Logic Law

Statutes, Rights, Court, Case Laws, Exposed

HM Court Service,

Forms, CPR & Protocols

Force of Destiny

Literature, Law, Philosophy, Music

Philosophy, Logic, Music.

Logic Law as used over 2000 years by the worlds great writers.

Questor Project

2000 World Books Free

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

Complaints & Abuses Exposed.

Early portals

LGO

Romania

Local Government Ombudsman, fallacious logic from the TOP exposed. With Transport for London. NEW In depth ANALYSIS.

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.

Camden focus, TEC Stat Dec, Camden accepts £395 revoked

ARE you being framed with ring fenced legal arguments

Template letter responses to rebut parking fines

The Barnet V Moses COURT Transcript..... With focussed highlights.

56 Reasons for getting a PCN cancelled.

The 56 DAY RULE, clamping and tow-aways, duty of response.

Handling Bailiffs, deal with them BEFORE they visit, by fax, email and letter.

High Court Victory for Motorists, get PCN cancelled

on missing date of ISSUE on the PCN Template letter 53.

BBC RADIO 4 Program informative discussion on the above

THE FIRST FULL TEXT of that RULING... PCN's are a NULLITY

2 Good reasons through that wretched grounds for appeal on the NTO form that excludes everything legitimate and reasonable.

A sample DRAFT CLAIM for the small claims court, with comments.

Disabled badge notice for dashboard of your car.

Off beat case won, that you should be aware of & remembered.

Disabled, Vexed and bullied. Even if not disabled. Template letter.

Free advice get your £50 back, no costs from here.

DON'T MISS! John Doe's Statute of limitations restitution, claims, old paid parking tickets that fall under Barrie Segal's Moses v Barnet Ruling.

How YOU TOO can frame your case within a context of legal arguments.

The power rebuttal theory The essential tenet.

ANNEX ANNEX1

A tiny piece of Logic with the matrix truth table.

SPECIAL FALLACIES PAGES – Identifying and dismantling

deceit and abusive semantics by mendacious councils et al. New..Look at it!

Clamping a vehicle without notices is trespass and illegal

R. DeCrittenden's Submission

Defend yourself, know how! & points to watch. New.

And how to compel the defendant into providing disclosure of what you know they are hiding by using the relevant CPR (Civil Procedure Rules).

Amtrak Express Parcels Ltd, and THE PRIVITY RULE (140 yrs of legal problems) rebutted in a single 5 mininute logical argument.

The latest ALG statement affecting ALL MOTORISTS with OPEN PCN's

Getting refunds, even after PCN's are paid, and at Enforcement stage with Bailiffs. A NEW SECTION OPENING UP, to be fed with more ideas.

MOT scam with adjacent garage..

True LIES and TRUER CONTRADICTIONS.
The BOX JUNCTION APPEALS UPHELD AT PATAS,
AND the Highway Code argument shredded, & totally untenable that would lead to civil war from motorists. Courtesy of Steve.

READ THIS FIRST.

For a while all PCN's are generally invalid, is it worth your time to learn something that can be used for all the times in the future when you will get another ticket. Do it now!

You are entitled to appeal any parking ticket immediately, WITHOUT losing the discount. By appealing, the council should always, and in my experience will in all cases re-instate the discount period on their response giving you another chance to take advantage of the discount.

They use templates for responses, so no matter how much the letter looks personal, it's a standard reply.

Therefore ALWAYS APPEAL, you may well get the PCN cancelled. You lose nothing by trying except a small amount of time. The letters are already prepared for you to simply copy and paste, just like they do. All free!

A recent High Court ruling means that as of beginning of August 2006, and UNTIL the councils get their parking tickets re-worded, ALL or most councils in the UK are giving out PCN's that are invalid, illegal and unenforceable.

Do you want to pay an invalid PCN. £50 -£100 that can be saved, for a few minutes of your time here. Once you know better, you will never just pay up for the asking again. The fine is a civil penalty, you cannot go to prison for not paying it, but the costs can mount if you don''t address the problem as early as possible. At every stage you can fight it. Even at the stage of enforcement with the courts, you are entitled to dispute it and request a proper hearing.

READ THIS FIRST.

Take the view that the PCN is at the total full face value (in London £100) at the outset and appeal it. The discount is set to focus your mind on paying and NOT questioning.

If a parking ticket has gone beyond the stage of appeal, and you have not attended to a response of some kind, you almost deserve to be visited at greater expense.

ALWAYS take the opportunity and FIND the time to rebut a court enforcement order the moment you see it, well before the unannounced visit from bailiffs. There are MANY ways enforcement can be turned around, payment terms agreed on, goods NOT distrained upon, but the car is difficult to protect, its traceable, and identifiable. You will find advice on how to do this here, over the coming weeks. If it takes place at the Northampton CC, then you can go there and download a form N244, or N245 (click Bailiffs) for a stay of warrant or proposal to pay. Other circumstance for handling bailiffs are also teated here, where goods are under threat of distraint. Don't postpone the inevitable, because it is NOT inevitable if you face it, and know how to ensure you are NOT taken advantage of illegally. Handling Bailiffs

Goods NOT belonging to the person under enforcement MUST NOT BE TAKEN, ONLY goods belonging to the owner of the debt.

Since distraint usually removes goods to a value some 5-6 times the original costs; bearing in mind you may have paid for them with interest as well, it is extremely shortsighted to allow it when other measure can be taken to prevent. Be alerted, forewarned and take steps to avoid beforehand.

Reply courteous defending.

Well over 50 reasons for getting a PCN cancelled.

A sample letter for any response to the receipt of a PCN or NTO.

53 reasons for the PCN to be cancelled, more to be added, add your own?

Assertive strong

First litigious

Second Litigious Notice

The velvet gauntlet. Formal notice without prejudice

Courteous Pedantic Churl

This is not yet formulated as a template, but is my own with Camden at the present stage

The formal notice of intent after NTO

This is formulated as a real working template of my own case. I shall be publishing as we go, all the mate4rial I shall rely on in court, so the readers can see clearly how this case has been built up, Their being treated reasonably, while to me, it has been relentless and without validity, -- to be proven -

.

The notice of intent and draft court claim

The claim Proper and notice to issue

The Adjudicator's hearing.

Preparing the case

The issued or Statutory Declaration,

claim and exhibits.

A sample letter for your Statutory Declaration response to the receipt of a Charge Notice or bailiff enforcement. This is a live example that has been accepted by Camden, the case is ongoing, but the debt of £395 has been revoked back to £50, as at 28^th November 2006. ALL non compliant Penalty Charge Notices, “PCN's” and Notice to Owner “ NoR” pre dating August 1^st are likely to fall into this category. On the NoR look for the words, pay by th date of this letter, MUST be the date of issue of this letter. Not much but SUFFICIENT........ In this case I believe the aprty never rceived a NoR anyway. This will be shown when I have all the papers.

Camden focus, TEC Stat Dec, Camden accepts £395 revoked Secton has been moved to Ed's own pages. Click red Hyperlink on left.

HIGH COURT VICTORY for Motorists.

If anyone has ANY COUNCIL'S Parking tickets without a DATE of ISSUE ( or date of notice, SEE the ongoing update on this HERE )on the body of the PCN, it is grounds for cancellation, & probably a refund. Even if Clamped...

Today’s test case decision by Mr. Justice Jackson ruled that Barnet’s parking tickets were invalid as they did not have two dates on them, one a date of contravention and the other a date of issue. He also said that any parking ticket needs those two dates to be valid. ~~This report is AS I have been supplied with it from lmag, we are awaiting the actual transcript.

SEARCH google for LMAG or go to

http://www.lmag.org.uk

Examples of letters of representation are at

http://www.logiclaw.co.uk

look for REBUT parking fines on Home menu.

53 reasons for cancelling a parking ticket.

From: London Motorists Action Group Barnet Council today lost its application for Judicial Review of the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) decision Barnet V Moses. Barnet Council’s parking tickets were judged to be invalid in a landmark case decided in the High Court today. Mr. Justice Jackson ruled that Barnet’s parking tickets were invalid as they did not have two dates on them, one a date of contravention and the other a date of issue. In the case of Hugh Moses – v - Barnet, Barrie Segal, represented Mr. Moses at the Parking Adjudicator and challenged the validity of Barnet Council’s parking tickets on the grounds that they did not have a date of issue. Two separate Parking Adjudicators upheld Mr. Segal’s argument and agreed that Barnet Council’s parking tickets were invalid. Barnet Council took the matter to the High Court and challenged the decisions. Today’s test case decision by Mr. Justice Jackson ruled that Barnet’s parking tickets were invalid as they did not have two dates on them, one a date of contravention and the other a date of issue. He also said that any parking ticket needs those two dates to be valid. Barrie, who has also successfully challenged the validity of parking tickets of Lambeth and Tower Hamlets says “This is a stunning victory for motorists who have had to put up for years with arrogant councils whose parking tickets were invalid. Barnet Council is the worst council - they have even sent bailiffs in to repossess and sell the car of a blue badge driver, all based on these illegally issued parking tickets. This legal precedent also in my view opens up a huge problems for Councils all over the UK” Says Barrie “Parking tickets have to comply with a strict legal requirement. Under the Road Traffic Act 1991 the date of issue, amongst other things, must be shown on the parking ticket. In the Barnet and other cases it was not. On a separate note Money Programme: Parking Mad Friday 4th August 2006, 7pm, BBC2 Parking in Britain is big business. Last year UK drivers paid out over £1 billion for the privilege of parking on our own streets. Local Authorities and private companies like NCP and APCOA are raking in millions but is it right to make money out of law enforcement? Are they thinking too much about money and too little about keeping traffic moving? Money Programme reporter Libby Potter goes in search of the perfect parking space and asks who’s really to blame for driving Britain’s motorists Parking Mad. LMAG has done its best to furnish the producers with relevant information. The Forum once again shows its value to the media. regards LMAG www.lmag.org.uk

Go to http://www.logiclaw.co.uk and select HOME, REBUT Parking Tickets & Handling Bailiffs.

THAT LONG AWAITED FULL TRANSCRIPT, confirming what has been said in detail.

Neutral Citation Number: [2006] EWHC 2357 (Admin) CO/3355/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
2nd August 2006

B e f o r e :

MR JUSTICE JACKSON
____________________

THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF THE LONDON BOROUGH OF BARNET COUNCIL (CLAIMANT) -v - THE PARKING ADJUDICATOR (DEFENDANT)

THIS TRANSCRIPT HAS BEEN HIGHLIGHTED IN RED AND BLUE, (NOT MODIFIED IN ANY OTHER WAY)

To make it easier to go directly to the relevant sections and understand quickly if and why a PCN is compliant or not......

Click HERE to go directly to the first highlight, and subsequent sections thereafter.

Computer -Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

____________________

MR M LEWIS AND MISS X MONTES -MANZANO (instructed by LB Barnet) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT
MR I ROGERS (instructed by Head of Parking & Traffic Appeals Service) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

1. MR JUSTICE JACKSON: This judgment is in six parts, namely:

   Part 1.    Introduction

   Part 2.    The Facts

   Part 3.    The Present Proceedings

   Part 4.    The Date of the Notice

   Part 5.    The Effect of the Extra Day

   Part 6.    Conclusion

   Part 1. Introduction

2. This is a case about two parking tickets. The claimant in these proceedings is the Council of the London Borough of Barnet, to which I shall refer as "Barnet". The defendant in these proceedings is the Parking Adjudicator who issued a written decision dated 6th March 2006. Mr Hugh Moses is the motorist to whom the two parking tickets the subject of this action relate. Mr Moses is identified in these proceedings as an interested party.

3. The correct name for what is commonly called a parking ticket is "Penalty Charge Notice". This is generally abbreviated to "PCN". I shall adopt that abbreviation.

4. I must now outline the statutory framework within which this litigation arises. For many years, the contravention of parking controls was a criminal offence prosecuted in the Magistrates' Courts. The Road Traffic Act 1991 (to which I shall refer as the "1991 Act") introduced a new scheme for the civil enforcement of parking controls. Under the new scheme, the enforcement of parking controls is carried out by local authorities. A range of financial penalties are payable for the contravention of parking controls. Under this scheme, the owner of the vehicle rather than the driver is liable for the penalty, subject to certain exceptions.

5. Section 66 of the 1991 Act is headed "Parking penalties in London" and it provides as follows:

   "(1) Where, in the case of a stationary vehicle in a designated parking place, a parking attendant has reason to believe that a penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle, he may - -

   (a) fix a penalty charge notice to the vehicle; or

   (b) give such a notice to the person appearing to him to be in charge of the vehicle.

   (2) For the purposes of this part of this Act, a penalty charge is payable with respect to a vehicle by the owner of the vehicle if - -

   (a) the vehicle has been left - -

   (i) otherwise than as authorised by or under any order relating to the designated parking place; or

   (ii) beyond the period of parking which has been paid for;

   (b) no parking charge payable with respect to the vehicle has been paid; or

   (c) there has, with respect to the vehicle, been a contravention of, or failure to comply with, any provision made by or under any order relating to the designated parking place.

   (3) A penalty charge notice must state - -

   (a) the grounds on which the parking attendant believes that a penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle;

   (b) the amount of the penalty charge which is payable;

   (c) that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;

   (d) that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion;

   (e) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, a notice to owner may be served by the London authority on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle;

   (f) the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be sent.

(4) In subsection (3)(d) above "specified proportion" means such proportion applicable to all cases, as may be determined by the London authorities acting through the Joint Committee . . .

(7) Schedule 6 to this Act shall have effect with respect to penalty charges, notices to owners and other matters supplementing the provisions of this section."

6. In this judgment I shall use the term "serve" as a compendious term to embrace the two alternative methods of delivering a PCN set out in section 66(1) of the 1991 Act.

7. Schedule 6 to the 1991 Act provides:

   "1(1) Where - -

   (a) a penalty charge notice has been issued with respect to a vehicle under section 66 of this Act; and

   (b) the period of 28 days for payment of the penalty charge has expired without that charge being paid,

   the London authority concerned may serve a notice ("a notice to owner") on the person who appears to them to have been the owner of the vehicle when the alleged contravention occurred . . .

   2(1) Where it appears to the recipient that one or other of the grounds mentioned in subparagraph (4) below are satisfied, he may make representations to that effect to the London authority who served the notice on him.

   (2) Any representations under this paragraph must be made in such form as may be specified by the London authorities, acting through the Joint Committee.

   (3) The authority may disregard any such representations which are received by them after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the notice was served.

   (4) The grounds are - -

   (a) that the recipient - -

   (i) never was the owner of the vehicle in question;

   (ii) had ceased to be its owner before the date on which the alleged contravention occurred; or

   (iii) became its owner after that date;

   (b) that the alleged contravention did not occur;

   (c) that the vehicle had been permitted to remain at rest in the parking place by a person who was in control of the vehicle without the consent of the owner;

   (d) that the relevant designation order is invalid;

   (e) that the recipient is a vehicle hire firm and - -

   (i) the vehicle in question was at the material time hired from that firm under a vehicle hiring agreement; and

   (ii) the person hiring it had signed a statement of liability acknowledging his liability in respect of any penalty charge notice fixed to the vehicle during the currency of the hiring agreement;

   (f) that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case . . .

   (7) It shall be the duty of an authority to whom representations are duly made under this paragraph - -

   (a) to consider them and any supporting evidence which the person making them provides; and

   (b) to serve on that person notice of their decision as to whether they accept that the ground in question has been established."

8. Paragraph 5 of Schedule 6 to the 1991 Act enables the vehicle owner to appeal against an adverse decision to a Parking Adjudicator. Any reference in this judgment to "Adjudicator" is a reference to a Parking Adjudicator.

9. The Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 2003 provide for appeals to be brought against the decisions of Parking Adjudicators. An appeal may take the form of a review on paper, or it may be dealt with at a hearing if either party so requests. The person hearing the appeal will be another Parking Adjudicator of equal status to the first Adjudicator.

10. As can be seen from section 66 of the 1991 Act and from Schedule 6 to that Act, the scheme as originally established related only to London. However, the scheme has subsequently been extended to a number of other areas around the country. By way of example, the Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (Metropolitan Borough of Bury) Order 2002 provides that section 66 of the 1991 Act and Schedule 6 to that Act should apply, subject to certain modifications, to the Metropolitan Borough of Bury.

11. The London Local Authorities Act 2000 (to which I shall refer as "the 2000 Act") contains provisions which amplify the scheme for civil enforcement of parking controls. Section 4 of the 2000 Act provides that where a contravention of parking control is detected by camera, a PCN may be served by post on the relevant vehicle owner within 28 days of the contravention. Section 5 of the 2000 Act provides that in a situation where a parking attendant is prevented from issuing a PCN, then a PCN in relation to that contravention may be served by post on the vehicle owner within 28 days.

12. Having outlined the statutory framework, I must now turn to the facts of the present case.

    Part 2. The Facts

13. On the morning of 31st March 2005, Mr Moses parked his Mercedes car in a residents' parking space at Woodville Road in Barnet. A parking attendant observed the vehicle and issued a PCN which read as follows:

    "PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE

    Road Traffic Act 1991 (AS AMENDED)

    Number: BA25117544 VRM: Y562OLF

    Make: Mercedes

    Contravention believed committed: 15.

    Parked in a Residents' parking space without clearly displaying a valid Residents' parking permit.

    Street: WOODVILLE ROAD (BX).

    Date: 31/03/05.

    Time: 11.27.

    A PENALTY CHARGE OF £80 IS DUE WITHIN 28 DAYS OF ISSUE.

    £40 will be accepted in full and final settlement if received within 14 days of the date of this notice.

    Parking Attendant No: 201."

    There is then a line of perforations, below which there is a slip reading as follows:

    "Number: BA25117544

    Date of offence: 31/03/05

    Total charge fee: 80.00

    Discount if paid within 14 days: 40.00

    Payment enclosed

    A receipt will not be issued unless requested and a stamped addressed envelope is provided."

    On the back of the PCN there are various pieces of information provided, including the address to which payment should be sent, and the following piece of information:

    "If the discounted payment is not received within 14 days, and full payment is not made within 28 days the registered keeper or the person who the borough believes to be the owner of the vehicle may receive a Notice to Owner asking for payment."

    The parking attendant either fixed the notice to the vehicle or handed it to Mr Moses. On the evidence, it is unclear which method of service was employed.

14. A little while later, Mr Moses drove to Golders Green Road and parked his car there. His car attracted the attention of a different parking attendant who issued a PCN which read as follows:

    "PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE

    Road Traffic Act 1991 (AS AMENDED)

    Number: BA 30078011 VRM: Y562OLF

    Make: Mercedes.

    Contravention believed committed: 01

    Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours.

    Street: GOLDERS GREEN ROAD (BX)

    Date: 31/03/05

    Time 12:05

    A PENALTY CHARGE OF £80 IS DUE WITHIN 28 DAYS OF ISSUE.

    £40.00 will be accepted in full and final settlement if received within 14 days of this notice.

    Parking Attendant No: 230."

    There was then a perforated line. Below that is a tear -off slip reading:

    "Number: BA30078011

    Date of offence: 31/03/05

    Total charge/fee: 80.00

    Discount if paid within 14 days: 40.00."

    On the back of the PCN there is the same information as was given on the other PCN.

