COPY EMAIL TO TfL TWO
Mr. P. Moriarty
Email to: ............@lgo.org.uk
please pass on to Mr. John Mason, Head of Operations, Congestion
cc 2) FAO
Mr. D.Shrubb / S. Smith. Please pass to their department.
Feb 2006 17:11:40
Reference your letter 05/A/14993/PBM decision on the complaint.
you for your letter of the 13th Inst above.
The decision you have
made was substantially anticipated, based on the tone, perceived as
far from impartial and somewhat adversarial, in our first telephone
exchange. It has the expected flaws.
the trivial. The member I had in mind (erroneously), was the CEO of
the GLA who was informed early in the complaint process. You may
appreciate that researching the actual designation of an individual
is not easy and the least of my interests when seriously
vexed. Clearly, my listing item 5, was not to
complain against a member, as some separation of powers might cover
these eventualities. Also, but much more clearly
my complaint was against a
team of individuals. It appears you are point
scoring, which is the
farthest thing from my mind.
I am very pleased that you have recalled and stated:
earlier Islington complaint where you defined the term
admit to a measure of injustice, but
you find it insufficient a ground to pursue the complaint, in
this case again, ** 5. & 5. a) below.
3 and 4 of the 'memorandum document' are accurate, your choosing
item 4 discarding item 3. due to a timely
closure. I have seen this before in the PCA.
have evaded the key question of labeling the actions
of the TfL as maladministration or not.
You achieved this by choosing to view the injustice as
insufficient inconsistently (** as shown in 5. & 5a)
below), and contrary to the literal meaning of the term
'injustice' which you appear to measure in arbitrarily.
belong to several classes, at least three shown 1. 2. and 5.
or selecting a partial focus - suggestio falsi, while
setting aside other focuses – suppressio veri, is the most
readable reflection of bias or prejudice. It is a method of
presentation that belongs to the sixties where police used to show
evidence tending to incriminate while knowingly disregarding
evidence that exonerated the defendant.
willfully, a meaning contrary to an accepted standard as in
the OED, and what is commonly understood as;
a want of equity, and, in this
particular, unfairness,” where
claim of injustice, relies on a subjective
interpretation of the meaning, disregarding my
contention of considerable, avoidable effort, showing how the
offences balanced as one minor against six
major both in the temporal aspect as well as the numbers
of individuals involved. That is the correct way to weigh
avoid the dictionary meaning, 'appears' invidious,
disregard this cogent representation of the balance that needs
must be weighed is in my view a serious want of professional
conduct and inured professional malformation when set against **
5. & 5a below.
have redefined your own authority's notion of distress,
and being put to avoidable time and trouble as the
perfectly fair, equitable and acceptable consequence
of an illegal team's, and institutionalised activity.
follows that you weigh one statutory offence of
impulse against six statutory offences known and perpetrated by
some seven individuals over six weeks as being perfectly
EQUITABLE, and FAIR.
the burden of disapprobation in this, and very many similar abuses
appears below the standards of conduct the public expect from your
body, and might also interest the Standards Board of England.
have made your decision, unfortunately, (since you suggested it
might be a ground), not on the aforesaid grounds of finance but on
reasoning that is shown to be flawed.
comment, as in court, being viewed adversely, it follows that
you sanction this course of conduct finding it not being a
matter of maladministration which is clearly a flawed
conclusion you have carefully evaded contrary to my particular
and repeated insistence and contrary to the obvious, 'res ipsa
again focus, as above on item 3 and item 5 of
the memorandum overlooking the mutually exclusive points I referred
to between item 3 and item 4. and while saying
this is accurate, fail to answer my
reference that more importantly item 4 is mutually
exclusive of item 3. Why bother to print item 3
at all if it is incorporated in item 4. It is very clearly
misleading to the public. Item 3 refers ONLY to
maladministration whereas Item 4 refers ONLY to
injustice but NOT maladministration.
Maladministration often goes unnoticed. Injustice can be a
consequence of other things than maladministration, unintentional
and or accidental. Perhaps you should oversea a re-writing of this
serious inconsistency shows how you choose to
uphold some complaints, here of minor legal breach,
while denying others of numerous statutory legal breaches
and significance. In any future complaint, should I may choose to
make, I shall request that you be 'recused' as it were, from
handling my representation.
Inconsistency, having said I was pleased you recalled
the earlier complaint, as well as your having 'considered very
carefully' you will no doubt also recall that in the case of
Islington Council, you similarly found insufficient grounds, or
else no appearance of injustice, but to the contrary,
DID find grounds for maladministration.
your decision on Islington was correct, and if true then the
decision here being its contrary – false, or the
decision here is false and vice versa.
the balance of probabilities, sound reasoning and literal
meanings of words used, the latter (Tfl) is an unsound
conclusion that maladministration - 'Faulty
administration; inefficient or improper management of affairs, esp.
public affairs' OED, occurred, IS the only valid, necessary
and logical conclusion drawn from the fact that the PCN was
cancelled contrary to its being vigorously and determinedly
pursued earlier. Otherwise why on earth give up the issue? That TfL
did not apologise, and you appear 'certain that you are sure' that
insufficient injustice occurred where earlier you took the contrary
view is the conclusion of inconsistency, and biased selection . My
reply to your provisional decision contained all the seeds of this,
your flawed decision, and your reminding me of the earlier
complaint merely stamped it with the inconsistency that I was
expecting, that you would either dismiss the –
maladministration - argument and show inconsistency or uphold the
argument but show biased selections and misconstructions of literal
meanings in the OED. At no time since our telephone conversation
did you indicate the slightest awareness or indeed, what one should
indicate as straightforward indignation of this deplorable conduct
in pursuit of revenue.
prompt copies to the TfL, requires my informing those bodies, party
to my representations to be updated equally. The details were
already on a website, but these final exchanges will be added by the
weekend, along with and to follow those of Islington, where the
inconsistency I refer to, will be properly made transparent.
I recall reading somewhere in the Ombudsman documentation, that your
decisions do try to aim at being consistent, it appears here
you have a separate flaw of deciding contrarily to the governing
codes of conduct