Latest update Jan 2007

Main site Force of Destiny

Main site Logic Law

Go to 2nd menu further down. The refund approach.

Logic Law

Statutes, Rights, Court, Case Laws, Exposed

HM Court Service,

Forms, CPR & Protocols

Force of Destiny

Literature, Law, Philosophy, Music

Philosophy, Logic, Music.

Questor Project

2000 World Books Free

Website portal.

Camden & Government Along with their media, under the microscope...

Complaints & Abuses Exposed.

Local Government Ombudsman, fallacious logic from the TOP exposed. With Transport for London.

Fallacies of conduct.

Fallacies – Classic


Literature

Entire Works of Shakespeare Downloadable FREE by play or entire works

The old Police Complaints Authority? Exposed.

Amtrak Express parcels Ltd., Privity rule rebutted.

...or rather a telescope. A weekly look at the fast food we are fed UP with.

This home, complaints, abuses and exposures.

2000 World Best Books Free

....Downloads - Shakespeare's entire works in one zip file unzips into each play.

THE REFUND SECTION CASE MATERIAL




GET MONEY BACK FREE ADVICE.

Route to an application and claim for restitution.

The statute of limitations allows up to IX YEARS to seek restitution of a mistake of fact, (non compliant PCN, or PCN nullity

Some links are not fully up, but most material you need is here.

NON compliant PCNs, IE without TWO DATES on the top front body of the PCN are a nullity, mistake of fact and restitution can be gained with a little effort,

Do not expect the council to hand it back, they will resist, and give you buckets of semantics in argument, BUT The Justice Jackson Ruling in the High Court 2nd August 2006 means that you have a major case precedent argument and many others available at PATAS and NPAS.

Bring them together, request a Statutory Declaration from the TEC, (search for TEC and get the telephone number or get it from our main page links to court pages),

Ask them to send a form, fill the form and take it to your local court and swear the relevant part, FREE, and return to TEC by fax or email, and in 24 hours the PCN will be revoked back to £50, and then see is the council accept or reject the argument. They must reply in 20 days,

If the arguments are properly stacked you will invariably succeed to have the PCN revoked, even if it i a new one, where you never received a notice of rejection, appeal form,, or PCN or any other documents.

LETTER EXAMPLES are being put together and the first case in court is available to LOOK OVER HERE. It costs £30 to make a claim, and then prepare the case material from a growing number of examples. If successful you get the PCN refunded plus interest and the court fees back. Better than gambling, success rate is growing.



A very real route to getting refunds, needs to be opened, and tried again, then built on.



Be EXTREMELY WARY with Camden, (and all councils ), They're ( Camden ), sending out charge notices, skipping their non-compliant Notice of Rejections. If it gets to Northampton, which you should allow it to, you will be sent a statutory declaration to deal with this deliberate procedural coving of tracks as if they were honest mistakes. If anyone is in this situation, please let me know, I will keep all informed that a number of NOR's have mysteriously gone missing and you can be sure, the post office don't randomly select NOR's with x ray machines to drop them in the bin.....THEY SIMPLY WEREN'T sent out.

It can be possible the Northampton Court cancel all the paperwork and tell councils to restart it again. BUT WATCH IT, if you consent to it, you will allow them to send out NEW compliant NoR's just what they wanted, and then get the revenue, in a cynical move that will catch the unwary...........Make it clear in your filing of the N244, that you do not consent to new Notice of Rejection forms, as they have been made compliant after the date you should have received the original, and that you are treating the matter AS IF you had received the NON-compliant version, depending on the date this should have been sent, but was not. Indicate to the court you are gravely concerned concerning such a cynical move, as reports are coming in to this site of a number of cases where this has happened, (Where PCN's are substantially compliant but NoRs were not, the NoR was your only defence and appeal in such cases), and councils have skipped the procedure to avoid providing you with legitimate grounds for appeal by “CHURNING” the paperwork in their favour.

If you never received a NoR, ( a NON compliant one that is ) It is your best argument, to say the procedure is invalid, and you will not accept a restart, since HAD YOU BEEN SERVED with a NOR, you should have had the evidence on which to get a lawful cancellation. The council's skipping it, is a clear sign they are hoping to enforce by bullying without it. It is the court's clearest sign that had you received it, then OF COURSE you would have used it. The court will have a number of SUCH LIKE cases, but don't expect them to advise all of us, each must argue their own case, and that's what makes the entire process gravely illegal.

A very real route to getting refunds,

needs to be repeated many times now. (Work in progress)

Download the forms below..

N245 = Application for suspension of a warrant and / or variation of an installment order. N244 = Application notice (This one).

Form N244 Form N245 If the N244 link isn't working then copy / paste this url into your address. There are advice forms on that page also. http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/HMCSCourtFinder/GetForm.do?court_forms_id=484

Three notions to bind together.......

Three notions to bind together.......

  1. The Barnet V Moses, now case law, that councils can not enforce non-compliant paperwork. Our contraventions are the same as theirs, if a parking of 60 seconds is sufficient to enforce the law, then a non compliant PCN is the same contravention under BvM. Case material here.....

Justice Jackson, High Court August 2nd 2006

In particular, the judge held that if a PCN did not have the date of issue (or date of notice) as well as the date of contravention explicitly shown then the PCN becomes a nullity.



  1. Sam Stockman & Wayne Pendle 's case against Havering, by late statutory declaration shows a refund can be obtained even after Bailiff's notice to enforce, refunding £136, and stopping costs of Bailiff's £340. Here is his presentation.