15. The parking attendant attempted to serve the PCN, but it is now accepted that Mr Moses successfully drove away before service was achieved.

16. Mr Moses did not pay within 28 days the penalty charge which had been demanded in either of the PCNs. Accordingly, Barnet sent a notice to owner in respect of each PCN to Mr Moses in accordance with paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 to the 1991 Act. Mr Moses made representations to Barnet, pursuant to paragraph 2 of Schedule 6, in respect of each of the two incidents. Unfortunately, those representations have not been put in evidence. So I cannot enumerate the points taken by Mr Moses in those representations. Suffice it to say that the representations did not find favour with Barnet. Barnet decided that the grounds relied upon by Mr Moses had not been established.

17. Mr Moses appealed against Barnet's two adverse decisions to a Parking Adjudicator, pursuant to paragraph 5 of Schedule 6 to the 1991 Act. Mr Moses' two notices of appeal have not been put in evidence and so I can only speculate about what they said.

18. Mr Moses' two appeals were heard together by Mr Timothy Thorne, a Parking Adjudicator, on a date which is not revealed by the bundle. Mr Moses was represented by Mr Barry Segal at the hearing. Mr Moses gave oral evidence in support of the two appeals, and he also put in written evidence. Barnet submitted written evidence but was not represented at the hearing of the appeals.

19. Mr Thorne, having considered the oral and written evidence, allowed both appeals in two written decisions dated 18th February 2006. Mr Thorne's reasons in respect of the first appeal read as follows:

    "After hearing oral evidence from Mr Moses I am satisfied that he is an honest and reliable witness. I accept that when he parked his vehicle in the residents' bay he properly displayed a valid visitor's permit and that such permit was properly displayed at the time the PCN was issued. He supplied me with the original permit and his evidence was corroborated by the written statement of Mrs Anne Kramer. I therefore conclude that the respondent has failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the alleged contravention occurred and I therefore allow the appeal on the merits of the case.

    In addition, it was submitted by Mr Segal that the PCN was invalid in any event as it did not contain the date of issue. He argued therefore that the PCN was not issued in accordance with the provisions of section 66 Road Traffic Act 1991. He relied upon the analysis of this legislation made by a Parking Adjudicator in the case of McArthur v Bury Metropolitan Council [Case No BC 188]. This decision is not binding on me but is persuasive. I agree with the reasoning of the decision and I am satisfied that the PCN in this case is invalidated by its failure to specify the date of issue (as opposed to the date of alleged contravention). The appeal is therefore allowed for all of the reasons specified above."

20. Mr Thorne's reasons in respect of the second appeal read as follows:

    "After hearing oral evidence from Mr Moses I am satisfied that he is a honest and reliable witness. I accept that he has a clear and accurate recollection of the relevant incident and that, upon seeing the Attendant, he drove off before the Attendant had an opportunity of serving the PCN. I therefore conclude that the respondent has failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the PCN was lawfully issued by being attached to the vehicle or handed to the driver.

    I therefore allow the appeal on the merits of the case.

    In addition, it was submitted by Mr Segal that the PCN was invalid in any event as it did not contain the date of issue. He argued therefore that the PCN was not issued in accordance with the provisions of section 66 Road Traffic Act 1991. He relied upon the analysis of this legislation made by a National Parking Adjudicator in the case of McArthur v Bury Metropolitan Council [Case No BC 188]. This decision is not binding on me but is persuasive. I agree with the reasoning of the decision and I am satisfied that the PCN in this case is invalidated by its failure to specify the date of issue (as opposed to the date of alleged contravention). The appeal is therefore allowed for all of the reasons specified above."

21. Barnet accepted the Adjudicator's factual decisions in respect of both alleged contraventions. Accordingly, Barnet no longer pursued Mr Moses for payment in respect of either PCN. Nevertheless, Barnet took the view that the second reason given by the Adjudicator in each appeal decision was legally incorrect. The second reason was, in each case, that the PCN did not comply with section 66 of the 1991 Act.

22. Since Barnet has issued many PCNs in similar form, the Adjudicator's decisions had far reaching consequences. Accordingly, on 27th February 2006, Barnet appealed against Mr Thorne's two decisions, pursuant to the 2003 Regulations. Barnet served a single "application to review and vary" in respect of both matters. Barnet challenged only the second of the two reasons given by the Adjudicator, namely the invalidity of the PCNs. Barnet did not request an oral hearing and it did not seek to call evidence.

23. Barnet's application dated 27th February was referred to a different Parking Adjudicator, Mr Austin Wilkinson. Mr Wilkinson dismissed that application in a written decision dated 6th March 2006. The core passages in Mr Wilkinson's decision read as follows:

    "The issues exercising the Adjudicators in both McArthur and Al's Bar were more extensive and fundamental than is suggested in the Council's submissions. In both cases the Adjudicators had to consider the wording of the relevant PCNs and apply to them the requirements of section 66. In concluding as they did, both Adjudicators specifically pointed out that the need for substantial compliance was because section 66(3)(c,d and e) required the recipient of the Notice to have communicated to him/her a certainty as to the requirement to pay AND certainty in the period of time given for the payment. There must therefore be a 'date of the notice' and there must be a description of the payment period for both the full penalty and the discounted penalty which refers to that date: 'beginning with the date of the notice'.

    In these instant appeals the date half way up the PCN is simply a 'date'. In fact it is the date of the allegation (as a result of section 66(3)(a)).

    The base of the PCN has a payment tear -off slip. Strictly this might be regarded as not being part of the PCN at all - - the view of the Adjudicator in McArthur. But even if it were an integral part, it does not refer to a date of the Notice. It refers to a date of contravention - - exactly the same thing as the date of the allegation further up. (In fact the sample PCN does this. The ACTUAL notices adjudged by the Adjudicator referred to a date of 'offence'. De -criminalised contraventions are not offences and have not been so since 1991.)

    The PCNs inform the recipient that the penalty ' . . . is due within 28 days of issue'. This wording is fundamentally non -compliant for two reasons:

    (1) It does not refer to any date; and none of the date positions relied upon are dates 'of issue'. There should be a date of notice described as such and it should relate to the description of time period.

    (2) The time period is plainly wrong for reasons fully aired by the Chief Adjudicator in 2002. The time period must 'begin with' the date of the notice to be compliant with Statute. The wording used would appear, upon accepted case law, to add a day onto the payment period ...

    'I also consider the nature and extent of parking control as an activity. It is a necessary one of considerable importance that affects the daily lives of millions of motorists. PCNs are issued in their thousands every day; over 4 million every year. Only about 1 per cent gets as far as an appeal before a Parking Adjudicator. In relation to such a routine, everyday, prolific activity it is highly undesirable for non -compliant PCNs to be served in large numbers. My decision should in my view provide every encouragement to local authorities to ensure that the PCNs they serve are compliant with the statutory requirements as to their content. This is 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 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. The drafting of a compliant PCN is a simple drafting task and it is difficult to understand why these difficulties have arisen and continue to do so. 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. It is imperative that the public can have confidence in the fairness and propriety of the enforcement of parking controls.'

    It is up to local councils to ensure their PCNs are drafted in compliance with the Statute. These appeals show only too clearly that the findings and concerns of the Adjudicators over several years have been disregarded - - a most unattractive basis for asserting good administration.

    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." GO TO next Highlighted section....

24. Barnet was aggrieved by Mr Wilkinson's decision. Accordingly, Barnet commenced the present proceedings.

    Part 3. The Present Proceedings

25. By a claim form issued on 19th April 2006, Barnet applied for judicial review of the decision made by the Parking Adjudicator, Mr Austin Wilkinson, on 6th March 2006. Barnet contends in its claim form that, in so far as section 66(3) requires a PCN to state the date of the notice, both PCNs complied with that requirement. Barnet further contends that although the periods of time stated in the PCNs for discounted payment and for full payment are one day longer than the periods specified in section 66(3) of the 1991 Act, this does not render either PCN invalid. Barnet contends that no prejudice was caused by any technical defects in the notices. Accordingly, this court should grant a declaration that the two PCNs "did comply wholly or substantially with the requirements of section 66(3)". Certain additional parts of the declaration sought in the claim form were not pursued in oral argument.

26. On or about 10th May 2006, the Parking Adjudicator served an acknowledgment of service which included detailed grounds supporting his decision. On 8th June 2006 Dobbs J granted permission to proceed with the claim for judicial review and directed an expedited hearing. Following the grant of permission, the defence evidence was served. This comprises a witness statement by Mr Wood, the Chief Parking Adjudicator for London, together with exhibits.

27. Mr Wood's statement sets out much helpful background information and includes the following facts. There are 52 Parking Adjudicators in London. Approximately 5 million PCNs are issued each year in London alone in respect of parking matters. Approximately 1 per cent of these PCNs are challenged by way of appeal. Over the years, there have been a number of cases in which Parking Adjudicators have held PCNs to be invalid on account of non -compliance with statutory requirements. In their annual reports, the London Parking Adjudicators have drawn attention to this state of affairs and have encouraged local authorities to comply with the statutory requirements, in order to avoid the risk of prejudice to motorists (see the annual reports for the years 2002 to 2003, and 2003 to 2004).

28. On 31st July, Barnet served evidence in reply comprising a witness statement by Mr Edward O'Bree, a barrister employed in Barnet's legal department. Mr O'Bree states that Barnet has now adopted a new form of PCN, which meets the criticisms made by the Parking Adjudicator and which strictly complies with the requirements of section 66 of the 1991 Act. He exhibits a specimen of the new form of PCN which, as can be seen, clearly complies with the statutory requirements. Mr O'Bree also outlines the practice of Barnet in relation to PCNs, but an objection has been taken to that part of his evidence on the ground that it comes too late in the day. The essential objection is that evidence of this nature ought to have been called during the course of the adjudication process so that the evidence could be tested by cross -examination and so that the Adjudicator could make appropriate findings of fact.

29. This action came on for hearing yesterday. Mr Meyric Lewis represents Barnet. Mr Ian Rogers represents the Parking Adjudicator. I am grateful to both counsel for their assistance and for the excellence of their skeleton arguments and oral submissions. Mr Moses, the interested party, has not taken any part in these proceedings before yesterday. However, yesterday Mr Barry Segal, who represented Mr Moses at the hearing of the first appeal to a Parking Adjudicator, attended court. He made brief oral submissions in opposition to Barnet's appeal. I am grateful to Mr Segal for his assistance.

30. I shall now turn to the two principal issues in this case, namely the date of the notice and the effect of the extra day.

    Part 4. The Date of the Notice

31. There are 35 different forms of parking contravention which may be committed. These include, for example, parking in a restricted street during prescribed hours, or parking in a residents parking space without displaying a permit, or parking in a car park which is closed. This last form of contravention may require some ingenuity. Section 66(3)(a) of the 1991 Act requires a PCN to state the grounds upon which it is believed that a penalty charge is payable. I would expect any such statement of grounds to identify the form of contravention and to state where and when the contravention occurred. Indeed, both the PCNs in this case did just that. The core part of the first PCN reads as follows:

    "Contravention believed committed: 15

    Parked in a Residents' parking space without clearly displaying a valid Residents' parking permit.

    Street: WOODVILLE ROAD (BX)

    Date: 31/03/05.

    Time: 11.27.

    The date 31st March, when read in that context, must be the date upon which the contravention occurred. The core part of the second PCN reads as follows:

    "Contravention believed committed: 01

    Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours.

    Street: GOLDERS GREEN ROAD (BX)

    Date: 31/03/05.

    Time: 12.05."

    The date 31st March, when read in that context, must be the date upon which the contravention occurred.

32. Section 66(3)(b) of the 1991 Act requires the amount of the penalty charge to be stated. There is no dispute that this requirement was complied with in the present case. Section 66(3)(f) of the 1991 Act requires the PCN to state the address to which payment must be sent. There is no dispute that this requirement was complied with in the present case.

33. Section 66(3)(c) requires the PCN to state:

    " . . . that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice."

    Section 66(3)(d) requires the PCN to state:

    " . . . that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion."

    Section 66(3)(e) requires the PCN to state:

    " . . . that if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, a notice to owner may be served by the London authority on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle."

34. In my view, these three subsections, either as a matter of construction or by clear implication, require that the date of the notice should be stated on the notice. If this is not done, the statutory purpose of section 66(3)(c),(d) and (e) will be thwarted.

35. The date of the notice will usually be the same as the date of contravention but this is not always the case. Let me give three examples:

    (1) A parking attendant attempts to issue a penalty notice but is prevented from doing so. Accordingly, pursuant to section 5 of the 2000 Act, a PCN is prepared on a later date and posted to the owner.

    (2) Many parking attendants work at night. Shortly before midnight a vehicle is observed parked on double yellow lines. At midnight the contravention comes to an end. This is perfectly feasible as the prescribed hours in many streets end at midnight. The parking attendant prepares a PCN and fixes it to the windscreen shortly after midnight. In this example, the date of the notice is one day after the date of the contravention.

    (3) A parking contravention is recorded by camera. On a later date a PCN is issued and posted to the vehicle owner pursuant `to section 4 of the 2000 Act.

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. In Al's Bar and Restaurant Ltd v London Borough of Wandsworth (28th October 2002 Case No 2020106430) the Parking Adjudicator, Mr Martin Wood, considered a number of criticisms which were levelled at a PCN issued by the London Borough of Wandsworth. Mr Wood held that literal compliance with section 66 was not required. It was sufficient if there was substantial compliance. I agree with that analysis. In relation to the third criticism levelled at the Wandsworth PCN, Mr Wood said this at pages 6 to 7 of his decision:

    "In order to calculate the period, it is necessary to know 'the date of the notice'. Implicitly, therefore, paragraph (c) requires the notice to bear its date. The date '20/11/01' appears twice on the PCN. It appears about halfway down where it is stated that the vehicle 'was seen in Lockington Road, SW8 at 9.24 on 20/11/01'. That is in fact part of the 'grounds on which the parking attendant believes that a penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle' required by paragraph (a). It appears again on the part of the document described as 'Payment Slip'. At the top of the document, the 'notice number' appears. This also appears on the Payment Slip adjacent to 'Date: 20/11/01'. In contrast to the Payment Slip, the date does not appear adjacent to the notice number at the top.

    Mr Pitt -Payne conceded that it might have been clearer if the date had appeared at the top with the notice number. He contended, however, that there was no reasonable ground for uncertainty and that no reasonable person looking at the PCN could be in any doubt about its date.

    I asked Mr Pitt -Payne what would happen if I, having received a PCN, tore off the Payment Slip and sent it with my remittance for the penalty charge. If I later wanted to know the date of the notice for some reason - - for example, because an issue arose between me and the local authority about whether I had paid the reduced penalty within the time allowed - - where would I then find the date of the notice on what I was left with? Mr Pitt -Payne suggested that I might ask the local authority for a copy of the Payment Slip. If that is so, it follows that the date does not appear on what I am left with - - the PCN after detaching the Payment Slip. That seems to me to be the position. It is not sufficient for a date to appear in the paragraph (a) statement of grounds. The date appears there for the purpose of describing the grounds, not as stating the date of the notice. As to the payment slip, it is in my view not part of the PCN at all; it is a separate document that is, for convenience, attached to the PCN. I note that on the Wandsworth NTO, both the number and date appear at the top of the notice and the attached Payment Slip, in contrast to the PCN.

    The PCN as drafted would in my view still not be adequate even if the date of the alleged contravention and the date of the notice were always the same. But in any event this is not the case. A PCN may be served by post where enforcement is carried out remotely by camera and where the parking attendant has been prevented by someone from serving a PCN on the street. In such cases, the date of the notice will be different from the date of the alleged contravention.

    Again, therefore, the PCN fails the compliance test." NEXT HIGHLIGHT.........

37. Three years later, a similar issue arose in relation to a PCN issued by the Bury Metropolitan Borough Council. In McArthur v Bury MBC (4th April 2005, Case No BC 188) a PCN was issued which showed the date of contravention but not the date of the PCN. A Parking Adjudicator, Mr Mark Hinchliffe, held that the PCN was invalid on this ground. At pages 5 to 6 of his decision, Mr Hinchliffe said this:

    "I am not the first Parking Adjudicator to consider these matters, and I am mindful of the desirability of consistency. I am required to reach my own decisions whilst having regard to the previous decisions of colleagues both in England and Wales, and in London. Accordingly, I have reached a number of conclusions:

    •     Section 66(3)(c),(d) and (e) requires every PCN to convey certain specified information. The use of the words 'must state that' suggests that the exact words of the section are not mandatory, but the PCN must accurately convey the information set out in the subsections . . .

    •     To comply with section 66(3)(c), a PCN must have a date. The date of the contravention is not the date of the notice even if, in most cases, the PCN will be issued on the same day as the contravention. I accept that, in Bury, there are no notices issued after the event. Nevertheless, the absence of a date of notice is a serious problem because a motorist will not always be sufficiently au fait with the Act to appreciate that as a matter of practice (but not as a matter of law) the date of the contravention will usually be the same as the date of the notice. It is perhaps worth remarking, by way of example, that in certain circumstances in London contraventions can be photographed and then subsequently followed up with a PCN issued on a completely different date. In Bury, a motorist will search in vain for a 'Date of Notice' or 'Date of Issue' on the face of the PCN. A date is necessary because the 28 day period begins with "the date of the notice". In my view, if Parliament had intended the date of the contravention to be the starting point for the relevant periods, it would have said so. The specimen PCN in the guidance specifically shows a 'Date of Issue' at the top. The tear -off slip is not part of the PCN and may be detached. The Bury PCN does not comply with section 66(3)(c), nor was it modelled on the guidance. There is a serious possibility that real prejudice could be caused as a consequence of this omission because of potential uncertainty as to when the 28 day period begins. The same reasoning applies to 'the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice' referred to in section 66(3)(d)."

38. I find the reasoning in the passages quoted from McArthur and Al's Bar to be compelling. The statutory requirements are simple and clear. Compliance is not difficult. The Department of Transport has published a specimen form of PCN for the assistance of local authorities. This specimen form has been available for over 10 years. It has "Date of Issue ..." on the top line. There really is no excuse for local authorities who persist in issuing PCNs which do not state the date of the notice.

39. There are good policy reasons why PCNs should comply with the statutory requirements. These documents are issued in large numbers. They often change hands. A PCN may, for example, be issued to a driver on one date and handed over by the driver to the owner on a later date. When a PCN reaches the owner, he or she may wish to pay the discounted charge. There must always be certainty about the date when the notice was issued and the dates when the various periods for payments will expire.

40. Let me now turn to the present case. The two PCNs issued by the parking attendant in Barnet on 31st March 2005 both showed the date of the contravention. Neither PCN showed the date of the notice. The date on which the notice was issued ought to have been shown as a separate entry on the notice. On this ground alone, I hold that neither PCN achieved substantial compliance with section 66 of the 1991 Act.

41. Mr Lewis submits that even if there was non -compliance in this respect, nevertheless no prejudice was caused. PCNs should not be regarded as invalid. I do not accept this submission. Prejudice is irrelevant and does not need to be established. The 1991 Act creates a scheme for the civil enforcement of parking control. Under this scheme, motorists become liable to pay financial penalties when certain specified statutory conditions are met. If the statutory conditions are not met, then the financial liability does not arise.

42. In the present case, the two PCNs issued by Barnet on 31st March 2005 did not comply with section 66(3)(c),(d) and (e) of the 1991 Act. 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.

