Force of Destiny

2000+ Free world Best Books


Logic Law

NOTICE. A makeover is coming for this page, exposing the mendacity we are surrounded with, and more importantly HOW to deal with it. Where a court SHOULD “further the overriding objective of fairness” in their own rules CPR 1.1-1.4, they (and particularly all forms of less accountable tribunals) “OVERRIDE; the overriding objective of fairness.” Exposures are coming showing how this is managed and cloaked in spin and fallacies. Click here to see one of the commonest fallacies of 'irrelevant response', unambiguously. And HOW to close it down in about FIVE minutes, with ONE simple direct question” They do it so easily you don't even notice it. Simply by taking your issue; and like those on an ego trip on question time, go off on a trip with a close but DIFFERENT issue; that's self consistent but irrelevant, and you end up almost agreeing with them, leave completely confused and they just laugh behind you. The more sophisticated the body lying in front of you, the more it builds fallacies, overlying each other so heavily in irrelevant truths, that the contrariety or contradiction that was laying in front of you, now lies elsewhere. From this simple fallacy they argue others that are difficult to apprehend, but the best insight to it all, is your instinct. If that tells you something is wrong, then look for amalgams of fallacies. Here is an example from Camden, that didn't pass scrutiny, and they were caught at court.

Please SCROLL DOWN or click for  top  Next menu

Coming soon, DIY to prepare for a Judical Review application, or County Court claims. Using TEC to get an appeal to the CC all free... GET you Parking Ticket Cancelled especially for Camden, and some boroughs HERE.
NEW SPECIAL template letter for
PRIVATE Parking and barking attempts, and for
Disabled Blue badge
holders. Click Here.

STOP PRESS 170 plus page prepared arguments. Arguments for a court and Patas.
All FREE. 70% complete click HERE....
Coming SOON, EXPOSE and INSIGHT links to exchanges with TEC, The London Mayor, and the OFT,
showing their fallacious arguments, and complete 'ring fenced' forms that cloak internal contradictions, that defeat the principles of “Innocent until proven guilty”, and in any sense of WHOLE truth, show presumptions that are deplorable in an honest 'so-called' democracy. This is an exposure of the minds who assemble such malevolent forms, that deny truth and justice purely for revenue. Please revisit, it's just a matter of putting these exchanges on view.

The legality of the tickets in Edinburgh first came into question in June as they did not bear both
the date of issue and date of offence as required by UK
law. £6.5m parking tickets are cancelled

A defend yourself section on Private Car Park penalties, very useful written by Pete

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

STOP PRESS! WHEN Paying PCN's the rule is that you are told afterwards “You consented!”.........CLICK here FALSE presumption.

SPECIAL template letter PRIVATE Parking and BARKING “PAYattempts, also Disabled Blue badge holders. Click Here.

top

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.

top   This home, complaints, abuses and exposures.
CAMDEN SPECIAL. They must surely be the leading misleading parking solutions council in the UK.
Aristotle on Injustice, see below. see below.

PROVING....
The Bill of Rights 1688 is still alive today, see the Crown remains involved here.
Look at all these three different links.
Wayne's pages.

2000 World Best Books Free
STOP PRESS, must be the worst scam in history Seeking £757.94 in courts, for a contravention that did NOT occur, click here.

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

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).



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.

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.


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

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

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

Quote. OXFORD CC The figure was not a target or quota, Mr Dix added,

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

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

Or as I have seen recently from a fair and public hearing an OXFORD PCN case, where it was claimed they had issued an;
UNLAWFUL PCN, Notice to Owner, and Charge Certificate.
They swore an economic statement of truth saying;
“We issued a PCN, Notice to Owner, and Charge Certificate.

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





Note: The author and any contributors take NO responsibility for the use, misuse, or consequences that flow from using these examples. You are invited to consider the IDEAS, and use them on your own responsibility. Copyright is waived for these pages, use them advisedly, knowingly, understandingly and freely.


First appeal compassionate

A sample letter for your first response to the receipt of a PCN. A similar one to this was used successfully with a tough council, and they showed some lenience and cancelled the PCN. It was from a financially weaker person. Sending this letter may give you between 3 and 5 weeks stay of action, and should give a further 2 week extension of discount for payment.

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?

Paying the PCN, DOES NOT MEAN you consent.

Two template letters,with a caveat in case there is a claim later.

Assertive strong

Private parking companies
Disable Blue badge Holders, Scroll down.