      • I have not been served with:

(a) PCN

(b) Notice to Owner

Having examined the format, of the documentation (Notice to Owner and Charge Certificate) that is normally issued by Havering Borough Council.

I have established that, this documentation is not framed in the legal format that is required under the Road Traffic Act 1991.

NB: See attached adjudication decisions, issued by NPAS & PATAS in the cases of:-

(a) NPAS - Lukha –v- Aylesbury Vale (appeal Number AY05003B)

(b) PATAS - Grosskopf –V- Transprt for London (2060157255)

3. The Court (Northampton) has been made aware of serious flaws within the process of the Court and it is now required that the authority of the Court be withdrawn from Havering Borough Council in this case.

4. The sum of £340.76 has been unlawfully demanded by Bailiffs appointed to act for Havering Borough Council –

and the sum of £138.16 has already been paid to these Bailiffs, in order to keep my home and property free of their plunder.

An order of the Court, is now required to compel repayment of the plunder.

ALSO

My reasons for filing the Statutory Declaration outside the given time are as follows: (Please give full details).

1.

I did not receive any documentation as previously stated, that would lead me to any recognition of the fact,

That a statutory Declaration would be required.

2.

The first information of the fact that the Council has proceeded unlawfully, was provided when a Bailiff for my the Council visited my home.



    Case material here.........

  1. Alex's comment on the Audit Act section 17 (1) shows councils should not keep unlawful funds. 4.For a fuller expose of these paths to a challenge on retention of illegal funds, go to....Link here

I will return and paste the link in a few hours!



    1. Date of Issue and date of Notice Non-compliance is the first ground, see the section in the RTA 11991, and Barnet V Moses case material. Nick Lester, two ALG letters here. These letters need to be read with a degree of scepticism, and judgement concerning the advice given to councils for retaining open cases, and the entire mechanism of orchestrated delay in the original transcript being released, with a view to maintaining a slumbering ire of the public that should have been rudely awakened in the comparisons between enforcement of trivial contraventions, and trivialising their own contraventions of non compliant paperwork. See comment here......

    2. Notice of rejection (of representations)
      The Road Traffic Act 1991, Schedule 6, Paragraph 4 states:
      “Where any representations are made under paragraph 2 (of the Schedule) … but the London authority concerned do not accept that a ground has been established, the notice served under paragraph 2 (7)… (“the notice of rejection”) must –
      (a) state
      that a charge certificate may be served under paragraph 6 (of the Schedule) … unless before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the
      date of service of the notice of rejectionFull ACT and schedule 6 section click here.
      (i) the penalty charge is paid; or
      (ii) the person on whom the notice is served appeals to a parking adjudicator against the penalty charge;
      (b) indicate the nature of a parking adjudicator’s power to award costs against any person appealing to him; and
      (c) describe in general terms the form and manner in which an appeal to a parking adjudicator must be made,
      And may contain such other information as the authority consider appropriate”.

  1. Anyone who still has the paperwork, and is still smarting from the wound, should look at ALL these grounds for commencing action for refunds. I will have a lot more on this as time unfolds, and more information comes to light.

Any council's paperwork that has even reached the enforcement stage, ( and I suspect beyond ), can be challenged, and dismissed, if you do NOT challenge, then we the British have lost our sense of freedom and justice. I only refer to PCN's issued at various dates, prior to End August 2006, it is undetermined for all councils, at what precise day their PCN's have met compliance, but back in time, they are generally ALL NOT compliant. I have evidence that Camden's, one of the most professional subtracters, and worst in zeal have had, non-compliant paperwork for years.



Feeling timid, Then why not unjustly just pay up! If you're at the £100 stage, then you have nothing to lose by going to an appeal, if at the £150 stage and beyond, then look for details as how to appeal at all these stages, and go back for refunds as well. Of course some with plenty of money don't mind paying, but it IS nevertheless an insult to the electorate to do this, and makes a mockery of those, intelligent, who just accept injustice.



If you see their zeal and are AGREED about their GREED, then open your eyes of purpose and scepticism. Study the manner they sanctimoniously argue to enforce contraventions for TRIVIA, ( That's the LAW they say ), while TRIVIALISING their own contraventions ( That's, well you see NOT the law ), to persuade you that YOUR contraventions MUST be pursued, while, for THEIR contraventions, well just don't be rude. Since they are now the new feudal Lord's of the Manor.



Funny, I thought WE elected THEM, not they ruled over US without consent. Just watch how they come lamb faced at election time to have your vote, That's when it all gets ridiculous.

MAIN CASE MATERIAL Barnett V Moses.

Barnet V Moses Judicial Review ALG letter to the Boroughs

Posted on Friday, August 18 @ 17:11:57 BST by pulpsimon from lmag.

HERE it IS, ANY thing wrong, get your PCN cancelled.

The critical area to study is the two alternatives.

In particular, the judge held that if a PCN did not have the date of issue (or date of notice) as well as the date of contravention explicitly shown then the PCN becomes a nullity.

ALSO he indicated that the date of notice had to appear on the main body of the ticket rather than just in the tear-off payment slip.