43. For the above reasons, I conclude that Mr Wilkinson, the second Parking Adjudicator in the present case, was correct to hold that the two PCNs were not compliant with the 1991 Act and were therefore invalid. It follows from this conclusion that Barnet is not entitled to the relief which it seeks and these proceedings must be dismissed.

    Part 5. The Effect of the Extra Day

44. Since the defendant has succeeded on the first issue, it follows that Barnet's claim must be dismissed and the second issue does not arise for decision. Nevertheless, having heard argument upon this issue, I shall comment upon it.

45. Both PCNs contain the sentence "a penalty charge of £80 is due within 28 days of issue." As that phraseology has been interpreted by the courts, the computation of the 28 days begins on the day after the date of issue. Both PCNs contain the sentence:

    "£40 will be accepted in full and final settlement if received within 14 days of the date of this notice."

    As that phraseology has been interpreted by the courts, the computation of the 14 days begins on the day after the date of issue. Both PCNs have on the back a sentence which reads:

    "If the discounted payment is not received within 14 days and full payment is not made within 28 days, the registered keeper or the person who the borough believes to be the owner of the vehicle may receive a notice to owner asking for payment."

    As that phraseology has been interpreted by the courts, the computation of the 14 day period and the 28 day period referred to in that sentence begins on the day after the date of issue.

46. Thus it can be seen that in each case the PCN adds one day to the time period stipulated by section 66(3) of the 1991 Act. Mr Rogers, for the Parking Adjudicator, contends that this departure are invalidates the notice. Mr Lewis, for Barnet, contends that the gifting of an extra day is an indulgence which benefits the motorist and cannot invalidate the notice.

47. This issue arose in Al's Bar. The Adjudicator heard evidence from a Senior Parking Officer of Wandsworth Borough Council, from which it emerged that in practice the Council did not always allow the extra time indicated in the PCN. The Adjudicator held that the incorrect statement of the time period in the PCN (in conjunction with other defects) invalidated the PCN.

48. In McArthur, a similar point arose. At page 6 of his decision the Adjudicator said this:

    "The phrases 'within 28 days' and 'within 14 days' convey different information from that specified in section 66(3). By legal convention, where the 'within' formula is deployed, the day upon which the triggering event occurs is excluded from the period. The 14 and 28 day periods referred to in section 66, however, include the date of the notice. The wording on the Bury PCN, therefore, does not comply with the requirements imposed by section 66(3). The Guidance, however, also uses the 'within' formula and it is hard to see how real prejudice could arise by virtue of allowing an extra day for payment. Modelling a PCN on the specimen at ANNEX 12.1 of the Guidance is urged by the bold italics of paragraph 12.1 of the Guidance. I therefore find that, in this respect, the wording of the Bury PCN does not warrant judicial criticism, and it is therefore without adverse legal consequence."

49. It seems to me that the different decisions which were reached on this point in Al's Bar and McArthur arise from differences in the evidence. In McArthur there appears to have been no evidence that what the Council gave with one hand it took away with the other.

50. In the present case, there has been no investigation of this issue before either Parking Adjudicator. The effect of the extra day was not an issue in the appeal to the first Adjudicator, Mr Thorne. Likewise, the effect of the extra day was not a matter raised in Barnet's "application to review and vary" dated 27th February 2006. No evidence relevant to this issue was adduced at the hearing before the first Adjudicator, Mr Thorne, or in the proceedings before the second Adjudicator, Mr Wilkinson.

51. In those circumstances, I do not think that Mr Wilkinson ought to have dealt with the effect of the extra day in his decision dated 6th March 2002. This was a new point. If Mr Wilkinson was minded to invalidate the two PCNs on this additional ground, he ought to have informed all parties of what he had in mind and given them an opportunity to comment. If either party had wished to adduce evidence on this point (as was done in Al's Bar), Mr Wilkinson ought to have admitted such evidence.

52. It follows from the foregoing that Mr Wilkinson's decision on the effect of the extra day cannot stand. If the two PCNs were otherwise valid notices, the proper course might possibly be to remit the matter to the Parking Adjudicator so that he could (a) receive any evidence which either party wished to submit and (b) hear argument on the effect of the extra day. In the present case, however, no useful purpose would be served by such a course. I shall not, therefore, invite counsel to make further submissions on what, hypothetically, would be an appropriate remedy. For the reasons set out in Part 4 above, I have already held that the two PCNs are non -compliant and that the claimant is not entitled to the relief sought.

    Part 6. Conclusion

53. For the reasons set out in Part 4 of this judgment, both the first and second Parking Adjudicators were correct to hold that the two PCNs issued by Barnet on 31st March 2006 failed to comply with section 66 of the 1991 Act. Both Parking Adjudicators were correct to hold that the PCNs were invalid on that ground. Accordingly, Barnet is not entitled to the declaratory relief which it seeks and these proceedings must be dismissed.

54. MR ROGERS: My Lord, may I thank you for the speed with which you have managed to deliver judgment and also the care which you have obviously taken. It has been agreed between the parties that there should be no order as to costs, subject to your view.

55. MR JUSTICE JACKSON: I am perfectly content to make no order as to costs. You are both public authorities and that sounds very sensible.

56. MISS MONTES -MANZANO: My Lord, in light of the judgment I have a brief application for permission to appeal.

57. MR JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes, Miss Montes -Manzano.

58. MISS MONTES -MANZANO: My Lord, we say that this matter has a reasonable prospect of success on the issue, which has never been previously judicially decided by the court, that the PCN in the form previously adopted by Barnet is substantially compliant with the requirements of section 66 of the 1991 Act. Also, there are compelling reasons why this should be heard by the Court of Appeal. First of all, the importance attached by both parties to the matter and to the issue, and secondly, the fact that this issue has never been judicially decided before. Those are my submissions, my Lord, unless I can assist you any further.

59. MR JUSTICE JACKSON: Thank you.

60. MR ROGERS: My Lord, it is obviously a matter for you. I can only assist the court in saying that it is true that you are the first judge to consider this issue. However, you have applied the approach set out in London & Clydeside and Jeveanthan, and the House of Lords has also added that that is the approach to be followed. My Lord, it is a matter for you, but I would feel confident in urging you to refuse permission to appeal.

61. MR JUSTICE JACKSON: This is an application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the judgment which has just been delivered. There are two grounds upon which permission to appeal might be granted. They are: (a) that the court considers that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success, or (b) that there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard (see rule 52.3(6) of the Civil Procedure Rules). Counsel for the claimant relies upon both grounds in the application for permission.

62. So far as the first ground is concerned, on the view which I take of the matter the outcome of this case is clear. This court has come to a decision which is in line with a body of jurisprudence developed by Parking Adjudicators. I do not consider that this appeal has a reasonable prospect of success.

63. So far as the second ground is concerned, it should be borne in mind that Barnet has now amended its form of penalty charge notice so as to comply with the requirements of the Act. Therefore, the judgment which has just been given will have no impact upon the current form of notices being issued by Barnet. The interest in this matter from Barnet's point of view is purely a historical one, in so far as there are outstanding challenges to old penalty charge notices.

64. In that situation, in my view, this is not a case where there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard. Accordingly, for all of the above reasons, this application for permission to appeal is refused.

Cancellation of present and past PCN's.

High court decision on wording of PCN's

A new template letter (53) for appeals covered by this decision.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Barnet V Moses JR............ High Court decision 2^nd August 2006. see above template letter specifically for this. A reasonable assumption at this time, is that ALL or most PCN's throughout the UK should be appealed, relating to any period in the recent past, especially those still live at any stage of the process of collection. Appealing immediately does not cancel your right to a discount, usually the discount period is re-instated when you get a reply from the council. Appeal EVEN IF the pcn is at a stage of enforcement with bailiffs.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Based on yesterday's victory in the high court, most tickets, with most councils will probably be invalid, and can be disputed on any 53 grounds.

But particularly 53. The absence of THREE CRITICAL WORDS, ------ DATE OF ISSUE. / DATE OF NOTICE AND / OR two dates in the main body of the ticket. See text

Date of:

1. Contravention = when the offence is alleged to have taken place,

2. Notice = Knowledge of a fact ( fact can be seriously in dispute? ) thus alleged fact.

3. Issue = The matter in dispute in a court action. This would be the formal stage of steps towards court procedure.

4. Service = The delivery of a writ, summons or court document.

Thus Issue is a key stage of the sequence.

Go to the 53 reasons above, use this as a template, cut and paste what you feel is appropriate discarding irrelevancies.

THERE IS AN UPDATE on this case material at this link further down the page.

How does this decision affect us all and what course of action might I intend to follow for remedy / recovery of avoidable time and trouble caused. Bearing in mind the severity of the contravention, one might consider for trivial, intolerant, particularly obnoxious punitive and prejudicial enforcements the following a basis for a representation.

FURTHER UPDATE BBC PROGRAMME.
This link was provided to me, and contains a BBC interview on the Barnet V Moses HC decision.
Listen to it!
It clarifies the two date issue quite thoroughly, as well as the closure of the route for refunds, that is highly questionable.
I am indebted to a kind contributor for this, and have asked if he minds my putting his name to it, if he consents I will add it by way of editing.
Meantime, have a good listen. If you have outstanding PC's get them cancelled, you should only have to say Barnet V Moses, and get either a no reply for months; standard practice to avoid the borough going to court, or else a cancellation. When there click on Listen........
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/youandyours/items/01/2006_36_tue.shtml

_____________________

Myname & Surname

Myaddress line 1

Myaddress line 2, Mypostcode

My telephone & my fax.

Date of letter,

To the name of the Council.

FAO the Parking Ticket department

Re: PCN, DT???????? VRN: B452 NOL

To the PCN enforcement department, moving traffic contravention and relevant departments, adjudicator or District Judge in Northampton.

Dear Sir / Madam,

I am writing to represent a recent PCN that was paid, is in process of being enforced, or has just been delivered with non compliant documentation, or where a representation has been turned down by an adjudicator, or where proceedings have commenced in respect to bailiff distraint or other form of forfeiture.

The delivery of non compliant documentation for DPE ( decriminalised parking enforcement ) and reliance on Notices to Owners, has existed since the effect of the RTA 1991, and subsequently highlighted with several cases, notably the Moulder V Sutton case in 1995. Many councils have known about the Barnet V Moses case since its inception and yet continued with a course of non compliant paperwork in their conduct, that was perfectly avoidable now for 15 years.

1. The PCN number ????? is invalid due to well established circumstances below.

2. I request it be immediately cancelled, for reasons below of non-compliance.

3. While awaiting your response I wish to draw your attention to the following:

   1. Members of the public have a perfectly reasonable expectation from their local councils to uphold the law, and to do so with tolerance and understanding. Ignorance of the law for council's employing qualified legal practitioners is inexcusable. Scrupulous compliance is required especially when serving derogations on the motoring public, and even more when enforcements lead to increase in the penalties, and bailiff distraint. The growth of incentivised delivery of PCN,s, particularly those concerning trivial excess in contravention, has revealed an unequivocal disregard for professionally compliant documentation, concomitant with the awareness of omissions that are mandatory and pursuit of revenue. Such a code of conduct is reprehensible, and should render the offending party to liability for remedial reimbursement and damages. Leaving aside specific mention of a litany of cases where delivery of PCN's is not merely non compliant, but clearly intolerant, inhumane, unwarranted and fraudulent, in areas of enforcement where, among others, there is absence of proper signage, waiving any discretionary period of grace, waiving discretion used to enforce or cancel PCN's consistently, and where the motorist is deliberately kept in ignorance of the prevailing local 'traffic regulation orders', such that offences deemed to be contraventions may be quite the contrary.

   2. Despite written requests the council have also ignored the legitimate request for disclosure, or at least an internal inspection and pre-action protocol behaviour, of any relevant Traffic Regulation Order(s) affecting the alleged contravention, which, having been notified of intended action would have been covered by standard pre-action protocol, CPR 31.6 (b) (i) and Pre-action protocol 4.1.

   3. I rely on at least the minimum requirements detailed in annex 1 below, for proper resolution of this issue, and shall, or already have given notice of my intention to seek remedial action for the injustice that arises from avoidable loss of time, trouble, inconvenience, anxiety, stress and unnecessary expenses incurred as a result of the aforementioned non compliant documentation.

Annex 1.

Extracts of relevant case material and protocols.

Barnet Council today lost its application for Judicial Review of the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) decision Barnet V Moses. Barnet Council’s parking tickets were judged to be invalid in a landmark case decided in the High Court today. 2^nd August 2006. Mr. Justice Jackson ruled that Barnet’s parking tickets were invalid as they did not have two dates on them, one a date of contravention and the other a date of issue.

Civil Procedure Rule part 31

DISCLOSURE AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS

31.6 Standard disclosure requires a party to disclose only –

(a) the documents on which he relies; and

(b) the documents which –

(i) adversely affect his own case;

(ii) adversely affect another party’s case; or

(iii) support another party’s case; and

(c) the documents which he is required to disclose by a relevant practice direction.

Pre-action Protocol General, Compliance, and Behaviour

4.1 In cases not covered by any approved protocol, the court will expect the parties, in accordance with the overriding objective and the matters referred to in CPR 1.1(2)(a), (b) and (c), to act reasonably in exchanging information and documents relevant to the claim and generally in trying to avoid the necessity for the start of proceedings.

I may also rely on the following arguments, among others, derived from previous adjudication services where appeals have been upheld.

1. Bury V Mcarthur

2. Bury V Mcarthur Adjudicators Review

3. NPAS Circular - Wording of the Penalty Charge Notice

4. The London Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) decisions

5. Barnet V Moses ***

6. Barnet V Moses Adjudicators Review ***

7. Barnet V Moses High Court JR decision *** 2^nd August 2006.

8. Tower Hamlets V Friedmann

9. Lambeth V Poole

10. Westminster V Aldridge

11. Lukha vs Aylesbury Vale District Council 'Notice of Rejection.'

Reply courteous defending.

56 reasons for cancelling a parking ticket. ( choose which apply to you ).

NOTE: before preparing your letter, consider that your appeal is reasonable. If you decide it is unjust, and unfair, then you should make an appeal anyway, you will find more than enough reasons to make it below, under the present MESS in the legislation admitted in the past DoT report 22^nd June 06. This will give generally you a delay on payment, up to 3 weeks plus an extension of another 14 days, and should not increase the penalty. That us valuable time for you to consider, save the money, or find more reasons to defend your situation. When under pressure of payment, what might be seen can be obscured by anxiety,a nd this is the reason the councils want you to hurry, so that it's more difficult to seek a remedy afterwards, when they say the case is closed. BUT remember their closure doesn't mean YOUR closure, you can go to the LGO, in my experience a waste of time, or issue a civil claim in the local CC. The entire system is unfair, that's almost an indisputable fact, despite the need for regulations, these enforcement procedures provide for unlawful and 'ultra vires' plunder.

ANY civil penalty, for trivia, or where the procedure is flawed, and it is generally so, is unfair, unjust, and where there is no remedy than a costly expenditure of time, trouble and money is inherently unjust, prejudicial and a derogation to the individual. This is all our own, the electorate's fault, for allowing any ideology to partake of our mandate for more the 5 years, whereupon sleaze, rampant lowering of integrity in public office, all become established and arrogated on.

The system will NOT change, other than tediously slowly, where the injustices get buried in time, unless we all as a body take our individual cases forward and argue them. I appreciate many don't have the time or inclination, but remember; what they do to one of use, they do to all of us eventually, and nobody shall side with the powerful against the weak, does that ring in any sense true, just, right or reasonable? (Rattigan - Winslow).

Myname & Surname

Myaddress line 1

Myaddress line 2, Mypostcode

My telephone & my fax.

Date of letter,

should be asap after the PCN is given. ITEMS IN RED are KEY ARGUMENTS. Add your own!

To the name of the Council.

FAO the Parking Ticket department

Re: PCN, DT???????? VRN: B452 NOL

Dear Sir Madam,

I profoundly apologise if I have committed this alleged offence. I believe the offence did not take place because;

1. I was not driving the vehicle at the time, (standard non contravention),

2. The vehicle was stolen, or sold by me prior to the contravention or purchased after the date of contravention, (standard non contravention),

3. The vehicle was taken without my permission, (standard non contravention),

4. My vehicle was somewhere else, (standard non contravention),

5. The period of grace had not expired, being X minutes, and my ticket from the machine shows a discrepancy of Y.

6. I was loading / unloading.

7. The PCN was for overstay on a meter, that had not finished its time paid for,

8. The meter was defective after I had paid the money, then marked out of order,

9. The yellow line did not exist when I parked, painted after I had parked,

10. I was told by the warden NR ????? that I had a few minutes, or 5 to be away, and received the PCN immediately on my departure,

11. The PCN shows a wrong Tax disk number,

12. The PCN shows a wrong Vehicle licence number,

13. The PCN shows a wrong Colour of the vehicle,

14. The PCN shows a wrong vehicle,

15. I believe there was something wrong with the traffic regulation order, please supply a copy as soon as possible, relating to street ??.............

16. I request a copy of the TRO and its was ignored,

17. The signage was too high, too low, invisible, hidden by an obstruction, turned wrong side around, upside down,

18. There were no yellow lines, one, two, or road repainted, so I believed I was parking legally,

19. The clock on the meter was wrong by X minutes,

20. I had driven away VDA, or the PCN was not served correctly,

21. There was no PCN affixed to the screen,

22. The warden was rude, or unprofessional, in showing prejudice to my manner, conduct, dress, or ethnic group,

23. The PCN does not have a date of ISSUE,

24. The PCN does not have a date of NOTICE or both,

25. The PCN does not HAVE two dates in the main body, ( Ref Moses V Barnet JR Aug 2^nd 2006 ).

26. The PCN is illegible,

27. The warden was not wearing his hat, jacket, showing epaulettes, or something else in contravention of the dress code, section 44- (1) 63A of the RTA 1991,

28. The warden breached his code of conduct by taking false details, or ignoring the message on the windscreen,

29. I was displaying the relevant badge that was valid, but this was overlooked or ignored by the warden,

30. My parking ticket was valid,

31. I had to enter the bus lane due to an accident, road building or obstruction not shown on the CCTV picture,

32. The CCTV picture showed the vehicle only not the context that I aim entitled to see, otherwise I am unable to determine where the contravention took place,

33. The contravention was deplorably opportunistic, as it show a contravention of X seconds, in an empty street, bus lane or other reason,

34. I had an accident, and the warden ticket me while I was unconscious, re affixing my spare leg, arm or X,

35. I had been attacked by a wasp or insect that stung me, and had to pull over to prevent driving dangerously,

36. I was attending a member of my family in the car, who was having an attack of epilepsy, fit or some other,

37. The Warden issued the ticket because he was being observed by supervisors and said he would lose his job if he didn't issue the PCN,

38. The road signage or notices of suspension was / were wrong or not present at the time,

39. The warden abrogated his duty of care, while hiding as I left the vehicle, to give me a PCN, wilfully not carrying out a duty of care and calling attention to my simple error of judgement, mistake, or bad judgement of signage,

40. The council and warden have served me with a series of derogations from the following recital, list the derogations where they have subtracted anything from your JUST rights.