PPCs commit criminal offences
The contract element
To summarise -

PRIVATE PARKING COMPANIES


A guide to an effective defence.
Thus, if a document exists here containing this information in one place I apologise for the duplication. Otherwise I'm delighted to present my guide.
Firstly the important thing to remember is that Private Parking Companies are not backed by any aspect of criminal law. Tickets from Traffic Wardens working for the police or local authorities or tickets issued by police officers are (this guide also excludes those tickets issues pursuant to the Transport Act 2000 governing tickets issued to vehicles on behalf of railtrack or rail operators). There are provisions for them in the Road Traffic Act 1991 and these provisions allow sanctions that the issuing authority can take.
THIS IS NOT THE CASE FOR PRIVATE PARKING COMPANIES.
I'm sure any number of readers will be familiar with such facilities, from your local pay and display to any number of 'multi deck' car parks and even, more recently, the car parks for many stores.
PRIVATE PARKING COMPANIES RELY ON THE LAW OF CONTRACT

Continued here......http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/pages/PJ.html

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

Comment.

A suggestion.

In general you can either ignore such a purported  agreement to a contract,

or else write something like.

Dear Sir/ Madam,

In reference to your letter / invoice XXXXX

As we both know , such parking penalties, require all relevant parties to have entered into a contract, and to have agreed its terms.

Would you please be so kind as to inform me on what basis, you feel you have 'offered' the contract; ( with guarantees that I have been made fully aware incontrovertibly ),  to park with penalties, and most importantly and crucially, on what grounds you aver you have received my 'acceptance' either verbally or in writing.

When you have responded with evidence to support your assertion I shall be happy to examine its grounds, and comment or indeed controvert them.

Failing the above, I aver you have no contract with myself, let alone a contract that is legally enforcible.

As such, please take notice, that in the absence of such a contractual basis aforementioned, then your first letter is the first act of vexation towards myself under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, and a second would render the prohibition completed as to the  the two ocurrences of vexation within  the meaning of the aforesaid Act making it actionable on my side.

Thank you for your courteous and prompt response in anticipation.

Salutation.

Then watch the semantic fun begin, IF they feel that confident to try it on.

For the  act, go to http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/Acts/acts.html

and scroll down to see what exactly constitutes the offence. ALARM and vexation on two ocassions.

Harassment has a penal force of up to £5,000 and 6 months custodial. The nice term for at Her Majesty's leisure.

BLUE BADGE DISABLED DRIVERS.

To help those who are disabled, and need to look at the way their councils treat them.

http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/Acts/disabdisc/www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2005/50013--a.htm#3

 "PART 5A
 
 

 PUBLIC AUTHORITIES

 
49A     
 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.

Shall is  mandatory, just short of must.
Main site at

http://www.logiclaw.co.uk

left nav bar 2nd item,shows lots of statutes to help protect you from harassment, and fraud.

A council treated a disabled person with such effrontery, and disgusting lack of consideration, all proved in a court, that cost them nealy £4000 in lost legal fees that were thrown out, for being 'false representers or true misrepresenters; the new nice terms for liars, and disgraceful.

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

How the treatment was PROVED to be dis-favourable is here

http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/Injustice/l3.html


If you feel your rights are breached, then commence making determintations as to the number of OFFENCES being comitted agaimst you in a counter action.

As such, please take notice, that in the absence of such a contractual basis aforementioned, then your first letter is the first act of vexation towards myself under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, and a second would render the prohibition completed as to the  the two ocurrences of vexation within  the meaning of the aforesaid Act making it actionable on my side.

Thank you for your courteous and prompt response in anticipation.

Salutation.

Then watch the semantic fun begin, IF they feel that confident to try it on.

For the  act, go to http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/Acts/acts.html
and scroll down to see what exactly constitutes the offence. ALARM and vexation on two ocassions.

Harassment has a penal force of up to £5,000 and 6 months custodial. The nice term for 'at Her Majesty's leisure.'

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 28th November 2006. ALL non compliant Penalty Charge Notices, “PCN's” and Notice to Owner “ NoR” pre dating August 1st 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.









First appeal compassionate

Here is a sample first letter that tries to ask for clemency, where you have no or not much defence at all for the contravention, but have some mitigating circumstance. A similar letter was used and the council confirmed the contravention took place but showed leniency.

It is the first letter of a number of escalating degrees in representation. When you receive the response. If your instinct tells you it feels unjust or grossly disproportional then the refusal will provide you with the justification and the vexation and determination to either settle it or defend it with increasing vigour.

Call it the first appeal compassionate. The next shall be the reply courteous defending.



Myname & Surname

Myaddress line 1

Myaddress line 2, Mypostcode

My telephone & my fax.



Date of letter, should be asap after the pcn is given.