Note that Camden's PCN's have the date of notice on the rear of the PCN, main body, NO date of issue anywhere, These appear to be, or may be substantially compliant. However, The Royal parks, Greenwich, Hyde and Regent's parks are VERY doubtful. I have seen the same wardens on both Regents and Hyde parks, and I asked a friend to give me a blank two days ago, it had date of issue ONLY on the tear off stub. If you have one of these, then it's likely to a NULLITY, their word for my expression - enforceable only illegally -.

For me the key equivocal words are MAIN BODY, or reverse, and EXPLICITLY rather than hidden away.

I AM NOT HAPPY WITH THIS UPDATE, AND STILL WAIT TO SEE THE ACTUAL COURT MATERIAL AS THE SEMANTICS HAVE CHANGED, THERE IS AN INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE STATEMENT BY NICK LESTER AND THE APPARENT JUDGMENT, WITHOUT THE ACTUAL TRANSCRIPT. Go to end of this text for an update as at Sun, 20 Aug 2006 09:10:16



Nick Lester - Head of Transport & Environment Committee writes:- Dear Colleague

London Borough of Barnet Judicial Review I am writing further to my letter of 3 May 2006 now that the result of the judicial review requested by LB Barnet with respect to the Moses case has been decided. The judgement in the High Court upheld the adjudicator’s decision in the Moses case, with no substantial differences. In particular, the judge held that if a PCN did not have the date of issue (or date of notice) as well as the date of contravention explicitly shown then the PCN becomes a nullity. I attach a brief note of the judgement as we have yet to receive a transcript.



As my letter of 3rd May said, those boroughs where PCNs have complied with this requirement to the effect that they have no open cases with non-compliant PCNs will not be affected. Boroughs with open non-compliant PCNs do need to give careful consideration to their future actions and are recommended to seek their own legal advice. This letter should not be taken as formal legal advice. My own views are:

Boroughs should ensure that their PCN format complies with the Al’s Bar decision as a matter of urgency (ie that the PCN contains both a date of issue (or notice) and a date of contravention, even where these are the same).

Boroughs should ensure that they do not issue any further PCNs that do not comply, even if this means suspending enforcement pending a redesign of the notice. The court’s decision makes clear that any non-compliant PCNs are a nullity. It is also clear that by “substantially compliant” the court means that the PCN must wholly comply with the Act in substance (but not necessarily literally) rather than meaning that if it almost meets the requirements (say to 90% or 95%) then that is sufficient.

Boroughs may not enforce non-compliant PCNs. This means that no NtOs or charge certificates should be sent out, nor should debt registrations or bailiff’s warrants be sought with respect to non-compliant PCNs.

Boroughs may continue to receive payments made against non-compliant PCNs and do not need to refund any payments already made. The adjudicators have already considered, and rejected, a bid to re-open previously closed cases on this issue.

Some boroughs have also raised with me the question of whether the adjudicator can allow appeal on the basis of an argument which has not been raised by the appellant at any stage. The Moses case judgement did not touch on this matter and this has not been raised as a focus of any judgements so far. Where court rulings have referred to this matter the references are conflicting. Clearly a further judicial review would be needed to settle the issue once and for all but in view of the outcomes of judicial action so far, I would not recommend this course of action as part of this case as, whatever the outcome, it would not reflect well upon the boroughs. As always, should anyone wish to discuss this issue, please feel free to contact me. Yours sincerely



Nick Lester

Director, Transport, Environment and Planning



Enc.



BARNET JR JUDGEMENT 02 AUGUST 2006



1. INTRODUCTION Mr Justice Jackson set out the requirements of a Penalty Charge Notice, as defined in S66(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1991, and in the extension of decriminalised enforcement by the LLA Act 2000 to include service of PCNs by post.



2. THE FACTS Mr Justice Jackson went through the wordings of the PCNs at issue in detail. He pointed out that all the parties had agreed that, in the case of the second PCN, the motorist (Mr Moses) had driven away before the PCN could be issued. In both cases, the motorist made representations to Barnet, which were rejected. He then appealed to the Parking Adjudicator. The Adjudicator allowed the appeals against both PCNs, on the facts of each case and because he found that the wording of the PCNs (failure to specify a date of notice) made them invalid. Barnet accepted the direction on both decisions, but applied for review on the grounds that the Adjudicator had erred in his interpretation of the law and that the PCNs were valid. Barnet did not request an oral hearing of the review application, and did not submit further evidence. The application was dismissed by another Adjudicator, who drew on an earlier decision (Al’s Bar v. Wandsworth) in stating that the wording of a PCN needed to show substantial compliance with the statutory requirements. He emphasised the need for certainty.

3. PRESENT PROCEEDINGS Barnet claim that their PCNS were “substantially compliant”. They said that the way time limits were described on the Notice effectively added an extra day to the statutory requirement, but that this did not matter as it did not cause prejudice to the motorist. Mr Justice Jackson noted the “helpful background” set out in the Chief Adjudicator’s acknowledgement of service and noted that Barnet’s new PCN does comply with the statutory requirements.