41. The council have harassed me, or the owner despite being notified to desist more than twice,

42. The council has shown prejudice against me, for the following reasons, and as such are inconsistent treating me unfairly,

43. The PCN was issued in contravention of the RTA 1991, section XX, clause (y),

44. The PCN charges for a civil penalty that belongs to the same category of detriments, as that detailed in the Declaration of Rights Act 1668-9; namely conferring a detriment prior to conviction and I wish to represent this case to an adjudicator, seek a remedy ion court for harassment, of ask for a Judicial Review, where the arguments so far adduced by previous judges do not include the specific argument I wish to challenge on.

45. The policy of the council is to behave criminally in collecting revenue, and on this occasion I am able to rely on evidence to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt, the code of conduct has been breached wilfully, and with knowledge ( mens mentis, or even mens rea ) of the behaviour.

46. The council have wilfully ignored my reasonable representation for clemency on valid grounds, beyond my powers of avoidance, eg breakdown, bad signage impossible to read at any reasonable driving speed.

47. There are TOO MANY signs to be read in the time and distance a vehicle travels at this junction, without causing the driver to “drive without due care and attention” being illegal. Thus I had no time to study 10 signs at this junction at a speed of 30 MPH given the distance crossed in some 5 seconds. The signage is so bad, that to read them all properly would cause an accident.

48. The council ignored my informal request, using a standard template, where had they paused to consider, they could have easily used their powers of discretionary cancellation well within their codes of practice, to prevent this case becoming out of all proportion.

49. An injustice has been caused by the council's failure to exercise their discretion in a timely manner as a result of points 45-47 above, in that I have now been caused AVOIDABLE TIME, TROUBLE and EXPENSE in having to represent a case that should have not needed any such, had they considered their duties of car under TORT law, and how they have derogated me as a consequence. This in my view amounts to an offence of harassment, for money that I do not legitimately owe, nor have received a fair trial or adjudication for, as my entitlements under the laws of England.

50. The demands placed on a driver, whose concentration is bound by law, to drive WITH due care and attention, are impossible to acceded to, under driving conditions of wet roads and heavy rain. It would be necessary to stop the vehicle and cause a pile-up or else a tail back to study all the relevant signage before taking a reasonable decision.

51. The bus lane I entered was for only a few seconds, it was empty at the time, and by doing so, my actions actually contributed to easing congestion because I turned left immediately, vacating the road of my presence while there was a reasonable opportunity to do so without causing ANY congestion whatsoever,. The principle of empty bus lanes should for any reasonable person be an obligation when it is clear that there is an empty bus lane ahead to the left turn, there is NO bus behind for the time window required to perform the action.. This conduct on my part is / was reasonable, rational and the intelligent thing to do, when confronted with high congestion in the remaining lane(s), where a bus lane is entirely block by law, for use of traffic, and easement of congestion, when in reality it is empty for all but brief periods of time when the bus comes through at the standard rate of 1 every 15 minutes. The regulation prevents a reasonable and intelligent driver from improving congestion based on a perfecly valid set of considerations.

52. The failure to consider 50, above is a sign that the contravention si being used in an inflexible manner, strictly for the collection of revenue. IF the law is to be enforced so strictly then I am reasonably entitled to require the IDENTICAL strictness in interpreting the offences committed by the council towards my person. EG; The coulr of the vehicle is wrong, and in strict likeness the PCN unenforceable, IS THAT NOT equity in correct balancing of justice? I demand justice in my representation, and any adjudication that fails to show the correct balance of offences on both sides, is a delivery and conferment of an injustice upon my person, and consequently a derogation inconsistent with my human rights.

53. The clamping of the vehicle was done without my knowledge or consent as there were NO signs appropriately informing me that clamping was in operation whatsoever in the relevant location alleged to be parked. There is a case law precedent for this: “The act of wheel clamping a car which was unlawfully parked is a trespass to goods. To avoid an action for damages, the clamper must show that the car parker consented to the clamping. He can do so by showing, in accordance with established principles, that the driver had had his attention brought to the fact that wheel clamping operated, through appropriate notices to that effect”.

54. Barnet V Moses JR............ High Court decision 2^nd August 2006. see above template letter specifically for this. A reasonable assumption at this time, is that ALL or most PCN's throughout the UK should be appealed, relating to any period in the recent past, especially those still live at any stage of the process of collection. Appealing immediately does not cancel your right to a discount, usually the discount period is re-instated when you get a reply from the council. Appeal EVEN IF the pcn is at a stage of enforcement with bailiffs.

55. I was parked in a loading / unloading bay, displaying a valid permit, where as a disabled driver I am exempt from purchasing a ticket.

    1. Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Exemption for Disabled Persons) (England) Regulations 2000,

    2. Exemption in favour of vehicles displaying disabled person's badges,

    3. Exemption from prohibitions on waiting beyond a specified time,

    4. Exemptions from prohibitions on waiting at all times or during specified periods, click next link

    5. 6, 7 & 8. - (1) (a) (b) (c). (2), (3), (4)

56. Here is a nice snippet from Ian at LMAG, on Motorcycle foot way parking. A Patas ruling “Just had a letter back from the City of London parking people. They had referred my informal appeal re motorcycle foot way parking to their legal department. I had raised the point that parking in an alleyway could not be foot way parking as there is no urban road and hence no carriageway. If there is no carriageway, the definition of foot way falls down.” Goto text.

Hereunder are the generalised words / sentences or manners used for placing the letter in a context of either self abatement, or else serious challenge, and accusations as per items 30-37 above that can be expanded on.

I was in the belief I had parked legally, and or my return too late was for a serious reason out of my control, namely I was held up on the train, it being late by twenty minutes, or there was a fire alert in the premises I was in, and while I left the building I had to return to collect my belongings or shopping. [You should state the truth, and be able to rely on something to corroborate what you say, if asked.

I am disabled, an old age pensioner or a tourist, or from another city on a brief visit to meet my family or go to the doctor, or hospital or similar..Paying this penalty, for me it is extremely difficult to pay this penalty, being disabled or a job seeker or currently on benefit assistance,, and the money will have to come either from next weeks food bill, or the car may have to be sold to pay the penalty. Don't say this if it a Mercy,or Ferrari, again it all should be the truth, and the plea should be realistic and reliable.

May I please beg you to permit some leniency in this case, because as stated above, I did pay in good faith and confident I would return in time, or convinced I was parked correctly. May I add that I was not causing congestion, being on a side street, and parked properly. On my return I was in time to talk to the warden who said if I I write in, you may be kind enough to to treat this with some compassion as a genuine error of judgement.

Yours with my most humble apologies, I will make every effort to be more careful next time.

Or thank you, your faithfully,

Mr. / Mrs A. Pedant.

Comments....

I shall rely on the following at the adjudicator's, or court hearing;

1. My own recording of the conversation with the warden,

2. Telephone recorded conversation,

3. My own video, or camera photographs of the vehicle, warden, at the time, before or after the alleged offence.

4. Witness testimony to the contrary of the warden's deposition.

   1. please ensure the warden provides a sworn affidavit for the hearing, or else be In attendance as i shall cross examine him.

   2. Please have the directing mind behind this fraudulent enforcement do or be available likewise.

5. Public camera evidence (congestion or traffic enforcing CCTV).

6. The following cases at adjudication where a similar appeal was upheld;

   1. Bury V Mcarthur

   2. Bury V Mcarthur Adjudicators Review

   3. NPAS Circular - Wording of the Penalty Charge Notice

   4. The London Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) decisions

   5. Barnet V Moses

   6. Barnet V Moses Adjudicators Review

   7. Barnet V Moses High Court decision.

   8. Tower Hamlets V Friedmann

   9. Lambeth V Poole

   10. Westminster V Aldridge

   11. Lukha vs Aylesbury Vale District Council 'Notice of Rejection.'

Important comment:

This is probably useless for forward PCN's because any council who hasn't asked their wardens, from yesterday to write date of issue is really deserving a serious hit with loads of court claims. The main thrust is present continuous, past with NTO's, enforced ones at bailiff's and beyond that back in time, is probably a test, but should be refunded, provided one goes very hard at them. Remember if a pcn was paid without contesting they'll Previous probably have an argument that the case is closed, that needs thinking on to argue back that is was never legal.

A very real route to getting refunds,

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

Go to the separate pages directly, the piece below is repeated there.

Go to Sam Stockman's evidence..

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.

Download the forms below

N245 = Application for suspension of a warrant and / or variation of an instalment 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.......

1. The Barnet V Moses, ( BvM ), 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.

Justice Jackson, High Court August 2^nd 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.

2. 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 the part of the N244 form he filed.

FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF DOUBT & with Sam Stockman's consent and request, here are the copies of the original paperworks. “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Well here is the evidence that was previously absent.

Exhibit 1 (Courtorder) Exhibit 2 (Letter) Exhibit 3 (Letter) Exhibit 4 (Letter)

(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.

3. Alex's comment on the Audit Act 1988, section 17 (1) shows councils should not keep unlawful funds.

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 advise 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 letters & 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 rejection – Full 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”.

2.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.

Off beat case won,

A few case wins worth remembering.

If you come across these, then case law provides you with complete rebuttal arguments.

1. Have you ever been penalised for not wearing a seat belt correctly while clipped in its holder?

There was no case to answer on this since 1992.

The DPP lost their case AND appeal, I had to test the precedent in court year 2000.

See my other subject ticket 'preparing a case against Camden, or go to the link at

http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/

select the NAV link Winter V Met Pol

Look towards the bottom for the link. No case to answer.

See the precedent in case law.

Direct link there is

http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/WVPolCpsDPPNCA.html

One needs to know these things to resist abuse.

2. Marina Helen Vine -v- London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106; [2000] 1 WLR 2383 5 Apr 2000

CA

Lord Justice Roch, Lord Justice Waller, And Lord Justice May Land, Torts - Other, Road Traffic Casemap

The act of wheel clamping a car which was unlawfully parked is a trespass to goods. To avoid an action for damages, the clamper must show that the car parker consented to the clamping. He can do so by showing, in accordance with established principles, that the driver had had his attention brought to the fact that wheel clamping operated, through appropriate notices to that effect. Where, as here, the

driver persuaded the court that she had not seen the notices, the clamping remained unlawful. No malice was intended, and no punitive damages could be awarded. "The act of clamping the wheel of another person's car, even when that car is trespassing, is an act of trespass to that other persons property unless it can be shown that the owner of the car has consented to, or willingly assumed, the risk of his car being clamped. To show that the car owner consented or willingly assumed the risk of his car being clamped, it has to be established that the car owner was aware of the consequences of his parking his car so that it trespassed on the land of another. That will be done by establishing that the car owner saw and understood the significance of a warning notice or notices that cars in that place without permission were liable to be clamped. Normally the presence of notices which are posted where they are bound to be seen, for example at the entrance to a private car park, which are of a type which the car driver would be bound to have read, will lead to a finding that the car driver had knowledge of and appreciated the warning." The Recorder had held, correctly, that the appellant by parking her car where she did was trespassing. Unhappily, he then jumped to the conclusion that the appellant had consented to, or willingly assumed, the risk of her car being clamped. In making that leap the Recorder fell into error.

this plus a sample letter is on (always worth a try).

http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/arg4dor/TemplateLetters.html#clamp

3. A clamper came to our courtyard, 'block of flats' Central London. I saw them and went to talk.

I advised him under section 70 of the RTA 1991, disabled badge holders were exempt from clamping. He pointed out the warning signs of clamping in operation, and I said that's fine, but for the others not me. Then said if you wish to try it, it will be Vice V Waltham Forrest, 2000 AND Tort (Interference with goods) Act 1977. A trespass. We made friends, they left, and the HO walked me down a special exemption ticket for a few days, but after its expiry I wrote and put all that in writing, asking them to notify where I was wrong, no answer. I said in it; “I DO NOT CONSENT TO CLAMPING despite Notices because of exemption.”. That weekend three cars were clamped in the same ocurtyard and behind. Mine was not touched. I had also said there was a camera on it. I left a notice on the windscreen, with a standard N1 claim form made out, for court action.

4. Robin DeCrittenden had 20 Parking tickets , from Police, quashed in one day.

In court, the Magistrate asked on what grounds,and Robin asked the Policewoman to mark on HIS map, the precise road it was on. She did, he then produced the TRO Traffic regulation Order, that showed the road, while being a highway, was UNADOPTED, that emans not a regular road, but private land, hence no PCN valid. Wayne, I would have been sure you knew that, knowing Robin....? Also that Robin parks his car across the police station without a TAX DISK for 4 years. The court decision on that was concerning TREASON, and too complex to go into here.

5. Another one, from a LMAG contributor parking a bike on foot way, by IAN.

Here's my original representation to PATAS. They agreed on all parts except that whether a pavement light is private or not does not affect whether it is part of the footway.

Representations under Section 4 (Notice to Owner)

PCN CL?????????

1. My motorcycle was parked in Little College Lane, on a pavement light, on 6 June 2001 and the PCN above was issued at 11.50. See enclosed photograph.

2. The stated offence was “parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriageway (footway parking)”

3. As per a letter I received from the Corporation of London dated 11 July 2001 I was informed that s.15, sub-section 12 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 defines “footway” as a “way comprised in an urban road which also comprises a carriageway, being a way over which the public have a right of way on foot only.”

4. It is important then also to consider the definition of “carriageway” given that this is a necessary component of the definition of footway. As per the same sub-section 12, a carriageway means “a way constituting or comprised in an urban road, being a way ……over which the public have a right of way for the passage of vehicles”.

5. Little College Lane does not constitute or comprise a carriageway. There is no right of way for vehicles. Accordingly, there can be no footway alongside it and therefore my motorcycle could not have been parked on a footway.

6. This same definition of “footway” and “carriageway” is contained in the Highways Act 1980.

7. By way of supporting authority, Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases refers the reader seeking a definition of “footway” to “footpath” as defined in the Highways Act 1835 which is a “footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers”. It was found in R. v Pratt that this only applied to a footpath that was by the side of the road and not to a mere footpath. In Scales v Pickering a “footway” did not include a public footway over a private ground – footway in such a connection means a paved way running by adjacent buildings. In Selby (Justin) v DPP an alleyway at right angles to a road was found not to be “a footpath by the side of a road”.

8. As a further defence, I contend that my motorcycle was parked on private property being a pavement light, which is not part of the footway. As per Scales v Pickering a pavement light is not paved and is private.

9. Accordingly I contest the PCN above on the basis that a) Little College Lane cannot be a footway if it contains no carriageway; b) if it is a footpath then it is not a footpath by the side of a road as per R. v Pratt; c) that it is an alleyway at right angles to the road (Upper Thames Street) as per Selby v DPP and hence not a footpath; and d) that a private pavement light is not part of the public footway in any case as per Scales v Pickering

I request cancellation of the PCN on grounds that the traffic order was invalid.

There are a few more when I get around to it, but watch it around Camden, St, Pancras Station the no left turns an CCTV cameras, on entering Euston road.

I am monitoring several cases on this, and it appears the area is very vague on Traffic regulation Order status, all being, building in process. Camden do not let their TRO's out, and that is suspect for suppresio veri, underhand hiding of details that may exonerate. Demand a TRO is waiting at Patas if you go for a hearing. The Notice to Owner form states one of the grounds for representations is

1. “The traffic order was invalid” If you don't get to see one, HOW DO YOU KNOW? It is a ground of focus in code of conduct.

2. Additionally the other one, “The PCN was for more than you have to pay.” If the PCN is substantially non compliant, including wrong tax disk number, car colour and other details, and thus invalid, That is how the amount would be wrong. This comment was made by one of the PATAS adjudicators, I think Martin Wood.

Marina Helen Vine -v- London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106; [2000] 1 WLR 2383

“Without Prejudice”

“Notice of intended action”

Dear Sir or Madam,

Mon, 17 Jul 2006

Ref AWJR/270706

Dear Sir/Madam,

I was the subject of a recent clamping, and had to retrieve my vehicle at a cost of £115.

Please note the precedent in case law below.

Please also note that there are no notices in the vicinity of the street where it was alleged I parked on the date stated on the notice, and I took pictures of the areas to corroborate my contention that the above case entitles me to a full refund.

Should I not receive a prompt reply and reimbursement, please note I shall swear a statutory declaration under the statutory declarations Act 1835 and then file a claim for the refund, and damages for avoidable time and trouble caused me by your action that was unlawful, at the local county court, where of course costs shall have to be added.

Yours faithfully,

A. Pedant.

Marina Helen Vine -v- London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106; [2000] 1 WLR 2383

5 Apr 2000
CA
Lord Justice Roch, Lord Justice Waller, And Lord Justice May Land, Torts - Other, Road Traffic Casemap
1 Cites
1 Citers
The act of wheel clamping a car which was unlawfully parked is a trespass to goods. To avoid an action for damages, the clamper must show that the car parker consented to the clamping. He can do so by showing, in accordance with established principles, that the driver had had his attention brought to the fact that wheel clamping operated, through appropriate notices to that effect. Where, as here, the driver persuaded the court that she had not seen the notices, the clamping remained unlawful. No malice was intended, and no punitive damages could be awarded. "The act of clamping the wheel of another person's car, even when that car is trespassing, is an act of trespass to that other persons property unless it can be shown that the owner of the car has consented to, or willingly assumed, the risk of his car being clamped. To show that the car owner consented or willingly assumed the risk of his car being clamped, it has to be established that the car owner was aware of the consequences of his parking his car so that it trespassed on the land of another. That will be done by establishing that the car owner saw and understood the significance of a warning notice or notices that cars in that place without permission were liable to be clamped. Normally the presence of notices which are posted where they are bound to be seen, for example at the entrance to a private car park, which are of a type which the car driver would be bound to have read, will lead to a finding that the car driver had knowledge of and appreciated the warning." The Recorder had held, correctly, that the appellant by parking her car where she did was trespassing. Unhappily, he then jumped to the conclusion that the appellant had consented to, or willingly assumed, the risk of her car being clamped. In making that leap the Recorder fell into error. Link[s] omitted

2 GOOD REASONS

for the daunting wretched, limited exclusive GROUNDS for appeal you have on that NTO ( Notice to Owner ).

LOOPHOLE EXPOSED on the grounds for MAKING AN APPEAL.

Probably unintentionally. Here's how.....

Any invalid parking ticket fits one of the grounds for an appeal.

I refer to several decision for the reasoning here.

During one of the appeals the Adjudicator Martin Wood. found fit, in his search for sustaining a principle or as I would prefer, a pretext for arguing there is a way of finding; through the wretched nature of limited legal grounds for appeals excluding anything reasonable, a ground that's perfectly legitimate for the appeal on grounds of documentational error.

The case was NOT upheld for several reasons, but the appellant did not have to pay anyway. The reasoning and arguments however are important. At first sight the statutory grounds for appeals look to as if they are too limited, and exclude collateral grounds for representations. This is not only true, but repugnant. The focus is on the argument that circumstances may not fall within the statutory grounds for appeals, where the adjudicator contrives to find one that would otherwise escape anyone's attention. He makes the point and I therefore consider it a real cause and ground for penetrating the otherwise exclusion principle set out in the grounds for appeals.

The principle being, first establish the PCN IS invalid, then it automatically qualifies for the grounds for appeal as follows.....

The argument is that IF it is invalid, then the AMOUNT of the penalty exceeds the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case. Perfectly reasonable, and therefore is legitimate reasoning to be used throughout all representations where there is a documentation error.

