This attempted clamping suggests a very true and real contrariety of assertions that it is in decline, a common semantic fallacy of conduct that is unacceptable from anyone in authority. My vehicle was a particular focus of attention and I should like to know on whose instructions from NCP's or Camden's HO this attempt was commenced, where the legitimate conduct should have been its removal, NOT that is was causing any obstruction being in a corner beside the dustbins at the end of the yard. I I were to ever have been removed, I would also not expect it to be placed in a location of contravention, then ticketed, which I have evidence of elsewhere.

Omission to treat this letter shall be deemed as 3. above.


Finally, should this letter come to the attention of the same legal team handling the NTO I recently returned, please note I am waiting for the notice of rejection, where NO grounds for cancellation were provided. This enabled the service of the rejection notice with complete co-cooperation from myself as it was made crystal clear that the contravention was proceeding to enforcement, and that team know full well I attempted to pay for my hearing, at the full payment level despite and within the discount period being available to me. A cancellation at this stage, after a prolonged period of clear resolute determination followed by a lengthy period of inaction is stressful for every person who makes such an appeal, but for me is unacceptable, without unreserved apology and compensation for avoidable time, trouble and all that partakes of the procedure willfully delivering precisely this stress, to cause a victim of such practice a focus on settlement rather than appeal for his rights.


Yours Most respectfully,

E & O I (Relevant omissions INCLUDED)

A.. Winter