4. DATE OF NOTICE The judge referred back to the RTA ’91 requirements of s.66(3) and confirmed that the date of notice must be on the charge, otherwise the statutory purpose of sections 66((3) c-e is thwarted. He went on to explain that the date of contravention and the date of notice are usually the same, but not always because of the question of postal issue and if a contravention was observed just before midnight, but the PCN issue just after. He also indicated that the date of notice had to appear on the main body of the ticket rather than just in the tear-off payment slip. To illustrate this, he mentioned in detail the example contained in the Al’s Bar decision of a motorist returning the slip with payment, and then wishing to dispute the Council’s refusal to accept a discounted payment. Mr Justice Jackson mentioned that the requirement of the two dates, (contravention and notice), had been mentioned by Adjudicators on more than one occasion. He emphasised that the statutory requirement of the form of the PCN were simple and clear – compliance was not difficult and a specimen form had been available for more than 10 years. Enforcing authorities therefore had no excuses for non-compliance. The Barnet PCN showed the date of the contravention, but not of the notice, therefore was not substantially compliant. Mr Justice Jackson concluded this section of his judgement by stating that the question of relevance did not arise because the statutory conditions of the notice were not met, therefore financial liability did not arise.

5. EFFECT OF EXTRA DAY The judge stated that, in the light of his decision, there was no need to pass judgement on the “effect of the extra day” in the wording of Barnet’s PCN. He stated that it would be necessary to consider further evidence to discover whether, in the case of Barnet enforcement procedures, a prejudice did occur, but that this was not necessary as he had already found that the PCNs were non-compliant.



6. CONCLUSION Barnet’s application for Judicial review was dismissed. Leave to appeal against the judgement was refused.



Update .Sun, 20 Aug 2006 09:10:16

After some reflection on the detailed posting concerning the Barnet V Moses case review, I am satisfied that while the Barnet PCN,s were significantly different from some council's elsewhere, there remains an inconsistency with compliance between PCN's where only one date is specified in the PCN's body, and Justice Jackson's ruling plus its interpretation made by Nick Lester.



I am not prepared at this stage to reveal that inconsistency to a wider public, for the same reasons I am not prepared to release the full details of the flawed and untenable arguments on the inconsistencies between the Declaration of Rights 1668 by Patas on Townsend V TfL,along with the fallacious propositions asserted by Justice Collins in the De Crittenden case. My intention is to represent these arguments at my own hearings hopefully as soon as I receive a rejection notice from my own council on their own flawed NTO form where I have deliberately given NO grounds for appeal and it should follow they issue a rejection notice enabling me to undertake these issues personally in their considerably unjust process for appeals. Part of the reason is to avoid making the details freely available to unknown readers who may be acting on behalf of some councils to enable them to better prepare some form of rebuttal arguments, despite these being unlikely to prevail under contention 'vive voce'.

There is a serious disadvantage when an individual, with adverse asymmetry of information comes before an adjudicator or judge, who has experience of using a number of collateral arguments, and when these may fail, he, the judge, may then turn to an adjournment with consultations among other experts, returning to a hearing with prepared arguments, and denying the appellant the identical privilege, namely being allowed also to adjourn to consider the new rebuttals, and return a considered riposte. A proper match of argument forms must be fair, and on equal footings precisely as ruled in the pre-action protocols and civil procedure rules in a normal court hearing.



If some readers are facing an impending hearing with an adjudicator, I am prepared to assist them with provision of the inconsistencies through private emails through the lmag forum private messaging, or my website. I will need to examine the front / reverse of their PCN's, or at least be given thorough details, plus some identity that supports their interest being other than from a council.


Congratulations to Messrs Sam Stockman & Wayne Pendle for their resounding victory againt Havering Council.

Having paid the PCN but then realised it did not conform a claim was launched in the County Ct against Havering for the full amount paid £136.16

Rather than fight & lose the Council has admitted its Legal Deptartments opinion was that the Councils Notice to Owner was issued incorrectly as it did not allow 28 days from service, only issue, for payments or representations to be made.




The Parking Manager therefore cancelled the PCN and refunded all paid money as requested.

Makes the Councils statement in yeaterdays Evening Standard look a bit silly though & hopefully this one opens the Floodgates for reclaiming your paid for parking tickets which have procedural defects.


Havering Councils Letter

The Claim Form

Update 10 09

It also transpires that £340 worth of added Bailiff fees have been dropped, following the claim which identified a
highly dubious legal document f
rom Equita Bailiffs purporting to be a Court issued Warrant of Execution.

The claim form N244 is used to appeal against Northampton County Cts decision to refuse a late / out of time statutory declaration against an unpaid Parking Ticket . It gives the defendant the opportunity to present their case in front of a County Court Judge.

A late statutory declaration can be made even after payment of a parking ticket.
Looks like an avenue for anyone with bailiffs acting on non compliant PCNs may have just opened up, and also another angle for anyone reclaiming paid PCNs



N244 Application Notice

The important text filed for this case is printed in BLUE BOLD in the GREY boxes below. That's where you file your reasons.







MR SAM STOCKMAN

Traffic Enforcement Centre

County Court Bulk Centre

5th Floor, St Katharine’s House

21-27 St Katharine’s Street

Northampton

NN1 2LH

DX 702885 Northampton 7

T 0845 704 5007

F 0845 707 8607

E customerservice.tec@

hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk

Minicom VII 0800 358 3506

(Helpline for the deaf and hard of hearing)

www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk

Court Business Hours- 8:15am-4:00pm

Dear Sir,



Penalty Charge Number: HG 9000752 4

The Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) is a registration point for local authorities to register unpaid penalty charges with the county court for enforcement. When a penalty charge is registered with the Traffic Enforcement Centre, an Order for Recovery is sent to yourself to inform you that you have 21 days to either pay or appeal using a Statutory Declaration. Once the time limit expires an appeal can still be made by completing an application to file a Statutory Declaration Out of Time together with a Statutory Declaration. Please find enclosed an application to file a Statutory Declaration Out of time and a Statutory Declaration.