He found one clause buried in the statute to sustain the view that an invalid PCN is NIL. Here it is.

Here is the straightforward syllogistic reasoning, on extracted relevant premisses from the PATAS cases appeal section.

In the PATAS key cases.

Elaine Patricia Lavall

-v-

London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

Case No: 2040135996 PCN: HF91175210

8.As to the argument that the circumstances do not fall within one of the statutory grounds for contesting liability in paragraph 2(4) of Schedule 6 to the 1991 Act, they seem to me to fall within ground (f): that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case. If the PCN was not valid, the penalty payable would be nil and therefore would exceed the penalty claimed by the local authority. In any event, in R v Parking Adjudicator Ex p. Bexley [1998] RTR 128, the Court expressly rejected the argument that challenges on collateral matters of law could only be brought by way of judicial review and held that parking adjudicators have the power to consider issues of collateral challenge. The arguments put forward in this case have in truth already been considered by the Court in Bexley and rejected. I would also note Wandsworth LBC v Winder [1985] 1 AC 461 in which the House of Lords held that a defendant in civil proceedings brought by a public authority could raise a public law issue in his defence.

I prefer they are to they seem to me.

The relevant section referred to above is (4), (f).

(4) The grounds are—

(a) that the recipient—

(i) never was the owner of the vehicle in question;

(ii) had ceased to be its owner before the date on which the alleged contravention occurred; or

(iii) became its owner after that date;

(b) that the alleged contravention did not occur;

(c) that the vehicle had been permitted to remain at rest in the parking place by a person who was in control of the vehicle without the consent of the owner;

(d) that the relevant designation order is invalid;

( this is the traffic regulation order or TRO that NO motorists is reasonably expected to even KNOW about ).

(e) that the recipient is a vehicle-hire firm and—

(i) the vehicle in question was at the material time hired from that firm under a vehicle hiring agreement; and

(ii) the person hiring it had signed a statement of liability acknowledging his liability in respect of any penalty charge notice fixed to the vehicle during the currency of the hiring agreement;

(f) that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.

It's all a matter of fitting the boxed categories.

Now there are two grounds for an appeal on that awful NTO structure, namely

1)The absence of a TRO allowing YOU to determine, rather than the council SUPPRESS, if the contravention is not covered in it.

AND

2) If the PCN lacks correct wording, it is NIL value , and fits clause (4), (f). above.

If your appeal has reached the enforcement stage, with ANY flaw in the procedure denying your rights to appeal, then file a statutory declaration and have it all restarted from the beginning. Here is the Northampton location for downloading. Fill it out, file it back with the court, and start again properly, with the argument the PCN is invalid at the outset.
http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/files/OOTApplicationPack.pdf

Given the generality that NO council as yet publishes their Traffic Regulation Orders on their council site, or web pages, the secrecy leads one to quite reasonably conjecture they are withholding grounds for a fair determination of any contravention whatsoever. It is thus prejudicial to your case, aw well as the consequence of a penalty being of no value if non compliant.

Learning all the time, as Benny Hill would have said.

Draft small claim,

N1 standard form available for download see text body.

Note, these forms and examples, along with advice are placed for your information only. Use or misuse of the information provided, doe not render the source liable for any success or failure in the actions. Remember this is provided FREE of charge, and NO liability or responsibility for consequences may arise towards this site or its authors. If in any doubt, you should consult your local CAB or a professional solicitor / lawyer for additional advice.

Grounds for a small claim.....

You need to quantify in costs, the avoidable time, trouble, and materials. Aspects of derogation, harassment, and tort are lengthy for small claims, and very complex, so ensure you are familiar with the aspect that affect you, although mention them as part of the developing package. You may learn teem as you go along, some cases can take considerable time enabling you to research points of ignorance.

Bear in mind, it's very rare if ever, that a claim proceeds to make a claimant a lot of money, so please rule that out.

Frequently a claim may be resolved with each party bearing their own costs, and if you achieve this result, you can consider it a valuable lesson, itself worth anything up to £1000 in learning, and the other side will be usually represented by costly council, so the loss will be greater for them. It would be quite rare for a Judge to rule costs against a claimant who is unrepresented, usually being somewhat sympathetic, unless he has been vexatious or frivolous.

The principle involved in the retributive aspect is simple.

1. A formal notice advising the intent, and small amount of the claim prior to ISSUE in the small claims court. Thus if:

   1. You have spent 6 hrs, in wasted time, a day off work, and so on, these wil be easily calculated.

   2. If just the hours, then it is best to rate them at the basic low rate fo pay, say £5.20 so yoru claim is modest in rate terms, since it will be difficult to evaluate the number of hours, you can add on a bit there to make an overall increase.

   3. Telephone costs, taxi, bus fares, paper, stamps etc.

2. The claim may come to £35.25 say and you can ask for that forthwith, or else if issued in court, it will be increased by £30 for the court fees, recoverable on a win, plus legal advice, depending on the solicitor you use, or taking advise over the telephone at a chargeable rate.

   1. In London a solicitor costs between £125 and £200 per hour. So you might but down anticipated costs there of say 20 mins = £45.

   2. Now you have quantified the result after a claim is issued. A form N1 is available to download from the government website at

   3. Either download it from here or;

   http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/HMCSCourtFinder/FormFinder.do

   1. An example partially filled out is available for download here,

   2. Note if pursuing a claim where the action has not exhausted the procedures for decriminalised parking enforcement. You need to be looking at breaches of the law in other areas than simply parking enforcement, that the council have breached. These areas are more complex, viz; Derogation, Tort, Harassment, damage to property, prejudice or other.

   3. Prepare it as a DRAFT, and always keep it handy for use after your first claim. The local C. Court address is found also at that web url.

3. Now you are prepared in THE SAME WAY as the councils. Namely you have the high price, and the discount price if settled without argument. Do you see that, the model is on their own conduct, you offer an immediate discount as it were for settlement, or the longer route at ever increasing escalation of costs.

   1. It focusses, like with all of us, on the commercial decision. The council will consider if it is cheaper to settle, if they are likely to lose, or take you on. You can always back off at any time before ISSUE, and even after issue you can withdraw the claim, depending on which point you will lose costs that far.

4. Send, email or fax the letter of Formal notice, beginning with “Without prejudice”, and Please Note, or Take Notice, that you intend to proceed in seeking a remedy for your avoidable time and trouble in defending a case, where the result was a conclusion was show to be, no case to answer, or something similar.

5. Give about 14 days for a reply, and then follow with another stating you have not received the courtesy of a reply, and intend to ISSUE the claim in the local county court without further notice to them.

6. The particulars of the claim might look something like the following:

   1. I am seeking compensation for the the following costs, to restore my finances to the position they were at prior to this remarkably prejudicial, and trivial attempt to serve me with a detriment, and subtract from my personal rights and amount of £50-£100, without just cause, due to over zealousness by an official. I was compelled to defend my rights, and have seen no compensation.

   2. Avoidable time and trouble, in a case without grounds, as shown by the refund, £35.25.

   3. Post, stationary, transport, £12.36

   4. Legal advice obtained from a solicitor, or litigant friend for which I have a receipt, £35.00

   5. No reason given for the cancellation, most likely because the council avoids any admission that can lead to liability.

   6. Failure to apologise, on the simple basis that, had a sincere apology been forthcoming, I would probably have set this entire process to one side. It is an affront to my dignity and rights.

7. Lay it on as thick as you like!

8. Hope this helps focus your approach with more confidence.

Good luck.

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.

It will take 24-48 hours from this posting to prepare the date of issue/notice focus thoroughly.

Courteous Pedantic Churl

Mr. A. Winter

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

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

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

Tel: 000000000 email to: mmmm@btinternet.co.uk

Fao A N. Officer

Customer Services Manager

to pass to your webmaster urgently.

CC to list beneath letter..

Wed, 28 Jun 2006 12:56:09

Ref: AW / 17071926 PCN number CU0213???? your letter CLS/LIT/CM/09876??

“Without Prejudice”

____________

Dear Sir./Madam,

I refer to your website concerning re-direction of appeals on PCN issues.

There are several links and references that indicate representations may be made to NPAS not PATAS.

I have spoken to both services, and they advise that NPAS is NOT the correct service to direct appeals, and received the following comment from PATAS, that --- quote "there are quite a few things wrong on their website we have advised them of". Please see below the copied text from the council's website.

National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS) is responsible for appeals outside of London and the statement could have potentially prejudiced an appellant by directing him to the wrong adjudication body. From which one may infer that the information is potentially prejudicial, causing avoidable time and trouble, and rendering such informations as actionable for damages.

I am asking you therefore please to be so kind as to reply in writing to the following questions and oblige. (please treat as Freedom of Information request wherever necessary):

1. Can you confirm that the above statement is incorrect and will be amended immediately to prevent any motorists being misled?

2. Can you please advise as to the person responsible for drafting the statement and the date when the statement went active?

3. Can you please advise as to how many times the web page has been accessed?

I trust that you will acknowledge receipt by return and advise as to the timescale for responding.

I should mention in passing, that I feel it my duty of honour towards you, that the present intention of enforcement in the PCN above, is illegal throughout, not merely for myself, but for all pcn's issued by Camden Council, from the inception of the date of creation of the Statute RTA 1991, since that Act fails to expressedly or impliedly repeal the Declaration of Rights 1668-9 from which I aver I have a particular right I intend to rely on to resist vigorously the advised intent that I now make formal notice that in my view is simply illegal, from which consequences shall flow far greater in proportion to the previously advised notice of a claim under the offence of harassment. Please therefore take notice that my previously advised draft claim will be amended to include the above final comment, and the action has all the ingredients now of a class action, with A Judicial Review if one hase not been properly conducted by the time this comes to fruition.

Yours Most respectfully,

E & OI

A. Winter

CC. Councilors, Mayor ,MP et al.

A.H. Winter B.A. Lit., B.A. Phil (Hons), Additional formal disciplines:LAW, Psychology, Shakespeare, Music. Email: general_aw@btinternet.com

Former MD, Clothing. OEM, IT manager, Application designer, Lecturer, Programmer (Unix,Csh,Basic,C,C+, Author of DBMS III, Menuix)

The formal Notice of intent after NTO

Mr. A. Winter

.....

.......

.........

Tel:

PCN Processing Unit,

PO Box 20217,

NW1 9GH

Director P Bishop, / J woods.

Sent by email

fax

Copy To: C Miller,

Department of Law a& Administration,

LBC, Town Hall,

Judd Street, London WC1H 9LP

BY Email: Legal dept@camden.gov.uk

Tue, 4 Jul 2006 15:23:51

Ref: AW / 17071926 PCN number CU021????? your letter CLS/LIT/CM/1025.151

____________ “Without Prejudice”

“FORMAL NOTICE”

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your NTO which may be deemed served at Monday 3^rd Inst. A hand delivered reply will be made in the next two weeks.

I am not unreasonable and shall give this matter until Monday 10^th for you to consider cancelling the NTO and PCN in an appropriately acceptable manner. A call and email shall be effective.

You have now fulfilled the requirements in tort, derogation and vexation for commencement of irreversibly seeking a remedy. You have shown unequivocally the following recital;

1. Dereliction of duty in civil tort whereby you have eliminated any period of grace and give a PCN “as soon as it is seen”. As elsewhere I have no doubt this includes, giving pcn's in the list of person fitting the category below. *

2. With service of the NTO, and prior alerting to desist, a traversal of the boundary of the aforementioned offence. Please note that unlike you, I took exceptional, considerable and more than reasonable care in alerting you to forbear

3. A preparedness, and evidential instance of manufacturing synthetic assertions contrary to truth.

4. A wilful denial of explicit requested evidence, the content of which may be prejudicial to the legality of your enforcement. Indeed is now highly suspect, since I have compelling evidence this detail was discussed, and is a derogation of provisions ensuring your responsibilities shall not in any way prejudice or obstruct justice.

5. A particularity in the 'non exercising' of discretion that shows two grounds as to the reasons for this exception.

6. Alongside 5. above and underpinning it, there exists direct comparison of the use of discretion to the contrary, with pretext of 'code of standards' while maintaining identical strict observance of the letter of statute.

7. You have read and understood all the reasons I have given for the PCN to be cancelled and ignored them willfully. To recite the past list shall be to repeat myself irrationally.

8. There are at first sight, at least three additional things wrong in the latest NTO, that I shall not bother you about, they can be represented with an adjudicator.

9. You either know or should know, but in particular now do know what reasonable grounds there are for canceling this PCN, and have ignored them, only interested in your letter of the law, disregarding other laws, and making a particular exception of me as aforesaid.

10. All responsible leaders of Camden examining my correspondence, save one, have absented themselves from even the courtesy or civility of a reply. I take the view that this silence is an omission of wilful compliance, in support of enforcement of trivia, without a single glance at other breaches of statutes indicating, and this is a view, moral bankruptcy in favour of revenue collection at any price while simultaneously abrogating the spirit of the law, in as aforesaid trivial enforcements, precisely where there was not, is not and is unlikely to be a serious problem of congestion in side streets where there is in fact a comparative nullity of traffic flow.

11. Anticipating you shall reject this representation I suggest you proceed directly to the NOR that shall be treated as the next stage.

12. The grounds in representation are simply ALL the reasons previously stated, plus those mentioned here, the PCN is invalid, the NTO is invalid, and both jointly are illegal and void, in addition to the particularly prejudicial nature of this enforcement for which you have yet to see the evidence. I deem all this sufficient for you to proceed with your NOR. Your form of course doesn't provides for grounds that relate to the notion of justice embodied in the Magna Carta since 1215, merely a limited set of choices you deem compelling enough to force payment. This in itself is deliberately confusing for most in the community.

13. I take the view, shared by many, that this conduct is deplorably opportunistic. And I perceive NO grounds whatsoever that this PCN in any way ensured better traffic flow on the relevant day and location.

14. For the reasons concerning my disputing this, look within yourselves, and for shame do not ask them of me.

15. I anticipate the full process of representation, leading to potential JR, but irrevocable litigation shall be likely to traverse a year in time, and subject to amendment throughout the period.

Thank you for making your position abundantly clear, and giving confirmation more than double in your resolve.

Thank you. E. & O. I.

Yours Most Respectfully,

A. Winter

* You were made aware of some of this in my first letter. Clearly it means nothing that would affect your policy, where from me, you have earned the title “the 0-60 second Council” and I am reliably informed your policy is leading this code of conduct.

In some areas wardens are attacked by enraged drivers. In Newham, London, wardens were given police protection after 21 attacks in 13 months. In Havering, they were issued with stab-proof vests to protect them from angry motorists.

· In May this year Peter Holbrook returned from holiday in Australia to find yellow lines painted up to his car and an £80 parking ticket. Waltham Forest council said it would be cancelled.

· Chef Gordon Ramsay, right, says he gets between three and five parking tickets on any working day.

· Also in May, Peter Stapleton was fined after stopping his car to re-attach his false leg. He got a £50 parking penalty in north London, despite having a blue disabled badge.

· Lorry driver Harry McLaughlin was given a £60 ticket while he lay dead in his cab after suffering a heart attack near Bothwell, Lanarkshire.

· Sutton Council apologised to a man given a £40 ticket as he tended to his wife after she had a heart attack. Kevin Bailey parked on yellow lines outside his wife's restaurant, where she was being treated.

· In February 2006, a trainee warden put a ticket on a hearse after it stopped to load a coffin in Ashford, Kent. The council cancelled the penalty 30 minutes later.

· In 2004, Nadhim Zahawi, chief executive of pollsters YouGov, got a £100 penalty on his crashed scooter while being loaded into an ambulance with a broken leg.

Copied to Wayne Pendle.

I am going to take a leap and publish a letter I sent yesterday, slightly edited, since the matter is not yet concluded, but the text will be valuable here. Its part of a larger piece of work.

I was bullied yesterday, and want you to see how to prepare for such things in future. Where truth is in dispute, a recorder keeps them mute! But also, truth is so much easier when you get the hang of it, you can hang'em with it....

Here it is. It's a partial template..

Goodness it's three pages long but here goes,

If it's too much space then I will trim it or remove it, and place a link.

A. W...........

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

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

..................... etc

To the Head of Parking Enforcement

and Traffic Warden Team Leader Please be so kind as to forward with all due courtesy.

Paddington Green Police Station

2-4 Harrow Road

London, W2 IXJ

Tel: 020 ...............

Fax for parking Dept. 020 7 ..................

Email:...............@met.police.uk

Sat, 25 Nov 2006 19:28:33

Ref: AW / 17071926 Parking Attendant “PA” 103

or the person on duty in Regent's Park Inner Circle around the hours of 15.30 - 16.15

____________

Dear Sir / Madam,

Please be so kind as to treat this letter as a request under Freedom of Information Act 2000, complaint and notice, all in the kindest and most respectful manner possible.

I use several vehicles weekly in both Regents and Hyde park. I am known and very friendly with most if not all the wardens on duty. I am better known perhaps by the larger vehicle due to its manufacture Particularly to Sylvia 8??, who moved over to Wandsworth recently.

Several times a week for the purpose of recreation as a disabled person, I visit both parks and allow the vehicle to come to rest mostly in Hyde park in a BAY, but in Regents Park on a double yellow line, for special reasons that need not concern this letter. I always have the disabled badge on display and it is valid.

Today I observed PA 103 passing me on both sides of the road and he appeared increasingly annoyed at my presence. Close to 4 pm he approached and told my wife and I in the most peremptory manner, to leave, as we were not allowed to park on double yellow lines. May I point out that I have been challenged by the Police at the same position, and they also stated I was parked in contravention. On that occasion with the police; two in their car, I was asked to show the disabled badge that was in order. They then pointed out the contravention of two yellow lines, and I replied that I understood I was not in contravention and showed them the disabled badge booklet that states clearly I am permitted to rest on a single or double yellow lines for up to three hours at a time. The matter was discussed and I pointed out that without information to the contrary, or signage, the paperwork I was carrying expressly permitted me the right to park, on double yellow outside the congestion zone. The police were satisfied, and I was not challenged since that time while being observed by them many more times..

I also understood that the yellow lines were under police jurisdiction and the white bays under warden's. If this was correct then the approach by the warden today would appear to be ultra vires. in that he acted outside his remit to address the matter of contraventions for yellow lines. Notwithstanding this however, I pointed out our disabled badge and he ignored it telling me to leave or receive a ticket.

I then withdrew my disabled pamphlet to show him the printed matter and he ignored it again, and repeated in an increasingly aggressive and vexing manner to move, saying that the badge permits were not valid since the parks were Royal Parks. I stated I too was aware of that and produced the “The Hyde Park and The Regent's Park (Vehicle Parking) Regulations 1995[6] & Statutory Instrument 2004 No. 1307” and “Greenwich Park, Hyde Park and The Regent's Park (Vehicle Parking). (Amendment) Regulations 2004” asking him to please inform me where in the statute I was contravening the regulations?

Again he was dismissive, not paying any attention to my courteous request for him to clarify where I was in any contravention, he called somebody on the telephone, by now he was shouting, and that recipient shall be able to confirm it, asking merely if a car was allowed to park on double yellow lines to which of course the answer was no, he did not explain the details I felt accorded me the right. I also mention that I arrived well after a wedding vehicle was parked a few yards ahead, of course without disabled badge or exemptions and PA 103 NEVER challenged them, choosing me as a particular target. I have used these facilities lawfully for the past 40 years without let or hindrance.