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, which as you will see from the ticket, I had affixed to the windscreen and paid for in good faith. My return was unfortunately too late to remove the car before the time on the Meter elapsed. Or else I had accidentally parked in the wrongly designated area being unfamiliar with the road signage that for me was confusing, or else I misunderstood the sing, or did not see the loading unloading notice being somewhat high for me..

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 Mercedes,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.



Please advise me as soon as possible, so that I can make the necessary arrangements if needed for a loan or finance if you decide not to show leniency.



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



Mr. / Mrs A. Pedant.







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

If you pay your PCN, and later find the procedure or PCN was flawed, the standard response is;
You paid, therefore you consented!”
This is a false presumption and prejudicial.

  1. NOBODY consents to pay a PCN under duress, and submit to bullying or threats of escalation of the costs,
    this is like a weaker partner submitting to bullying and then being told she consented, and

  2. NOBODY has the right to presume you consented. ONLY YOU know that! The effrontery of it all.
    Take a note of these two template letters.

Mr. A. Nother



PCN Processing Unit,



Thur, 7 Jun 2007 22:25:58

Ref: AN / 000000 PCN number CD.......

PCN payments under duress of escalation, implied consent

Thank you for your letter concerning the above.

Please take notice of several comments and oblige.



I note your comments and would respond as follows;

  1. I have paid this PCN by means of.......

  2. On the matter of implied consent receiving payments of PCNs.

  3. For the avoidance of doubt, you may not rely on this or any future payment as denoting any form of implied consent.

    1. It is paid in time with submission under duress, unless expressly stated otherwise.

    2. Making payment implies only the contravention is not challenged at this time, and accepting payment implies the regulations on your side have honestly and truthfully been complied with in full rather than any de minimus substantial compliance, which is in doubt. Strict compliance applies both ways.

  4. I do not intend to challenge this particular PCN through the scheme of the RTA 1991 Act, and therefore have made payment with the aforesaid caveat.

  5. As with motorists, also it is the responsibility of all penal authorities to ensure they follow the directions of any relevant statutes, documentation compliance and duties of care in the council's code of conduct and other statutory duties.

    1. As I am not satisfied the ??? letters I have received concerning this PCN are fully compliant with relevant statutes and local government enactments, and

    2. while I note that pursuant to purpose 7, the council is registered to use CCTV cameras under the data protection act,

    3. I have doubts that the usages fully comply with all the requirements, and on these three grounds the PCN may be the subject of a future traversal despite your deeming closure of case.

    4. You shall permit me to advise that consent is a prerogative I govern in myself absolutely, and no person or body under present laws is permitted to use any presumptions whatsoever in that area unless expressly stated by the owner of that consent. Assertions concerning what I consent to or not, are final, and any false presumptions, that are made, are the problems of their owners and their untenable proofs that go with express consent not being given.

Thank you .

Yours faithfully,





Mr. A. Nother



PCN Processing Unit,



Thur, 7 Jun 2007 22:25:58

Ref: AN / 000000 PCN number CD.......

PCN payments under duress of escalation, implied consent

Thank you for your letter concerning the above.

Please take notice of several comments and oblige.



I note your comments and would respond as follows;



  1. I have paid this PCN by means of.......



  1. For the avoidance of doubt, you may not rely on this or any future payment as denoting any form of implied consent.

    1. It is paid in time with submission under duress, unless expressly stated otherwise.

    2. Making payment implies only the contravention is not challenged at this time, and accepting payment implies the regulations on your side have honestly and truthfully been complied with in full rather than any de minimus substantial compliance, which is in doubt. Strict compliance applies both ways.

  2. I do not intend to challenge this particular PCN through the scheme of the RTA 1991 Act, and therefore have made payment with the aforesaid caveat.

Thank you .

Yours faithfully,



If you are then told, you can challenge the PCN etc, or paying means consent, then ensure you pay before and tell them after, OR tell them, DO NOT ASK ME TO repeat myself. CONSENT is SOMETHING I never give under these circumstance, SUBMIT YES, if you want to say white is black, and force me to agree, under pain of torture, I will agree, so long as you know I am saying yes BECAUSE of the threat. that is NOT consent, that is bullying and torture.

You need to play your pert in stopping the brainwashing on telling you what YOU think and do, when you know different.


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 the founder of www.AppealNow.com™, 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 of www.AppealNow.com™, 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."
  1. 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.

  2. 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."
  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

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

    Part 2. The Facts

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

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

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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."
  15. 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."
  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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....
  19. Barnet was aggrieved by Mr Wilkinson's decision. Accordingly, Barnet commenced the present proceedings.

    Part 3. The Present Proceedings

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

  22. 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).

  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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

  26. 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.

  27. 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.

  28. 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."
  29. 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.

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