On receipt of your application the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) will:

  • Notify the Local Authority concerned that an application has been received and processed. Upon receipt of this notification the Local Authority will suspend any enforcement action. A copy of your application will be sent to the Local Authority concerned by post.

  • The Local Authority is given 14 working days to decide if they wish to accept or reject your application.

  • If the Local Authority accepts your application within this time limit, the court registration will be revoked (cancelled). This does not cancel the original penalty charge. The matter will be referred back to the Local Authority.

  • If the Local Authority rejects your application, the court file will be referred without a hearing to a Court Officer who will make an impartial decision. You will be notified of the result.



Please see attached guidance notes for you reference. Should you have any further queries please contact this office.



Yours faithfully,





Shobnam Mannan

For the Traffic Enforcement Centre

Guidance Notes for Completion of the Application to file a Statutory Declaration Out of Time and Statutory Declaration



Penalty Charge No: Please quote your penalty charge number(s) in the top box on the right hand side. This will be 2 letters followed by either 8 numbers or 7 numbers and a letter. The TEC are unable to locate your files without it. Please ensure that your number(s) are quoted on both forms. You may state “see attached list” and attached a separate sheet quoting all numbers.

Vehicle Registration No: Please quote your vehicle registration that the above penalty charge relates to.

Applicant, Location of Contravention and Date of Contravention: This information is not needed by the TEC.



Please state the full name or company name and address in the box provided on both the Application to file a Statutory Declaration Out of Time and the Statutory Declaration. This must be the registered keeper of the vehicle and not the driver at the time of the contravention. The TEC are unable to accept a Statutory Declaration completed by a third party. If you are completing the forms on behalf of a respondent company please state this clearly on both forms.



On the Statutory Declaration you must indicate why you are appealing against the Order for Recovery. You must tick one of the three grounds which are listed on the Statutory Declaration. The TEC will be unable to process your application if one of the three grounds has not been indicated. The TEC will be unable to process your application if the grounds have been altered in any way. If your case relates to a London Borough Parking contravention you must only tick one box. If none of the three grounds apply please contact the local authority directly as the TEC are unable to assist you.



On the Statutory Declaration you may state any further information in the box provided or you may wish to attach separate documents relating to your penalty charge(s).



On the Application to file a Statutory Declaration Out of Time form you must ensure that you have stated specific reasons why you are completing the Statutory Declaration outside the original time limit in the box provided.



Once both forms have been fully completed you must have your signature witnessed on both forms in front of either a Commissioner for oaths, an Officer of the Court appointed by the judge to take affidavits or a Justice of the peace. Please ensure that the witness has provided a full postal address. For information this service is available at your local county court, free of charge and no appointment necessary.



Once the forms have been completed in accordance with the above instructions the TEC will be able to process your application. Any enforcement action cannot be suspended until both forms have been fully completed, returned to the TEC and processed.



If for any reason you amend or add any further information onto the forms after they have been witnessed, you will be required to have them re-sworn to declare that the added information is true. If this is not complied with, your forms will be returned to you.



The completed application should be returned to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC), Northampton County Court Bulk Centre, St Katharine’s House, 21-27 St Katharine’s Street, Northampton, NN1 2LH. Alternatively you can fax the application to 0845 707 8607 or you may scan the documents and email the forms back to customerservice.tec@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk



PLEASE NOTE: THE COURT STAFF ARE NOT LEGALLY TRAINED. IF YOU NEED LEGAL ADVICE YOU SHOULD CONTACT A SOLICITOR OR A CITIZENS ADVICE BUREAU.













Statutory Declaration – unpaid penalty charge Form PE3


Traffic Enforcement Centre

Northampton County Court Bulk Centre

St Katharine’s House

21-27 St Katharine’s Street

Northampton, NN1 2LH

Penalty Charge Number

HG900075??

Vehicle Registration Number

13???

Applicant

Sam S

Location of Contravention

Collier Row Road

Date of Contravention

27/10/2005

Give full details and tick the box which applies. If your penalty charge relates to a London Borough Parking contravention you must only tick one box. You must ensure that all details above are correctly entered from the Order for Recovery of unpaid penalty charge.

You must then have the form sworn before a Commissioner for Oaths (e.g. a Solicitor), a Justice of the Peace (at any Magistrates Court) or an officer of your local county court before sending the declaration to the Traffic Enforcement Centre at the above address. You may have to pay a fee.



I, (full name and address of the respondent including postcode), please complete this form in BLOCK CAPITALS and in black ink.

Sam S

The above named respondent, declare that: (tick the box, which applies)



I did not receive the:

Notice to Owner (Parking contravention) or

Enforcement Notice (Bus lane contravention) or

Penalty Charge Notice (Moving Traffic contravention or Congestion Charging contravention)

I made representations about the penalty charge to the local authority concerned within 28 days of the service of the Notice to Owner/Enforcement Notice/Penalty Charge Notice, but did not receive a rejection notice.

I appealed to the Parking/Traffic Adjudicator against the local authority’s decision to reject my representation, within 28 days of service of the rejection notice, but have had no response to my appeal.



My reasons are (give full reasons)

I haveI have not been served with:

1.

(a) PCN

(b) Notice to Owner

2.

Having examined the format, of the documentation (Notice to Owner and Charge Certificate) that is normally issued by Havering Borough Council.