What was most remarkably prejudicial about the encounter was the lack of civility of a PA, supposedly performing his duty as a civil servant in a threatening and tyrannically uncivil manner. The want of civility was deplorable in my view. He began to depart angrily not bringing out his notebook at that stage or commence to write a Penalty charge Notice “PCN”.

I exited the vehicle and called after him, showing him a Dictaphone and asked him his PA name and or number and which station he worked at, he replied “Paddington” I asked to see his badge number it was not on display and took it on trust it was 103. I then advised him that I considered his manner was unwarranted, provocative, uncivil, veracious and amounted to harassment. I took this as the first formal notice to him that I considered his conduct towards me as the first instance of vexation under the offence of Harassment Act 1997 section 40. He was making notes in his notebook. This letter is to advise that his team leader would in such circumstance become vicariously liable to the demeanor were it not checked or disciplined.

I returned to the vehicle and drove away “VDA” of course without a PCN. The point in making this declaration is to make the department aware that such conduct is totally unacceptable for a ”PA”working for Westminster, and I would like to bring to your attention that coincidentally I am aware, that Westminster Council held a Parking Summit meeting on Monday 6th November at the Landmark Hotel. Where there was a declaration of commitment to operate a "firm fair and excellent" service." This code of conduct was particularly invidious and contrary to that aim.

This letter thus serves as a request please to clarify the nature of parking regulations in the Royal Parks, insofar as, to please provide the relevant body of text, or indeed Traffic Management Order “TMO” to inform me of the precise regulations that I may or may not be alleged to contravene with my disabled badge rights that were awarded me for very serious and certainly NOT frivolous reasons. Conduct such as was shown me, today is not only contrary to reasonable behaviour but under certain conditions could pose a threat to my life due to hypertension.

Whatever the situation, and of course I am happy to desist from the location should I be provided with information to rely on. Otherwise in the contrary of being advised I would courteously state I shall continue, but expect that should you find I am in contravention that I be advised in writing so that I am more circumspect in future. I do not mind whatsoever being asked to move on within the norms of civility I should have legitimate expectations of , there is no need for bullying, or oppressive manners towards me, I understand English very well, and in such matters am keen to learn.

Whatever the situation however, please note that a second encounter of such harassing vexatious nature after this notice shall render that PA and the Department vicariously liable to an action under the offence aforesaid that shall be coupled with the allegation that my rights have and or shall be breached under the following statutes, marked 1-5 below. Please be advised that I usually carry a video and voice recorder on my person for such encounters, and this can be corroborated by Mrs. S ........... of the Met Police Criminal Justice Unit as I recently provided her with an hour long recording being witness and prime assistant to an accident, calling the Police into attendance.

In conclusion may I please ask most respectfully that either the warden be re-trained, disciplined or whatever deemed necessary to ensure his demeanour towards the citizens and electorate is neither predatory nor adversarial in future.

Perhaps, if not responded to by midday Monday 27th Nov, that this matter is taken seriously and will be investigated, I shall have the opportunity at 5-7 pm on the same day, while meeting Mr. ............., Director of Parking, City of Westminster, you may prefer I hand this letter to him personally, rather than post it. Please advise and if required ask him if my name is on the guest list to a meeting held adjacent to the H.............

May I humbly remain please,

Yours most respectfully.

AW.....

1.Disability Discrimination Act 2005 Chapter 13, “DDA”

.......a.Breach of Discrimination by public authorities consistent with part 21B – 1. and

.......b.contrary to 21C with all parts of the RTA above, as well as

.......c.contrary to the Meaning of "discrimination" in section 21B and

.......d.contrary to 21E Duties for purposes 1. -(b), 4. ©, (d), and

.......e.contrary to Duties of public authorities "PART 5A, PUBLIC AUTHORITIES, 49A General duty parts -1. (a), (b), ©, (d), (e) with particular focus on

.......f.-1. (d) reprinted “the need to take steps to take account of disabled persons' disabilities, even where that involves treating disabled persons more favourably than other persons;” where the claimant shall show evidence of favourable treatment in the use of discretion elsewhere to ordinary people, and wilfully withholding that discretion contrary in particular to the claimant, but most particularly contrary to the law in many areas, as aforementioned.

2.Protection from Harassment Act 1997, Chapter 40, “PHA”

.......a.The defendant was aware immediately on sight of the disabled badge on display, as well as being fully notified that the claimant was disabled and aware of the prejudice intended.

.......b.Prohibition of harassment. 1. - (1), (a), (b) having been duly notified in writing at each breach stage, of the claimant's apprehension of the course of conduct being so pursued., in consistency with 1. -(2) and

.......c.contrary to 3-(c), with the breaches aforementioned in the reference to Disability Discrimination. above in mind, juxtaposed with the Wednesbury principle of reasonableness,

.......d.The Offence of harassment. 2. - (1), .

.......e.Hence a Civil remedy. at 3. - (1) { PS up to 5k and 6 mths prison....... }

3.Human Rights Act 1998 (UK) Chapter 42, “HRA”.

.......a.As a result of contrariety with

.......b.Acts of public authorities. 6. - (1) and (6) that includes a “failure to act,” plus the apprehension of contrariety of part 7.

.......c. the defendant will have wilfully breached and or derogated the 'EUHR' . Below.

4.The European convention on Human Rights, Protocol 5, “EUHR”

.......a.contrary to Article 3, being subjected to degrading treatment.

5.With an added Collateral breach.

.......a.Tort, Breach of statutory duties in the above recitals, and Negligence - duty of care, affirmed to exist within the three stage Caparo test.

PS this 5 act part is part of a standard template of ten I use so its easy to pull up what I want.

If this is too operose and boring, just say so and I'll edit or delete it.

Handling bailiffs.

To step in and prevent a bailiff call before costs increase.

OnLine Forms

If you need to complete a general application form - N244 (e.g. to apply to set judgment aside) or application to reduce instalments - N245, these can now be completed electronically on-line and the relevant fee paid by credit or debit card. For more information, please click on the following link:
https://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/countycourtformsonline/Home.go

or

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/HMCSCourtFinder/FormFinder.do

Avoid leaving these things so late that you face an inevitable increase in costs when you could have appealed, or fought your case, because of criminal council opportunism in taking advantage of your ignorance in this area of the law.

Remember, if you have saved, paid a mortgage, lease or hire purchase on the item, then if it originally cost you say £1000, it has actually cost you probably £1300-1500. When the bailiff sells that at auction, depending on its age and current value, he may only obtain say £3-400 for it, just about covering HIS fees, and still leaving some over for a further visit. That's £1500 value of goods to settle a £300 debt. Nobody can realistically afford to see that kind of extreme plunder and wastage, then you have to go out to buy it all again. What a waste, its better to make an arrangement if you can, and you should already have tried it, so that you can make payments weekly or monthly. You will see many weeks of hard work go out the window just for allowing it to happen. Stop and think what you are doing. Over the next few weeks, there will be loads of advice as to how you can arrange, avoid, prevent and even not pay any of these insurmountable debts. There are other ways out. Providing there is no fraud involved, you cannot go to prison for such penalties, so why not fight them at the earlier smaller stages, you may discover you never had to pay it in the first place. Think about that, because many council enforcements at present are invalid. Imagine being forced to part with £1500 of goods tosettle a liability that you NEVER had to settle simply because the council persuaded you that your were in contravention of a law, while THEY TOO were contravening the law. They may be entield to pay YOU damages for civil enforcement that was illegal. The question you MUST ask yourself, is, DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR RIGHTS ARE, and WHAT THE LIMITS of their powers are?

For the debtor; the person owing the money to somebody else, ONLY the debtor's possession can be the subject of distraint.

All goods that are on hire purchase, lease purchase, belonging to the landlord, spouse, children or other parties CANNOT be take except by breaking the law, and bailiffs should not do that. So the first thing, to do if you HAVE left it so late is to say, then write down all the items that belong to the debtor only, exclude all other items by signing that those items belong to persons X, Y, and Z, & companies X, Y , and Z.

The bailiff will be looking to remove only goods belonging to the debtor, if he acts beyond these powers tell him the consequences will be a remedy sought in court at his, his company's cost. Tell the bailiff his client, the council or creditor who is owed the money, they will have to proceed against the goods by way of an 'inter pleader' hearing. That is a hearing to determine the ownership of the goods in question and the bailiff should leave the goods on the premiss's, and leave you with a 'walking possession order or notice' stating the goods should not be removed until the ownership has been lawfully determined. This is a lien over the goods, meaning they are vested in the court or bailiffs warrant until resolved. It won't cost YOU anything.

If you are at such a serious stages as being close to bankruptcy and have considered this as an option, then you can apply to the court for an interim order, which is a temporary stay on ALL proceedings against you BEFORE any goods can be touched there must be a hearing to determine the financial status and possibility of making a composition in favour of ALL the creditors equally n proportion. Because no creditor may be given preferential status, this order stops all distraint from whatever source. Thereafter any bailiff visits, they just need to be shown that piece of paper and they MUST leave, without distraint. It is a court order, they can only cross at their peril. Better to fax it and that will stop them even coming.

On an old Monkhouse comedy where Prof, Dr Corey said,
"You can get MORE with a kind word and............... a gun! Than just a kind word." A good legal letter is a bit like a gun.

Some will be provided for you soon.

If you are the type of family that plan their lives, there is coming some advice where you ensure you are always protected from this kind of detriment. You need a good wholesome home, trust, integrity and a loving relationship. The nothing can touch you. Property goes in to trust, or belongs to the member of the family not at risk from life's misfortunes. The RICH have always done it, so that when their offspring became wasters or gamblers, the fortunes never got touched. This is for a later series, unless there is a reader who wishes to make such plans, then contact us via email on the main site. You need to plan at least 2 – 5 years ahead for this advice, if you are reading this section it is unlikely you have much chance to plan such things ahead.

Either insolvency practitioner costing several thousand pounds, or a do it your self alternative coming soon with letters you can use for all your creditors.

Meantime 2 good links

Government insolvency website.

General advice on Ballifs.

WHERE are YOUR rights being trespassed upon?

Here is a list of some of the many, take either ALL or some that are relevant, and add your own in particular. It's called ring-fenced arguments. Theirs are, why not yours too.?

Penalty disproportionate with offence EU HR Protocol 5 article 1 I think, not sure, the main page of the above link has loads of statutes you can utilise.

1. Protection from Harassment Act 1997, Chapter 40, --1, 2, 3,

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

3. The European convention on Human Rights, Protocol 5, article 6,

4. Collateral breaches.

   1. Tort, Breach of statutory duties in the above recitals, and Negligence - duty of care,

5. Trespass to your vehicle, Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977

6. Also look at the Wednesbury principle of fairness in our database of maxims

Also consider the following.....

Joint Report of the Parking Adjudicators of England and Wales for 2004:-

“It is important therefore that the decision to clamp a vehicle or to tow it away is made with care and only in circumstances in which the Council seriously believes that its decision can be justified if challenged by the motorist”

The Chief Parking Adjudicator for England and Wales has recently referred to clamping as “draconian” and commented (see enclosed):-

“Adjudicators are of the view that the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into the national legislation places a greater duty on councils to have regard to proportionality. In particular, the decision to remove a vehicle must be taken in the context of Article One of the First Protocol of the ECHR and requires the exercise of judgment. It is for the council to prove that the removal was proportionate and necessary. They need to be able to justify in every case why the issue of a PCN alone would not have achieved the desired objective (i.e. of a reasonable level of compliance with legitimate parking restrictions”.

Proportionality is regarded as a fundamental principle of European law and was established by the European Court of Justice in the case Fromancais SA v Fonds d'Orientation et de Regularisation – 1983 where the Court ruled:-

“ In order to establish whether a provision of Community Law is consonant with the principle of proportionality it is necessary to establish in the first place, whether the means it employs to achieve its aim correspond to the importance of the aim.

Everyone has the following legitimate expectations and rights.

See HOW we are framed, if it interests you.

http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/ombdetritus.html

The see HOW,if you are making a claim, you too can frame the basis of the arguments with rulings that cover many aspects of negligence and wilful negligence.

These are at http://www.logiclaw.co.uk, right hand bar menu, under case law, and maxims.

Statutory Powers:

.....(a) Ultra Vires doctrine.

.....(b) The motoring public. Compliance with conditions attached to powers

.....(c) I do not think we are entitled to play fast and loose

.....(d) In notices affecting private rights,

.....(d) It is imperative that the public can have confidence

.....(e) Reasonable Expectations.

Non-statutory controls

Some of the non-statutory controls are:

.....(a) The Wednesbury principle; Wednesbury unreasonableness

.....(b) Rules of natural justice, see just below.

.....(c) Proportionality (See Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. v. Union Territory, Chandigarh11, Union of India v. Rajesh P.U.12, etc.)

.....(d) Promissory estoppel

.....(e) Legitimate expectation

Rules of Natural Justice

.....(a) Audi alteram partem.

.....(b) The rule against bias.

.....(c) Unwritten rule of the law.

Criminal Law:

.....(a) The ultimate guardian of the fairness.

.....(b) The elements of a crime: Actus Reus and Mens Rea

Law:

.....(a) Negligence - Duty of care.

Natural Justice.

Statutory Power: Duty to act fairly.

Statutory Power: True purpose.

Statutory Power: Limitations.

Statutory power: Discretion, duty to promote legislative purpose.

Statutory power: Duty not to act 'ultra vires'.

Statutory power: Unreasonableness.

Statutory power: Statutory intent.

Statutory power: Duty to act in good faith.

Statutory power: Discretion, duty to act reasonably.

Right to procedural fairness.

Duty to enquire/ ask the right questions.

Duty to consider all relevant material.

Duty to exclude all irrelevant material.

Right to see documents relied on.

Right to cross-examine.

Duty to consider evidence of probative value.

Right to sufficient information.

Right to legitimate expectation.

Duty not to adopt an unduly rigid policy.

Duty not to be irrational.

Defend yourself, know how!

Statutes on Parking, Tort clamping is trespass to vehicle, Human Rights, Insolvency, Bankruptcy, Derogation, and Harassment. Important extracts of relevant SI's to use in filing your claim. The full acts are available on this site at UK Statutes, with Baillie link to main acts and case law, ALL FREE.

Essential sections and pointers for arguing your side.

Road Traffic Act 1991 Full Act click here.

Parking attendants,

Uniform MUST be worn, otherwise PCN isn't valid, No HAT, invalid & that's THAT!

63A. — (1) A local authority may provide for the supervision of parking places within their area by individuals to be known as parking attendants.

(2) Parking attendants shall also have such other functions in relation to stationary vehicles as may be conferred by or under any other enactment.

(3) A parking attendant shall be—

(a) an individual employed by the authority; or

(b) where the authority have made arrangements with any person for the purposes of this section, an individual employed by that person to act as a parking attendant.

(4) Parking attendants in Greater London shall wear such uniform as the Secretary of State may determine when exercising prescribed functions, and shall not exercise any of those functions when not in uniform.

Parking penalties in London.

66.—(1) Where, in the case of a stationary vehicle in a designated parking place, a parking attendant has reason to believe that a penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle, he may—

(a) fix a penalty charge notice to the vehicle; or

(b) give such a notice to the person appearing to him to be in charge of the vehicle.

If you return to your car and the ticket has not yet been placed on the vehicle or given to you, then DRIVE OFF nicely and quietly, you are free to do so.

(2) For the purposes of this Part of this Act, a penalty charge is payable with respect to a vehicle, by the owner of the vehicle, if—

(a) the vehicle has been left—

(i) otherwise than as authorised by or under any order relating to the designated parking place; or

(ii) beyond the period of parking which has been paid for;

(b) no parking charge payable with respect to the vehicle has been paid; or

(c) there has, with respect to the vehicle, been a contravention of, or failure to comply with, any provision made by or under any order relating to the designated parking place.

This is an area of general ignorance. Every road has some or other regulation covering its use. The regulations are called Traffic Regulation order, or Road Traffic order. ASK for them from the Council, you can verify IF you really have committed a contravention, It the council withholds it, this is a sign it doesn't want you to know, accuse them of breaching a code of cunduct used in civil proceedings, referred to CPR 31.6 and sections, where they must disclose material adverse to their case, withholding it should leave an undetermined implication of hiding the truth that's prejudicial.

(3) A penalty charge notice must state—

(a) the grounds on which the parking attendant believes that a penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle;

(b) the amount of the penalty charge which is payable;

(c) that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;

(d) that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion;

(e) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, a notice to owner may be served by the London authority on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle;

(f) the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be sent.

Anything wrong on the ticket, fight it, a very serious colour difference can be disputed as you do not drive or keep a car of such colour, (don't dispute shades, it has to be serious).

Immobilisation of vehicles in parking places.

69.—(1) Where, in the case of a stationary vehicle in a designated parking place, a parking attendant has reason to believe that the vehicle has been permitted to remain at rest there in any of the circumstances specified in section 66(2) (a), (b) or (c) of this Act, he or another person acting under his direction may fix an immobilisation device to the vehicle.

This is referred to in 70 below, and placed adjacent for that reason.

Exemptions from section 69.

70.—(1) Section 69(1) of this Act shall not apply in relation to a vehicle if—

(a) a current disabled person's badge is displayed on the vehicle;

(b) not more than 15 minutes have elapsed since the end of any period for which the appropriate charge was duly paid at the time of parking; or

(c) not more than 15 minutes have elapsed since the end of any unexpired time (in respect of another vehicle) which is available at the relevant parking meter at the time of parking.

(2) In any case in which section 69(1) of this Act would apply to a vehicle but for subsection (1)(a) above and the vehicle was not, at the time at which it was parked, being used—

(a) in accordance with regulations under section 21 of the [1970 c. 44.] Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970; and

(b) in circumstances falling within section 117(1)(b) of the [1984 c. 27.] Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (use where a disabled person's concession would be available),

the person in charge of the vehicle at that time shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(3) In this section "disabled person's badge" has the same meaning as in section 142(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, and "parking meter" has the same meaning as in section 46(2)(a) of that Act.

THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND ITS FIVE PROTOCOLS Full Act click here.

ARTICLE 6

In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgement shall be pronounced publicly by the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

ARTICLE 8

Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

ARTICLE 13

Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

ARTICLE 14

The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

If you have decided to take an action in court remember to use these few rules.

Carefully follow the general procedure laid down in pre-action protocol, you will probably find the defendant suppressing and ignoring truths that are adverse to their case,and when you request disclosure later, it will be adverse to their claim in costs....

Pre-Action Protocol.

Carefully follow the general procedure laid down in pre-action protocol, you will probably find the defendant suppressing and ignoring truths that are adverse to their case,and when you request disclosure later, it will be adverse to their claim in costs....

GENERAL

1.4 The objectives of pre-action protocols are:

(1) to encourage the exchange of early and full information about the prospective legal claim,

(2) to enable parties to avoid litigation by agreeing a settlement of the claim before the commencement of proceedings,

(3) to support the efficient management of proceedings where litigation cannot be avoided.

COMPLIANCE WITH PROTOCOLS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2.1 The Civil Procedure Rules enable the court to take into account compliance or non-compliance with an applicable protocol when giving directions for the management of proceedings (see CPR rules 3.1(4) and (5) and 3.9(e)) and when making orders for costs (see CPR rule 44.3(a)).

