Mr. A.H. Winter.

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

Email : medusa338-a@yahoo.co.uk

COPY EMAIL TO TfL TWO departments

To: Mr. P. Moriarty

Local Ombudsman

By Email to: ............@lgo.org.uk

cc ..................@lgo.org.uk

cc 1) please pass on to Mr. John Mason, Head of Operations, Congestion Charging.

cc 2) FAO Mr. D.Shrubb / S. Smith. Please pass to their department.

Email to : ............@tflcroyden.co.uk

Tue, 14 Feb 2006 17:11:40

__________________

1) Reference your letter 05/A/14993/PBM decision on the complaint.

And previous exchanges.

__________________

Dear Mr. Moriarty,


Thank 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.


  1. First 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.

  2. Next. I am very pleased that you have recalled and stated:

    1. The earlier Islington complaint where you defined the term 'member',

      • overlooking or not recalling the more important conclusion of that case ** 5. & 5. a) below.

    2. You admit to a measure of injustice, but

    3. That you find it insufficient a ground to pursue the complaint, in this case again, ** 5. & 5. a) below.

    4. Items 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.

    5. You 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.

The flaws belong to several classes, at least three shown 1. 2. and 5.


  1. Choosing 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.

  2. Choosing, willfully, a meaning contrary to an accepted standard as in the OED, and what is commonly understood as;

    1. Being a want of equity, and, in this particular, unfairness,” where

      • The 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 injustice.

      • To avoid the dictionary meaning, 'appears' invidious,

      • To 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.

      • You 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.

  1. It follows that you weigh one statutory offence of momentary temporal impulse against six statutory offences known and perpetrated by some seven individuals over six weeks as being perfectly EQUITABLE, and FAIR.

    1. abrogating 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.

    2. You 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.

    3. By implication, no 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 loquitur!'

  2. You 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 document.

  3. 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.

    1. ** 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.

  4. Either 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.

    1. On the balance of probabilities, sound reasoning and literal meanings of words used, the latter (Tfl) is an unsound decision.

  5. The 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.

Your 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

E&OI.

Yours most respectfully,

A.H.Winter