I have established that, this documentation is not framed in the legal format that is required under the Road Traffic Act 1991.

NB: See attached adjudication decisions, issued by NPAS & PATAS in the cases of:-

(a) NPAS - Lukha –v- Aylesbury Vale (appeal Number AY05003B)

(b) PATAS - Grosskopf –V- Transprt for London (2060157255)

3. The Court (Northampton) has been made aware of serious flaws within the process of the Court and it is now required that the authority of the Court be withdrawn from Havering Borough Council in this case.

4. The sum of £340.76 has been unlawfully demanded by Bailiffs appointed to act for Havering Borough Council –

and the sum of £138.16 has already been paid to these Bailiffs, in order to keep my home and property free of their plunder.

An order of the Court, is now required to compel repayment of the plunder.

Important: Filing a false declaration knowingly and wilfully is a criminal offence under Section 5 of the Perjury Act 1911 and you may be imprisoned for up to 2 years or fined or both.

I do solemnly and sincerely declare that the information given here is true.

Signed:

Dated:

Declared at: in the



This day of 20



Before me at*

Commissioner for Oaths/Officer of the Court appointed by the Judge to take affidavits/Justice of the Peace (Please delete as appropriate)



*The Statutory Declaration will not be accepted without a full postal address

Any amendments to your forms will require them to be re-witnessed

NOTE: If the form is not completed and sworn in accordance with the instructions above it cannot be accepted.

Form PE3 Statutory Declaration unpaid penalty charge (CPR Part 75)

Application to file a Statutory Declaration Out of Time Form PE2


Traffic Enforcement Centre

Northampton County Court Bulk Centre

St Katharine’s House

21-27 St Katharine’s Street

Northampton, NN1 2LH

Penalty Charge Number

HG900075??

Vehicle Registration Number

13???

Applicant

Sam S

Location of Contravention

Collier Row Road

Date of Contravention

27/10/2005

This declaration must be sworn before a Commissioner for Oaths (e.g. a Solicitor), a Justice of the Peace (at any Magistrates Court) or an officer of your local county court before sending the declaration to the Traffic Enforcement Centre at the above address. You may have to pay a fee.



I, (full name and address of the respondent including postcode), please complete this form in BLOCK CAPITALS and in black ink.

Sam S










The above named respondent applies for leave to file a Statutory Declaration out of time.


My reasons for filing the Statutory Declaration outside the given time are as follows: (Please give full details).



1.

I did not receive any documentation as previously stated, that would lead me to any recognition of the fact,

That a statutory Declaration would be required.



2.

The first information of the fact that the Council has proceeded unlawfully, was provided when a Bailiff for my the Council visited my home.














Important: Filing a false declaration knowingly and wilfully is a criminal offence under Section 5 of the Perjury Act 1911 and you may be imprisoned for up to 2 years or fined or both.



I do solemnly and sincerely declare that the information given here is true.

Signed:

Dated:

Declared at: in the





This day of 20



Before me at*







Commissioner for Oaths/Officer of the Court appointed by the Judge to take affidavits/Justice of the Peace (Please delete as appropriate)

*The Statutory Declaration will not be accepted without a full postal address

Any amendments to your forms will require them to be re-witnessed

NOTE: If the form is not completed and sworn in accordance with the instructions above it cannot be accepted.

Form PE2 Statutory Declaration unpaid penalty charge (CPR Part 75)











THE DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORT OF THE ASSOCIATION OF LONDON GOVERNMENT RECOMMENDS BOROUGHS POCKET MONEY FROM INVALID PARKING TICKETS



On 2 August LB Barnet lost a judicial review against the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) that its penalty charge notices were invalid and therefore financial liability did not arise.

The decision has widespread significance because many other boroughs (including the City of Westminster) have been issuing invalid parking tickets.



In a letter dated 9 August, Nick Lester, Director Transport, Environment and Planning of the Association of London Boroughs (t: 7934 9905), advised that “boroughs may continue to receive payments made against non-complaint PCNs and do not need to refund any payments made”. Yet a payment is “contrary to law” within the meaning of 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. Lester is not only advising councils to act ultra vires, he is giving the lie to his frequent claim that parking enforcement is not about revenue raising – we know it is.



He also advises councils to lie low and not clarify the law as to whether an adjudicator with PATAS can allow an appeal on an invalid ticket when the appellant has not raised the matter. Yet surely councils should be honest and upfront and welcome if the adjudicator allows appeals by advising appellants that a council’s PCNs are not valid? He prefers that PATAS connives in swindling motorists because few are aware of the ruling. Again the agenda is protecting revenue.



Alex Henney

General Secretary

LMAG



also



Nick Lester Head of the Association of London Government - Transport & Environment Committee has written a report warning the London Boroughs of "significant financial implications for boroughs with open non-compliant PCNs."

Summary:

This is a report for information to update the committee on the position for enforcing authorities following the High Court Judgement in the judicial review application lodged by the London Borough of Barnet against a Parking Adjudicator’s decision in the case of Moses. That decision found that the PCN was invalid because it failed to specify the date of issue.



Recommendations:

Members are recommended to ensure that their boroughs have: stopped issuing non-compliant PCNs revised the format of their PCNs to ensure that they do comply with the relevant decisions stopped processing any non-compliant PCNs





Background

On 2 July 2002, Parking Adjudicator Richard Crabb allowed an appeal against a Wandsworth Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) on the grounds put forward by the appellant: that it was invalid because it failed to include the mandatory details set out in section 66(3) a-f inclusive on the Road Traffic Act 1991. One of the defects was that the PCN showed no date of notice, another that it failed properly to describe the relevant payment periods.