2.2 The court will expect all parties to have complied in substance with the terms of an approved protocol.

2.3 If, in the opinion of the court, non-compliance has led to the commencement of proceedings which might otherwise not have needed to be commenced, or has led to costs being incurred in the proceedings that might otherwise not have been incurred, the orders the court may make include:

(1) an order that the party at fault pay the costs of the proceedings, or part of those costs, of the other party or parties;

(2) an order that the party at fault pay those costs on an indemnity basis;

(3) if the party at fault is a claimant in whose favour an order for the payment of damages or some specified sum is subsequently made, an order depriving that party of interest on such sum and in respect of such period as may be specified, and/or awarding interest at a lower rate than that at which interest would otherwise have been awarded;

(4) if the party at fault is a defendant and an order for the payment of damages or some specified sum is subsequently made in favour of the claimant, an order awarding interest on such sum and in respect of such period as may be specified at a higher rate, not exceeding 10% above base rate (cf. CPR rule 36.21(2), than the rate at which interest would otherwise have been awarded.

Make an application as early as possible for standard, and if necessary special disclosure under CPR

Standard disclosure what documents are to be disclosed 31.6

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

31.6 Standard disclosure requires a party to disclose only

(a) the documents on which he relies; and

(b) the documents which

(i) adversely affect his own case;

(ii) adversely affect another party’s case; or

(iii) support another party’s case; and

(c) the documents which he is required to disclose by a relevant practice direction.

Also use the form N266 and ask the defendant to respond to that Notice to Admit..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

31.6 Standard disclosure requires a party to disclose only –

(a) the documents on which he relies; and

(b) the documents which –

(i) adversely affect his own case;

(ii) adversely affect another party’s case; or

(iii) support another party’s case; and

(c) the documents which he is required to disclose by a relevant practice direction.

Also use the form N266 and ask the defendant to respond to that Notice to Admit..

Prohibition of harassment. Full Act click here.

. - (1) A person must not pursue a course of conduct-

(a) which amounts to harassment of another, and

(b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.

(2) For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows-

(a) that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,

(b) that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or

(c) that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.

Offence of harassment.

2. - (1) A person who pursues a course of conduct in breach of section 1 is guilty of an offence.

1. A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.

Level 5 is £5000 penalty

(3) In section 24(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (arrestable offences), after paragraph (m) there is inserted-

"(n) an offence under section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (harassment).".

Civil remedy.

3. - (1) An actual or apprehended breach of section 1 may be the subject of a claim in civil proceedings by the person who is or may be the victim of the course of conduct in question.

(2) On such a claim, damages may be awarded for (among other things) any anxiety caused by the harassment and any financial loss resulting from the harassment.

(3) Where-

(a) in such proceedings the High Court or a county court grants an injunction for the purpose of restraining the defendant from pursuing any conduct which amounts to harassment, and

(b) the plaintiff considers that the defendant has done anything which he is prohibited from doing by the injunction,

Human Rights Act 1998 (UK) Chapter 42 Full Act click here.

Public authorities

Acts of public authorities.

6. - (1) It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an act if-

(a) as the result of one or more provisions of primary legislation, the authority could not have acted differently; or

(b) in the case of one or more provisions of, or made under, primary legislation which cannot be read or given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights, the authority was acting so as to give effect to or enforce those provisions.

(3) In this section "public authority" includes-

(a) a court or tribunal, and

(b) any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature,

but does not include either House of Parliament or a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings in Parliament.

(4) In subsection (3) "Parliament" does not include the House of Lords in its judicial capacity.

(5) In relation to a particular act, a person is not a public authority by virtue only of subsection (3)(b) if the nature of the act is private.

1. "An act" includes a failure to act but does not include a failure to-

Omissions, IE failures to act, is the main area to focus your mind's eye. Ask yourself what would you do as a caring person of integrity and sincerity. Would you shout to warn someone in danger, or OMIT it, cloaking it in behaviour. If your adversary has revenue in mind they will invariably suppress, omit, fail to act, and try to call it afterwards, simple negligence – not accountable, but look for the WILFUL aspect, if it is wilful then it is highly culpable JUST as if it had been an ACT. If you asked them several times for documents in writing, and they omitted, then your suspicions should be seriously heightened.

(a) introduce in, or lay before, Parliament a proposal for legislation; or

(b) make any primary legislation or remedial order.

Proceedings. 7. - (1) A person who claims that a public authority has acted (or proposes to act) in a way which is made unlawful by section 6(1) may-

(a) bring proceedings against the authority under this Act in the appropriate court or tribunal, or

(b) rely on the Convention right or rights concerned in any legal proceedings,

but only if he is (or would be) a victim of the unlawful act.

(2) In subsection (1)(a) "appropriate court or tribunal" means such court or tribunal as may be determined in accordance with rules; and proceedings against an authority include a counterclaim or similar proceeding.

(3) If the proceedings are brought on an application for judicial review, the applicant is to be taken to have a sufficient interest in relation to the unlawful act only if he is, or would be, a victim of that act.

(4) If the proceedings are made by way of a petition for judicial review in Scotland, the applicant shall be taken to have title and interest to sue in relation to the unlawful act only if he is, or would be, a victim of that act.

(5) Proceedings under subsection (1)(a) must be brought before the end of-

(a) the period of one year beginning with the date on which the act complained of took place; or

(b) such longer period as the court or tribunal considers equitable having regard to all the circumstances,

but that is subject to any rule imposing a stricter time limit in relation to the procedure in question.

(6) In subsection (1)(b) "legal proceedings" includes-

(a) proceedings brought by or at the instigation of a public authority; and

(b) an appeal against the decision of a court or tribunal.

Proceedings.

7. - (1) A person who claims that a public authority has acted (or proposes to act) in a way which is made unlawful by section 6(1) may-

(a) bring proceedings against the authority under this Act in the appropriate court or tribunal, or

(b) rely on the Convention right or rights concerned in any legal proceedings,

but only if he is (or would be) a victim of the unlawful act.

Derogations and reservations

Derogations.

14. - (1) In this Act "designated derogation" means-

(a) the United Kingdom's derogation from Article 5(3) of the Convention; and

(b) any derogation by the United Kingdom from an Article of the Convention, or of any protocol to the Convention, which is designated for the purposes of this Act in an order made by the Secretary of State.

(2) The derogation referred to in subsection (1)(a) is set out in Part I of Schedule 3.

(3) If a designated derogation is amended or replaced it ceases to be a designated derogation.

(4) But subsection (3) does not prevent the Secretary of State from exercising his power under subsection (1)(b) to make a fresh designation order in respect of the Article concerned.

(5) The Secretary of State must by order make such amendments to Schedule 3 as he considers appropriate to reflect-

(a) any designation order; or

(b) the effect of subsection (3).

(6) A designation order may be made in anticipation of the making by the United Kingdom of a proposed derogation.

Disability Discrimination Act 2005 Chapter 13, PART 5A PUBLIC AUTHORITIES 49A Full Act click here.

General duty

(1) Every public authority shall in carrying out its functions have due regard to-

(a) the need to eliminate discrimination that is unlawful under this Act;

(b) the need to eliminate harassment of disabled persons that is related to their disabilities;

(c) the need to promote equality of opportunity between disabled persons and other persons;

(d) the need to take steps to take account of disabled persons' disabilities, even where that involves treating disabled persons more favourably than other persons;

(e) the need to promote positive attitudes towards disabled persons; and

(f) the need to encourage participation by disabled persons in public life.

(2) Subsection (1) is without prejudice to any obligation of a public authority to comply with any other provision of this Act.

TORT, Full Act click here. Pdf file

A tort is a civil wrong, as distinguished from a criminal wrong

Property torts involve any intentional interference with the property rights of the plaintiff. Those commonly recognized include trespass to land, trespass to chattels, and conversion.

This law has been used for a remedy against clamping, in the Vine V Waltham Forrest case, see top for link. The Tort ACT can be downloaded at this link.

Here is a link to two letters I have written to Camden concerning clamping attempts.

Declaration that item of account is unlawful. Full Act click here.

Trying to get the money back......Section 17.

Extract from LMAG.

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.

Alex Henney

General Secretary

LMAG

The section referred to......

Declaration that item of account is unlawful. 17. - (1) Where-

(a) it appears to the auditor carrying out an audit under this Act, other than an audit of accounts of a health service body, that an item of account is contrary to law, and

(b) the item is not sanctioned by the Secretary of State,

the auditor may apply to the court for a declaration that the item is contrary to law.
(2) On an application under this section the court may make or refuse to make the declaration asked for, and if it makes the declaration then, subject to subsection (3), it may also-

(a) order that any person responsible for incurring or authorising expenditure declared unlawful shall repay it in whole or in part to the body in question and, where there are two or more such persons, that they shall be jointly and severally liable to do so;

(b) if the expenditure declared unlawful exceeds £2,000 and the person responsible for incurring or authorising it is, or was at the time of his conduct in question, a member of a local authority, order him to be disqualified for being a member of a local authority for a specified period; and

(c) order rectification of the accounts.

(3) The court shall not make an order under subsection (2)(a) or (b) if satisfied that the person responsible for incurring or authorising the expenditure acted reasonably or in the belief that the expenditure was authorised by law, and in any other case shall have regard to all the circumstances, including that person's means and ability to repay the expenditure or any part of it.
(4) A person who has made an objection under section 16(1)(a) and is aggrieved by a decision of an auditor not to apply for a declaration under this section may-

(a) not later than six weeks after being notified of the decision, require the auditor to state in writing the reasons for his decision, and

(b) appeal against the decision to the court;

and on such an appeal the court has the same powers in relation to the item of account to which the objection relates as if the auditor had applied for the declaration.
(5) On an application or appeal under this section relating to the accounts of a body, the court may make such order as it thinks fit for the payment by the body of expenses incurred, in connection with the application or appeal, by-

(a) the auditor,

(b) the person to whom the application or appeal relates, or

(c) the person by whom the appeal is brought.

(6) The High Court and the county courts have jurisdiction for the purposes of this section.

OnLine Forms

Or here

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/HMCSCourtFinder/FormFinder.do

Getting refunds, even after PCN's are paid, and at Enforcement stage with Bailiffs.

Disabled badge notice for dashboard of your car.

NOTICE TO PA or Police.

If this car is parked in any way that is a contravention in the Borough of Camden, or another London Borough, then note it is likely to be for reasons that are very serious, or relevant to my rights under several Statutory Instruments. The primary being, Road Traffic Act 1991 section 70 designating a blue badge holder EXEMPT from very many prohibitions. To deliver a ticket under circumstance where the vehicle is exempt, will be seen as an offence of harassment under the 1997 ACT sections 1-3, , (Maximum penalty 6 months in Prison, and £5000 fine), and if clamped,, then additionally an act of trespass under the Tort (Interference with Goods Act) 1977, with case law precedent as notified to Camden in the formal notice sent them on August 28^th 2006. The driver gives NOTICE he DOES NOT consent to a clamp, despite warnings to the contrary. In addition it shall be seen as a dereliction in duty of care by the PA or Officer, under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 Chapter 13. PART 5A PUBLIC AUTHORITIES. You should confer with your superior before taking such action, as you will be included in the remedial issue of proceedings that shall follow, and therefore note the name of your superior on the ticket, as he shall be the directing mind responsible and accountable to the court in the event of the case prevailing. This notice does NOT constitute all the SI's invoked at such a trial, including EU HR and UK HR - Human Rights act 1988. Be sure that you are certain to detail every word of this notice, as part of your duty in your notebook. Please note the substitute badge, if this is a Ford Escort for use instead of the blue badge, having confirmed this is valid from the main office. Your circumspection will be appreciated and noted. Thank you.

The 56 DAY duty of response on clamping.

Road Traffic Act 1991 (c. 40)

1991 c. 40 - continued

Representations in relation to removal or immobilisation of vehicles.

71.—(1) The owner or person in charge of a vehicle who—

(a) removes it from the custody of a London authority in accordance with subsection (4A) of section 101 of the [1984 c. 27.] Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (ultimate disposal of vehicles abandoned and removable under that Act);

(b) receives any sum in respect of the vehicle under subsection (5A) of that section;

(c) is informed that the proceeds of sale of the vehicle did not exceed the aggregate amount mentioned in subsection (5A) of that section; or

(d) secures its release from an immobilisation device in accordance with section 69(4) of this Act,

shall thereupon be informed of his right under this section to make representations to the relevant authority and of the effect of section 72 of this Act.

(2) The relevant authority shall give that information, or shall cause it to be given, in writing.

(3) Any person to whom subsection (1) above applies may make representations to the relevant authority on one or more of the grounds mentioned in subsection (4) below.

(4) The grounds are—

(a) that there were no reasonable grounds for the parking attendant concerned to believe that the vehicle had been permitted to remain at rest in the parking place in circumstances specified in section 66(2)(a), (b) or (c) of this Act;

(b) that the vehicle had been permitted to remain at rest in the parking place by a person who was in control of the vehicle without the consent of the owner;

(c) that the place in which the vehicle was at rest was not a designated parking place;

(d) in a case within subsection (1)(d) above, that, by virtue of an exemption given by section 70 of this Act, section 69 of this Act did not apply to the vehicle at the time in question; or

(e) that the penalty or other charge in question exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.

(5) An authority may disregard any representations which are received by them after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the person making them is informed, under subsection (1) above, of his right to make representations.

(6) It shall be the duty of an authority to whom representations are duly made under this section, before the end of the period of 56 days beginning with the date on which they receive the representations—

(a) to consider them and any supporting evidence which the person making them provides; and

(b) to serve on that person notice of their decision as to whether they accept that the ground in question has been established.

Some detail on vital statistics in tow aways also......

http://www.parking-appeals.gov.uk/IveReceived/challengeRemove.asp

A slightly different procedure applies for people who want to challenge the removal of their vehicle, because they have to pay the charges before their vehicle is released.

A council cannot remove your vehicle unless it has first been issued with a Penalty Charge Notice. In addition, your vehicle will not normally be released until you have paid the penalty charge, the release fee and any storage charges due. You will need to supply reasonable proof of entitlement to the vehicle before it is released. If in doubt, speak with staff at the removal pound before you turn up to collect your vehicle.

Stage 1 - Formal Representations to the Local Council

If you believe that the penalty charge and/or the removal was unfair, then you should make written representations to the council within 28 days. State your case clearly and simply. If you have evidence to support your claims, such as receipts or witness statements, send them in. (We recommend that you always send copies only and hold on to the originals).

There are certain legal grounds on which a formal representation may be made. However, if you don’t think you meet one of these grounds you should still state your case, since the council may exercise its discretion and cancel the penalty charge and/or the release fee.

If the council does not reply within 56 days of receiving your representations, they must cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and refund all the charges you have paid.

The council may accept your representations completely, in which case all the charges you have already paid will be refunded. Alternatively, they may reject your representation against the PCN, the removal, or both.

If the council rejects your representations, you will be sent a letter explaining why. This is called a Notice of Rejection of Representations. With this letter, you should receive a form called a Notice of Appeal, allowing you to appeal to the independent Parking Adjudicator.

...........

These are the grounds on which you may make formal representations to the council against the clamping or removal of your vehicle. The same grounds appear on the Notice of Appeal form used to make an appeal to the independent Parking Adjudicator.

1.

The alleged parking contravention did not occur.

This ground of appeal seldom applies. It does not apply just because you do not agree with the regulations or the scheme.

2.

When the vehicle was parked it had been taken without the consent of the owner.

This ground covers stolen vehicles and vehicles used without the owner’s consent. The latter category could apply, for example, to a vehicle taken by “joy-riders”. You will normally be expected to provide the council with a crime reference number with your representations.

3.

The penalty charge, release or storage charge exceeded the relevant amount.

This applies if you have been charged more than the amount allowed in law and which the council has set and published.

4.

The Traffic Regulation (or Traffic Management) Order was invalid

This might apply if you can show that the signs or lines were wrong, that an exempted activity such as loading or unloading was taking place at the time, or that the vehicle was in fact displaying a valid ticket, badge, permit etc.

5.

The vehicle was clamped or removed when a disabled person’s badge was on display.

Councils may not clamp or remove a vehicle properly displaying a valid blue or orange badge. In extreme circumstances they can relocate such a vehicle, but should not remove it to the pound.

6.

The vehicle was clamped or removed when less than 15 minutes had elapsed since the paid time expired.

While a PCN can be issued to a vehicle as soon as paid parking time has elapsed, they may not additionally clamp or remove it until at least 15 minute have passed.

A slightly different procedure applies for people who want to challenge the removal of their vehicle, because they have to pay the charges before their vehicle is released.

A council cannot remove your vehicle unless it has first been issued with a Penalty Charge Notice. In addition, your vehicle will not normally be released until you have paid the penalty charge, the release fee and any storage charges due. You will need to supply reasonable proof of entitlement to the vehicle before it is released. If in doubt, speak with staff at the removal pound before you turn up to collect your vehicle.

Stage 1 - Formal Representations to the Local Council

If you believe that the penalty charge and/or the removal was unfair, then you should make written representations to the council within 28 days. State your case clearly and simply. If you have evidence to support your claims, such as receipts or witness statements, send them in. (We recommend that you always send copies only and hold on to the originals).

There are certain legal grounds on which a formal representation may be made. However, if you don’t think you meet one of these grounds you should still state your case, since the council may exercise its discretion and cancel the penalty charge and/or the release fee.

If the council does not reply within 56 days of receiving your representations, they must cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and refund all the charges you have paid.

The council may accept your representations completely, in which case all the charges you have already paid will be refunded. Alternatively, they may reject your representation against the PCN, the removal, or both.

If the council rejects your representations, you will be sent a letter explaining why. This is called a Notice of Rejection of Representations. With this letter, you should receive a form called a Notice of Appeal, allowing you to appeal to the independent Parking Adjudicator.

The latest ALG statement affecting ALL MOTORISTS with OPEN PCN's

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. 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:

1. stopped issuing non-compliant PCNs

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

3. 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

IMPORTANT! This series of argument's was not yet used in any form at an application for a Judicial review. It remains absolutely untested, and uncontested. There is a short argument that was forwarded by an adjudicator and in a different form by Judge Collins, that area has been confronted in ANNEX1 again, despite having it at hand, it was untested & uncontested.

The graded introduction to the concepts.

Easy recital

Introductory sentences and the long proposition

The theory behind it all.

ANNEX

ANNEX1 on Sophistry and Semantics in the case of an adjudicar's decision.

A tiny piece of Logic with the matrix truth table.

The original and well known principle of the SYLLOGISM is another sub discipline of formal logic,

and examples may be found here.......

Three easy to understand sentences on this. 1. Contextual inferences, 2. Scientific methodology, 3. INESCAPABLE contradictions.

1. There are many examples, some recited above, that show the situation of civil unrest growing in direct proportions to the levy of these fines and forfeitures that are increasingly trivial in nature. The problem here is that these forfeitures grow rapidly, unchecked by any procedure or grounds that are open to reflect any mitigation that one would find in a court, and can well lead on to the total destruction or insolvency of the individual.

2. The correlation, or correspondence, or relationship, (whichever word you prefer) between the tenet, and its protection when upheld and plunder that follows when ignored is easy to see in widespread ticketing for the most trivial of offences nowadays. This of course was the very reason for its being formulated in the first place. Criminalised offences were in my view far more reasonably applied because there was no revenue to be gained, and police were humane in their decision making.