The London Borough of Wandsworth made an application for review of the decision. The review application was considered at an oral hearing by the Chief Parking Adjudicator, Martin Wood; Wandsworth Council was legally represented. Mr Wood’s detailed decision, issued on 28 October 2002, confirmed the decision of the original Adjudicator – that the PCN was invalid.

On 26 July 2002, following the Adjudicator’s original decision in the case of AL’s Bar –v- Wandsworth, the Head of PATAS sent a copy of the decision, together with a copy of the judgement of District Judge Wigfield in the Central London County Court referred to by the Adjudicator to all the London authorities. That letter reminded authorities that, if they submitted computer print outs as PCN evidence to the Adjudicator, they should ensure that the print out was an exact copy of the wording on the PCN and that it did comply with the mandatory requirements. This letter is attached at Appendix 2.





The review decision in the Al’s Bar case of 28 October 2002 was posted on the PATAS web site.





The Al’s Bar review decision was referred to in the Adjudicators annual report of 2002-3 which was submitted to this committee on 24 October 2003, and sent to all London authority Parking Managers. One of the major themes of the report was that enforcement should be recognised as a legal process. The following is an extract from the annual report, dealing with the Al’s Bar decision:

The mandatory requirements of section 66(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1991 and the effect of non-compliance were the issue in Al’s Bar and Restaurant Ltd v LB Wandsworth. The Adjudicator found that the Penalty Charge Notice in question did not comply in a number of respects and that these rendered the Penalty Charge Notice invalid. He went on to consider whether he should find the Penalty Charge Notice to be a nullity and decided that he should. He considered that the balance was heavily in favour of his doing so. He pointed out that this was not the first occasion this issue has come before a Parking Adjudicator. 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 of non-compliance with section 66. Yet it seemed that invalid PCNs were still being issued. The drafting of a compliant PCN is, he said, a simple drafting task and it is difficult to understand why these difficulties have arisen and continue to do so. He went on to say:





““These sentiments apply to every stage of the enforcement process, not just the issue of a valid PCN. The Parking Adjudicators have had cause in their annual report on more than one occasion to comment on procedural irregularities that have come to their attention in appeals. The motoring public deserves nothing less than that the public authorities exercising penal powers understand the importance of their complying with the conditions attached to their powers and are scrupulous about having in place administrative processes that do so.”





“We would commend these comments to Local Authorities. All these cases seem to be evidence of a lack of understanding of the Authorities legal obligations or insufficient rigour in applying them. We wonder whether Local Authorities take advice from their lawyers in establishing their processes and systems. It would be wise for them to do so. We recommend that all Local Authorities should have in place procedures, including taking appropriate advice, to ensure that their enforcement processes are legally compliant.”





In 2004, PATAS held 2 seminars for local authority parking staff on submitting evidence and applications to the Adjudicators. At both of those seminars, the Chief Parking Adjudicator gave a short presentation on PCN evidence and the mandatory details required on a PCN.

Moses v. London Borough of Barnet

On 18 February 2006, Parking Adjudicator Timothy Thorne considered two appeals at a personal hearing from Mr Moses against PCNs issued by the London Borough of Barnet. Mr Moses was represented at the hearing by Mr Barrie Segal, of ‘appealnow.com’. Representations were made as to the facts of the cases, and on the point that the Barnet PCN was defective because it failed to state the date of notice. Mr Segal referred to a decision by a National Parking Adjudicator (McArthur –v- Bury Metropolitan Council) in support of this argument. The Adjudicator allowed the appeal on the basis of the facts presented and also because he found that the PCN was defective.

The London Borough of Barnet submitted an application for review of that decision, but did not request an oral hearing. Their application was rejected following consideration of the documents submitted by Parking Adjudicator, Mr Austin Wilkinson. Barnet were informed of this decision on 6 March 2006. They then submitted an application to the High Court for Judicial Review of Mr Wilkinson’s decision to reject the review application.

The application for Judicial Review was heard by Mr Justice Jackson on 1 August 2006. His Lordship delivered Judgement orally on 2 August 2006 in which he broadly endorsed the adjudicator’s decision. He refused the application and also refused leave to appeal against his judgement PATAS has requested a transcript from the Court: it will be circulated to authorities and posted on the PATAS web site as soon as it is received. A note of the judgement was taken by PATAS staff attending court and is attached at Appendix 1.

Following the original decision by the adjudicator, on 27 March 2006 ALG TEP officers held a seminar for authority Parking Managers to draw to their attention the issues raised by the Moses decision and Barnet’s judicial review application and to urge them to ensure that their PCNs complied with statutory requirements, as set out in the Al’s Bar decision.

On 3 May 2006, the Director of ALG TEP wrote to all Parking Managers urging those that had not done so to review their PCNs in the light of the Al’s Bar decision. That letter also pointed out that the model PCN shown in the draft revised Code of Practice, issued to boroughs in late 2005, could be used as a basis for reviewing PCN formats. A copy of that letter is attached at Appendix 3.

On 3 August 2006, there was an ALG TEP seminar for borough Parking Managers. ALG TEP’s director gave an urgent update on the note of the High Court judgement. Boroughs were advised that they should not pursue any non-compliant PCNs.

On 9 August 2006, the Director of ALG TEP again wrote to all Parking Managers in the light of Mr Justice Jackson’s judgement delivered in the High Court. He attached a copy note of the judgement. That letter (copy attached at Appendix 4) reiterated that boroughs should not pursue non-compliant PCNs. It also suggested that enforcement might need to be suspended pending the issue of compliant PCNS.

Financial Implications

While this case has few financial implications for the ALG, there may be significant financial implications for boroughs with open non-compliant PCNs.

Legal Implications

These are covered in this report

Equalities Implications

There are no specific equalities implications from this report

Conclusions

It is clear that the need for PCNs and all other enforcement notices to comply with the legal requirements has been highlighted to all authorities.. It is imperative that authorities ensure that all their notices comply with requirements without delay. Members are, therefore, recommended to ensure that their boroughs have:

stopped issuing non-compliant PCNs

revised the format of their PCNs to ensure that they do comply with the relevant decisions

stopped processing any non-compliant PCNs



APPENDIX ONE BARNET v THE PARKING ADJUDICATOR JUDGEMENT 01 AUGUST 2006 INTRODUCTION



Mr Justice Jackson set out the requirements of a Penalty Charge Notice, as defined in S66(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1991, and in the extension of decriminalised enforcement by the LLA Act 2000 to include service of PCNs by post.



THE FACTS

Mr Justice Jackson went through the wordings of the PCNs at issue in detail. He pointed out that all the parties had agreed that, in the case of the second PCN, the motorist (Mr Moses) had driven away before the PCN could be issued. In both cases, the motorist made representations to Barnet, which were rejected. He then appealed to the Parking Adjudicator. The Adjudicator allowed the appeals against both PCNs, on the facts of each case and because he found that the wording of the PCNs (failure to specify a date of notice) made them invalid. Barnet accepted the direction on both decisions, but applied for review on the grounds that the Adjudicator had erred in his interpretation of the law and that the PCNs were valid. Barnet did not request an oral hearing of the review application, and did not submit further evidence. The application was dismissed by another Adjudicator, who drew on an earlier decision (Al’s Bar v. Wandsworth) in stating that the wording of a PCN needed to show substantial compliance with the statutory requirements. He emphasised the need for certainty.



PRESENT PROCEEDINGS

Barnet claim that their PCNS were ‘substantially compliant’. They said that the way time limits were described on the Notice effectively added an extra day to the statutory requirement, but that this did not matter as it did not cause prejudice to the motorist. Mr Justice Jackson noted the ‘helpful background’ set out in the Chief Adjudicator’s acknowledgement of service and noted that Barnet’s new PCN does comply with the statutory requirements.



DATE OF NOTICE

The judge referred back to the RTA ’91 requirements of s.66(3) and confirmed that the date of notice must be on the charge, otherwise the statutory purpose of sections 66((3) c-e is thwarted. He went on to explain that the date of contravention and the date of notice are usually the same, but not always because of the question of postal issue and if a contravention was observed just before midnight, but the PCN issued just after. He also indicated that the date of notice had to appear on the main body of the ticket rather than just in the tear-off payment slip. To illustrate this, he mentioned in detail the example contained in the Al’s Bar decision of a motorist returning the slip with payment, and then wishing to dispute the Council’s refusal to accept a discounted payment. Mr Justice Jackson mentioned that the requirement of the two dates, (contravention and notice), had been mentioned by Adjudicators on more than one occasion. He emphasised that the statutory requirement of the form of the PCN were simple and clear – compliance was not difficult and a specimen form had been available for more than 10 years. Enforcing authorities therefore had no excuses for non-compliance. The Barnet PCN showed the date of the contravention, but not of the notice, therefore was not substantially compliant. Mr Justice Jackson concluded this section of his judgement by stating that the question of prejudice did not arise because the statutory conditions of the notice were not met, therefore financial liability did not arise.



EFFECT OF EXTRA DAY

The judge stated that, in the light of his decision, there was no need to pass judgement on the ‘effect of the extra day’ in the wording of Barnet’s PCN. He stated that it would be necessary to consider further evidence to discover whether, in the case of Barnet enforcement procedures, a prejudice did occur, but that this was not necessary as he had already found that the PCNs were non-compliant.



CONCLUSION

Barnet’s application for judicial review was dismissed. Leave to appeal against the judgement was refused.





APPENDIX TWO (Sent by e-mail to all Parking Managers) «AppOff» «Parking_Address» 26 July 2002



Dear «Dear»

PCN Evidence

Further to my letters sent to you in September-November 2000 regarding PCN evidence, the Chief Adjudicator has asked me to bring the attached decision to your attention, as it may have a significant impact. Following that decision is a copy of the Judgement of District Judge Wigfield in the Central London County Court in the case of Anthony Sutton –v- The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Camden. Please see particularly pages 19 to 28. If you submit computer printouts as PCN evidence you might like to take this opportunity to check that each printout is in fact an exact copy of the wording on your PCN and does comply with the requirements. Please ensure that this information is passed on to staff in your appeals section. It would be helpful if a member of your appeals staff could notify us of their e-mail address if they require us to copy future communications to them.



Yours sincerely

Charlotte Axelson

Head of the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service encs





APPENDIX THREE: Nick Lester’s letter of 3 May 2006



See Item 20 Update on High Court Judgement in the case of LB Barnet vs Parking Adjudicator Report 14 Sept 2006 for more