3. The contradiction however is the most important relationship, since the two in essence to the meaning of the words fines AND forfeitures before conviction cannot be placed side by side to any acceptable consistency in meaning. The one provides for the protection the other simply does NOT. The earlier unrepealable Declaration stands firmly entrenched in history, the later one has become a weapon for revenue collection on the most trivial, and leads to precisely a forfeiture I should be protected from, and have lost without my consent.

What follows from simple contradictions like this, is that one has to either uphold the Declaration, and reform the RTA, or uphold the RTA and repeal the Declaration.. The only way out of such contradictions is to simply ignore them, and allow the breaches to continue fueling civil unrest, or address the necessary reforms in the RTA by way of the Law Commission's act 1965, as a matter of great urgency.

All this is a matter of public concern, but quite separate from my own personal situation where I remain, as a fervently law abiding man, with a threat to my property in that I regard these rights as my property. I need that threat removed permanently, and this is the present plea for its return.

A long single sentence. The Middle one.......

1. For your Lordships kind attention and indulgence, I would like to refer to a short treatise on the matter that investigates and shows very clearly argued insights into the entire problem I have placed before you. This includes a thorough going analysis using three formal disciplines well known in their fields. I propose to provide a simple example first and rely on the argument by analogy providing the more technical terms for these disciplines. In a sentence, your lordships, with reliance on sound reasoning, formal logic, and scientific methodology;

2. There are reliable contextual inferences concerning the RTA that show unacceptable and reprehensible conduct; also between it and the Declaration of Rights, there is an inescapable formal contradiction that may not be left unaddressed, and finally the scientific methodology of causes shows clear nomic*correlations of deplorable plunder after the protection from fines & forfeitures has been breached, and for the very reason it was introduced in the first place.

3. Fines and forfeitures are not merely illegal,and contrary to the express tenet of the Declaration of Rights, but any single instance from the following recital, is simply criminal without even close inspection, because it is at the forefront of trivia and inhumanity in the entire system of almost total disregard to the spirit of the law, or does that not matter any longer?

The Contextual inference Syllogism, The Contradiction, and Methodology of Causes

An open letter of argument for the return of perished rights

1. Syllogistic reasoning,

   1. Contextual evidence from which unequivocal inferences flow.

      • The Sunday Times and others.

• In Newham, East London, wardens have been given police protection after 21 attacks in 13 months. Their colleagues in Havering, a nearby borough, have been issued with stab-proof vests to protect them from irate motorists. Elsewhere Pcn's have been issued from 3.3, 60 and 120 seconds of contravention and enforced, A dead motorist, a heart attack victim attended by her husband,a disabled person stopping to re attach his leg, a hearse loading a coffin, a person parked with a valid machine ticket, cars correctly parked - yellow lines painted around them and tickets thereafter given.

1. This is an example of reliably attested evidence that provides a context from which unequivocal inferences may be drawn using simple syllogistic reasoning. Either the major or minor premiss is implied, for those familiar in this field. The inferences show a wilful determined disregard for the spirit of the law and human condition, while focusing predominantly on the strictest letter of the law, for the sole purpose of nothing other than an opportunistic disproportionate and inflexible conduct in the widespread conferment of detriments for the sole purpose of revenue piling. This is reprehensible and deplorable for Britain's image in the world today. When held up to the mirror of ministerial comment, same article; Alistair Darling, the transport secretary, has written to MPs admitting that many motorists’ complaints about the way they are treated “may be merited”. the image is simply risible in its want of empirical grounds before one's eyes. While the DoT report this year states as aforementioned the system is in a mess.

1. Formal logical reasoning, derived from Aristotle, no empirical grounds required.

   1. The simplest of the three laws of thought, (1) the contradiction.

      • Simply stated, a proposition cannot be true AND false simultaneously. Please examine the two propositions hereunder,

1. “That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;“ Call this P1 (proposition1).

   • And that derived from the RTA in its unquestionable effect respecting fines, being given prior to conviction,and, increasing if disputed sufficient to bankrupt an individual. The notational form is ~(P.~P). NOT (both P and not P) true together.

2. NOT “That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;“ Call this NOT P1 ~(proposition1).

1. The three laws of thought and the calculus of logic flowing thereof.. The essence and nature of contradictions, being TRUE in all worlds, all space and time, innate to thought and a priori, at the heart of the logical relationship between particular sections of the RTA 1991, and aforementioned Declaration of Rights and Magna Carta, where rights enshrined in the earlier historical acts have been voided, without due process of express repeal, implied repeal being blocked in case law or precedent. Not only has the Declaration of Rights, its own inbuilt indemnity against future repeal, and no express repeal has yet been sanctioned, but subsequent case law and precedent has re-enforced it against implied repeal. The pure, irrefutable contradictions have been obfuscated by separation in time, and overwhelming diversion towards items of no real worth to public interest, expunging common memories of our inalienable rights from all save a few in the relevant field. The practice of such arts is egregiously invidious to all subject of Her Majesties Government, it was clearly identified in debate around 1929 as a new despotism, by Lord Hewart of Bury, in his book of the same title. I have provided an extract that shows the argument remains valid.

1. Scientific methodology,

   1. Sufficient and necessary conditions.

      • Best expressed as a conditional, easily understood in this simplest of unqualified examples.

      • IF there is one simple condition, or nomic relationship for the existence of life, THEN,

the presence of oxygen is necessary for life, if and only if the absence of oxygen is sufficient for the absence of life.

1. IF there is one simple condition, or nomic relationship for the existence of reasonable, just and equitable conduct in the relevant area of human relationships THEN, the presence of the above tenet in the Declaration of Rights is necessary for the avoidance of PLUNDER, if and only if the absence of the same tenet ( the present situation ) is, sufficient for the return of PLUNDER.

2. The consequences of the contextual and contradictory conclusions, examined using the well established scientific methodology that reveals an insight as to how these valid forms of inference and contradictions are correlated with the undermining of law in communities throughout the land and may not be left without intervention by any person having a sense of responsibility, unless they subscribe to an unacceptable level of negligence that is reprehensible.

1. What flows from inference 1. is the situation is unacceptable, contradiction 2. is the tenet, and relevant section of the RTA 1991, cannot live together, and conclusion 3. is the unbridled plunder requires stemming before an innocent warden gets killed, and this is perfectly avoidable, but be it on the conscience of the authorities to be negligent in treating this seriously. The second law of thought, the law of excluded middle virtually directs the remedy.

   1. Either adduce cogent argument in rebuttal of the reasoning processes used this past 2000 years OR seek some less worthy pretext to prevent the case going forward, which of course is the simple choice. However the appropriate course of conduct ought to be;

   2. Either repeal the unrepealable Declaration, face the dissolution of Parliament, and writing off British jurisprudence for the period, OR amend and reform the RTA 1991 under the Law commission act 1965.

• I am confident on this part that my learned and wise Lordships shall make the correct and historical decision while the air is full of expectations for the citizens of this country.

Conclusions.......

One objective is to dismantle thoroughly the spin, mendacity, cant, sophistry and casuistry of semantics, where prepared speeches for wide consumption of misinformation are fed daily to an increasingly confused public.
I use three disciplines to achieve this, and several objectives.
The disciplines of reasoning, span syllogisms from over 2000 years ago, to Venn diagrams, and the formal calculus of logic in the 20th century.

1. The derivation of unequivocal inferences from contextual frames,
2. the use of sound reasoning in syllogisms and formal logic, and
3. the scientific methodology on which our civilisation has been built.

A quick insight into the simplest form of the last discipline may fascinate the first time reader, as principles of necessary and sufficient conditions in causes and nomic relationships, viz: the presence of oxygen is necessary for the presence of life, if and only if the absence of oxygen is sufficient for the absence of life. This in is simplest form is considered the causal process.

The presence of juridical bodies that are accountable to the electorate, is necessary for the proper and fair delivery of Justice within its power, where the absence of accountability is sufficient to release unbridled abuse of power cloaked in strategised rules of conduct and semantics, consequently delivering widespread inustice.

Injustice is want of equity, OED, NOT the new derivation of applied semantics of arbitrary discretion as if it were absolutions to sycophants.

Similarly for civil rights groups, the declaration of rights 1688 tenet that states;
“That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void; “

This means that the presence of checks upon the former Monarchic prerogative of this power, ( NOW usurped by the Sovereignty of Parliament in its powers that aren't consentingly mandated by the electorate), was necessary for giving peace, contentment, community spirit, civil obedience and re-assurance to the British public, where the absence of that precise check, ( for example in the use of sections of legislation like the Road Traffic Act 1991, delivering fines, forfeitures and civil penalties – all the same class of detriments ), is sufficient to unleash again the abuse of plunder that the Bill and Act was designed to check.

I trust the nomic and causal relationships in the above are now perfectly clear to those who have not previously focussed on this area.

ANNEX

A point needs to be stated on a subtlety of the meaning of two words that shall be more fully explained later.

This brief expose is to open the eye of purpose and your expectations on what's to come?

There's a distinction on the term fine and penalty that is a subtlety relied on, although its rebuttal is that both are seen as the same.

The distinction being that a penalty belongs to a civil procedure and fine to a criminal.

However the common ground for both is the forfeiture that follows both procedures. This term, in my view is the one to focus on. Also it means pecuniary, that is related to or involving money or assets.

In logic the rebuttal looks like;

Fines and penalties both belong to the class of conferring detriments, AND do not belong to the class of conferring benefits, no matter what their consequences. The same goes for forfeitures.

On contradictions.

Try thinking of the table you are looking at, that ----- it is a table AND it is NOT a table, at the same time. ---- ( The Heraclitean theory of flux has been removed from this argument, he said rightly you can't step into the same stream twice. A little thought and you will see it clearly ).

To see a piece of the nature of pure logic consider....

The first law of thought, 'the law of contradiction' brings any response to this argument to a crashing fall.

This law is expressed in the form “It cannot be the case that both (something and not something) may be true simultaneously.”

In our notation this is shown as:

NOT both (P and NOT P)

~( P & ~P )

Note the '&' is not the formal notation used, but it helps the understanding of the use of conductivising propositions.

Arguments that are susceptible to logical analysis, testing in a truth table and therefore likely to not require empirical testing (corroboration in the world of reality) are quite clearly the most effective, since once established as true or false, they are so, at any time, in any space and any world.

In a truth table, which shows all possible outcomes of a sequence of formal expressions. this contradiction shows up as:

P

~P

This shows where P is True, ~P is False

and where P is False, ~P is True

The OVER Simplified proposition, remember a proposition is the LITERAL meaning of an INDICATIVE sentence.

{ Fines and Forfeitures before conviction, are illegal } = proposition P1

The contradiction of this is

Not { Fines and Forfeitures before conviction, are illegal }= proposition ~P1

They can't be true jointly, do you see? Now the DoR 1668, fits P1 and the RTA 1991 fits ~P1..........

Now you see not merely the inconsistency, but the downright contradiction, that happens to be, by the way also repugnant in its abuse....

~( P & ~P )

How it's possible for this to escape anyones attention.

Remember, I have oversimplified this, it is not the correct one to put before the adjudicator or judge, I HAVE NOT placed the sophisticated fine-tuned ones here, to avoid providing any interlocutor with an irrefutable argument to try and get around. These are reserved for the true test. If one has need of such a test, then contact me, and I shall discuss how it may be done, I regret to say there are very few logicians around capable of argument of these forms in an oral exchange. I do not want anyone to simply muck it up. I have provided this to open the mind's eyes to the 'fresher'. Such arguments are deadly serous, and one requires all round knowledge in their proper use.

When P is true, NOT P is false, and when P is false, NOT P is true. The classic form of contradiction.

The function of conjunction (the large dot · in our notation) standing for AND, binds the two propositions, unlike the disjunctive function Ú standing for OR, which permits the truth of either P or NOT P. Hence no matter what substitution of the variables P, Q, R, etc, it is axiomatic that any proposition cannot be true simultaneously with its own negation.

There are two forms of inconsistencies, Contradictions and Contrarieties.

The contradictory form has been briefly examined above, and it needs be added that such forms; as distinguished from Contrarieties, are mutually exclusive where the truth of one proposition entails the falsity of the other and vice versa, because they are jointly exhaustive. Contraries are slightly different insofar as; while they cannot be jointly true, they can be jointly false. This will be shown later in the section on formal logic.

If you like, matter and anti-matter (the negation of matter) cannot co-exist, where it is attempted there is mutual destruction.

For a Deeper session ???? click this line

ANNEX1

This is part rebuttal of responses at the Judicial Review, which unfortunately I was not the applicant. There were about 6 fallacies stated in court that went unnoticed, or perhaps better said, that made no impression on any, except by any logician. This reminds me of:

'Tis so strange That, though the truth of it stands off as gross As black and white, my eye will scarcely see it. (Hen V)

Where the observer with purpose cannot miss it! { Of course some of you think I am MAD }, but

Ecstasy?
    My pulse as yours doth temperately keep time
    And makes as healthful music. It is not madness
    That I have utt'red. .......................
    ...........,
    Lay not that flattering unction to your soul
    That not your trespass but my madness speaks.

Pretexts and fallacious logic in conversation? Yes watch how they change the nuances and meanings of words. My exposure of the LGO shows they came up with a new meaning to justice / injustice, which has been well established since Magna Carta 1215. Here you see how they search for distinctions between two terms that belong to the same class of concepts, thereby trying to enforce the argument that fines in the DoR are not the same as in the RTA. So now a fine is not a penalty look at this!

Its all called moving the goal posts, watch them do it in front of you. Have a small OED with you next time you go to such a hearing, and think in classes or universals, not particulars.

22. There is a distinction in law between a 'fine' by a court after conviction and a 'penalty charge' levied by a Council for an alleged parking contravention. Whilst a fine is always a penalty a 'penalty' is not always a fine, ( My own text, -- but BOTH belong to the same class of conferring detriments, so what is this point all about, confusion? Or clarity? ). A fine is imposed by a criminal court on a convicted offender and, if the fine is not paid, the offender can, ultimately, be sent to prison for non-payment. If a penalty charge is not paid then a Council can enforce it by sending in the bailiffs and selling the 'offender's' assets but the 'offender' can never be sent to prison, I accept, however, in common parlance that a PCN is a 'parking ticket' and that the 'penalty charge' is seen as a fine It seems to me to be of little use to stress the legal differences between a 'fine' and a 'penalty' charge' in deciding/whether the provisions of the 199l Act are valid.

The point the interlocutor is making is that the distinction between the meanings are relevant. I say they are NOT. Both belong to the SAME class of 'conferring detriments'. Here is where semantics and sophistry can cast a spell. If anyone can tell me how a PENALTY and a FINE is not a detriment but a benefit, I will be happy to listen. In 1668, they were not aware of such subtleties, and they didn't have penalty charge notices. They understood what a forfeiture meant, that too belongs to the class of detriments and concepts or did we miss it? For goodness sakes!

I recently read on another thread, that motorists will soon ENJOY more proportional penalties. Start laughing.

When it comes to enforcing the law, they will not alter the meanings, when it comes to disputing it, suddenly the meanings go walk about.

I have spent some time on these sophistical assertion, and have a deeper elucidation that shall remain until I put the arguments directly, then published.

Useful forgotten insight to MOT scam, when repair garage adjacent. True anectode.

I recently regained an insight to something I knew previously and had forgotten. I assume this may have occurred with other motorists and though it worth of a mention. It's anecdotal.

I have always had the cars MOT'ed by the same person this past 20 odd years. 8 years ago he moved and it was a twenty five minute drive to him. I moved with him. There were some inconveniences. And about a year later I tried someone more local. As I went into a new garage, I watched a lady paying her bill of £520, and then asked the manager if he would inspect a small hole underneath the car where rust had set in. I said, if that hole fails the test, I don't want the test, I will come back after the repair. He re-assured me the hole wouldn't fail the test. An hour later I returned and he advise me that three faults were found, something behind one of the wheels, something else I forget what it was, but I couldn't verify it,, AND that hole. I reminded him the hole was agreed prior, he looked down, and I became very disgruntled at the behaviour, he asked me to come back within 7 days.

I immediately drove off to my old MOT engineer, and he passed the car without a hitch.

I paid him, and resolved to ask for my money back with the new chap.

I returned, and had to wait, so I examined the set up, and notice there were two sites separated by some sheds. The MOT station where I had been, and 20 yards away a Garage that did MOT repairs, all painted same colours. I approached the chap and told him the car had just passed its test, and we talked a bit, after which he asked if I was an inspector. He returned my money saying each garage has a different opinion.

I had an inkling that my regular chap didn't have any garage for repairs, just doing MOT's. I stayed with him, and this year, one of the cars was playing up if driven for too long, I approached a different local garage, early in the year, and he did some repairs, but was unable to fix the cut-out problem. I just came up to MOT time, and asked this garage to do a pre-MOT inspection as usual. He told me he did MOT as well, so I was pleased for the car that had the cut-out problem. He examined both cars and came up with about £2000 of repairs for the larger. I became suspicious again.

I went off to my regular repair chap and asked him to double check the tasks that lay ahead, and there was only one problem that could be resolved for £300, and went ahead with that fix.

I then returned to my usual MOT man and the car passed. I asked him if he does any repairs at all, and he said not at all, he only does the MOT's.

I was reminded again, of what I had forgotten, that new relationships or those without some previous background of trust, there was a correlation between the MOT garage and the adjacent repair shop having a conflict of interests. My MOT inspector had no interest in looking for work to hold as a barrier to passing an MOT, his integrity was untouched by interests elsewhere.

I hope that helps some who find a similarity, since I didn't want to RENEW parts for the older car, just repair them or buy second hand items from a breaker. I now will always keep my repair and mot visits separated.

As a final throw, I understand there is a horizon programme tonight about whether we have come from aliens, or some are still here with us. I thought immediately that of course there MUST be some with us, you can identify them by their approach to the law, they're all hidden in the council PCN departments.

This text is a response to a council's mendacity for particular readers directed here.

Glossary of terms.

Interpleader summons...........interpleader summons A procedure used to decide how conflicting claims against the same person should be dealt with. It applies when there are two or more claims against the applicant (whether or not court proceedings have been issued) that conflict with each other; for example, when two or more people claim the same goods that are being held by the applicant. The court decides how the matter should be dealt with; it may, for example, direct that there should be a court action between the rival claimants.

Interpleader can be of two types. A stakeholder’s interpleader applies to any person holding any debt, goods, or chattels in respect of which there are rival claims. A sheriff’s interpleader applies when the applicant is the *sheriff, who has to deal with rival claims after execution of a writ of *fieri facias when a third party (e.g. a television rental company) claims that the goods seized belong to him.

Interim order........................interim relief (interlocutory relief) Provides and ORDER FOR.. A temporary remedy, such as an interlocutory *injunction or *interim payment, granted to a plaintiff by a court pending the hearing.

Possession.......................... n. Actual control of property combined with the intention to use it, rightly or wrongly, as one’s own. In the case of land, possession may be actual, when the owner has entered onto the land, or possession in law, when he has the right to enter but has not yet done so. Possession includes receipt of rent and profits, or the right to receive them. Hence Walking possession amounts to a lien while true possession is determined or an arrangement is agreed on.